sco closed brayton cycle for coal-fired power plant ...€¦ · 2 closed brayton cycle for...

sCO2 closed Brayton cycle for coal-fired power plant : economic analysis of a technical optimization

M. Mounir MECHERI

2nd European Supercritical CO2 Conference - August 30-31, 2018, Essen, Germany Paper 118

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No 764690.

EDFIN BRIEF

OUR AIM: Be the leading electricity company and global leader for low-carbon energy production.

EDF COVERS ALL ELECTRICITY ACTIVITIESGenerationTransmission and distributionSupplyEnergy services

LEADER IN LOW-CARBON PRODUCTIONNo. 1 producer of nuclear electricity in the worldNo. 1 producer of renewables in EuropeNo. 3 European operator of energy services

WORLD’S No. 1 ELECTRICITY COMPANYParticularly well established in Europe, especially France, the United Kingdom, Italy and Belgium, the Group’s energy production, marked by the rise in renewable energy, relies on a diversified low-carbon energy mix based on nuclear power.

STRATEGICPRIORITIES4

R&D’s AIMS

EDF R&D activies on supercritical sCO2

The sCO2 cycle is an opportunity to: Improve power plant efficiency

Reduce the fossil plant impact

Enhance renewable heat sources

Main goals about sCO2 cycles are to: Scale-up the sCO2 Brayton cycle maturity level

Prove the sustainability of this technology

Optimize processes at any load

Start of the sCO2-Flex European project

2018

Preliminary study:

performance assessment with CCS

2012

Review for nuclear

power cycles (GenIV)

2010

sCO2-BC for coal power

plant – study + starting of

PhD

2014

European project

constitution: efficiency & flexibility

2016

5

Outline

1. Context and objectives of the study

2. Methodology

3. Results

4. Conclusion and Perspectives

Conclusion & PerspectivesResultsMethodologyContext & Objectives

2nd

Euro

pea

n s

CO

2sy

mp

osi

um

–Es

sen

–M

ou

nir M

ECH

ERI

6

Context of the study

Conclusion & PerspectivesResultsMethodologyContext

Many technical optimization studies of the supercritical CO2 Brayton cycle

technical advices: maximize maximal temperature and pressure, use recompression loop…

complex cycles

But few economic optimization analyses of these Brayton cycles

Lack of economic data, absence of fully mature and industrial scale CO2 cycle…

2nd

Euro

pea

n s

CO

2sy

mp

osi

um

–Es

sen

–M

ou

nir M

ECH

ERI

7

Example: internal technical survey in 2016


Source: [Mecheri and Le-Moullec; 2016]

Technical sensitivity analysis to assess the impact of the number of reheat, the performances of recuperators

(temperature pinch-value), the heat sink stability, the air-preheating configuration, the pressure drop value…

2nd

Euro

pea

n s

CO

2sy

mp

osi

um

–Es

sen

–M

ou

nir M

ECH

ERI

8

Objectives of the study


• What are the economic conclusions of the

same study ?

• Any differences with technical conclusions ?

Apply an economic model on some cases that have been studied in 2016

Compare with the best “technical solution ?

Select the cycle layout that offers the lowest specific cost ( = investment costs / installed capacity)

Perform an economic sensitivity analysis

2nd

Euro

pea

n s

CO

2sy

mp

osi

um

–Es

sen

–M

ou

nir M

ECH

ERI

2016

9

Outline


2. Methodology

3. Results



2nd

Euro

pea

n s

CO

2sy

mp

osi

um

–Es

sen

–M

ou

nir M

ECH

ERI

10

Reminder of previous technical study (2016)


Process simulator : Aspen Plus v8.6 (AspenTech)

Simplified “Boiler” construction: heat duty at given temperature level

Model : LKP (Lee-Kesler-Plocker)

Performance criteria: net cycle efficiency

Main parameters

Recompression loop highly recommended

First reheat recommended

High impact of the pressure drops and the cooling temperature on performances

Increase the maximal temperature is better than increase the maximal pressure

Main conclusions

2nd

Euro

pea

n s

CO

2sy

mp

osi

um

–Es

sen

–M

ou

nir M

ECH

ERI

11

Global methodology


Economic model for cost assessment (detailed in next slides)

Impact of the number of reheat

(from 0 to 2)

reheat

Impact of the turbine inlet temperature

(600 – 700 – 800°C)

TIT

Impact of the recuperators’ performance

(pinch = 10K, 6K, 3K)

H.EX

Economic results and conclusions

Technical conclusions Comparison

Technical analysis

(assumptions, hypothesis, inlet data…)

2016

2nd

Euro

pea

n s

CO

2sy

mp

osi

um

–Es

sen

–M

ou

nir M

ECH

ERI

12

Economic sensitivity analysis


Economic

results and

conclusions

Selection of one cycle layout

(called “base case”)

Upward cost of main components (+30%)1

Downward cost of main components (-30%)2

*main components = Boiler, Turbomachines (Compressor and Turbines) and recuperators

2nd

Euro

pea

n s

CO

2sy

mp

osi

um

–Es

sen

–M

ou

nir M

ECH

ERI

13

Economic model (1/2)


𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡 $ = 𝑎 × 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠′ 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑏 × 𝑓𝑝 × 𝑓𝑇

Main components: • turbines/compressors, • heat exchangers (recuperators, coolers)• Boiler

Impact of the pressure and temperature on the costs (material aspects)

“a” and “b” empirical parameters that depend on component and literature data

Sources : [Caputo et al., 2004], [Kumar et al, 2015], [Brun et al., 2017], [Park et al., 2017], [Zhao, 2018]

2nd European sCO2 symposium – Essen – Mounir MECHERI

Boiler = Heat Duty / H.Exchangers = U.A. / TurboM. = Elec. Power

14

Economic model (2/2)


purchased equipment, piping, electrical, civil work, transport, direct installation, auxiliary services, instrumentation and control, site preparation

mainly engineering, supervision, start-up

CAPEX ($)

= 1.3608 × ∑𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 = 8% × 𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠

𝐷𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 = 1.26 × ∑𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡

Direct costs

Indirect costs

CAPEX ($)

COMPARISON CRITERIA Specific costs ($/kWe)

×1

𝑁𝑒𝑡 𝑝𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟


Sources : [Caputo et al., 2004], [Kumar et al, 2015], [Brun et al., 2017], [Park et al., 2017], [Zhao, 2018]

15

Outline


2. Methodology

3. Results



2nd

Euro

pea

n s

CO

2sy

mp

osi

um

–Es

sen

–M

ou

nir M

ECH

ERI

16

Economic impact of the number of reheat

Conclusion & PerspectivesResultsMethodologyContext & objectives

2250

2300

2350

2400

2450

2500

2550

43,5

44,0

44,5

45,0

45,5

46,0

46,5

47,0

47,5

48,0

20 25 30 35 40

Speci

fic

cost

s ($

/kW

e)

Net

cycl

e e

ffic

iency

(%

)

Main compressor outlet pressure (MPa)

0 reheat

1 reheat

2 reheats

TIT = 600°C

Solid lines = performance

Dashed lines = specific costs

For comparison (USA):Regular coal ~ 3 500 $/kWe

Coal + 30 CCS ~ 5 000 $/kWe

USC ~ 3 700 €/kWeUSC / CCS ~ 5 000€/kWe

Source EIA 2250

2300

2350

2400

2450

2500

2550

43,5

44,0

44,5

45,0

45,5

46,0

46,5

47,0

47,5

48,0

20 25 30 35 40

Speci

fic

cost

s ($

/kW

e)

Net

cycl

e e

ffic

iency

(%

)


0 reheat

1 reheat

2 reheats

2nd

Euro

pea

n s

CO

2sy

mp

osi

um

–Es

sen

–M

ou

nir M

ECH

ERI

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/pdf/table_8.2.pdf

17

Economic impact of the recuperators’ performance


2300

2350

2400

2450

2500

2550

2600

2650

45,5

46,0

46,5

47,0

47,5

48,0

48,5

49,0

20 25 30 35 40

Speci

fic

cost

s ($

/kW

e)

Net

cycl

e e

ffic

iency

(%

)


10K

6K

3K

2300

2350

2400

2450

2500

2550

2600

2650

45,5

46,0

46,5

47,0

47,5

48,0

48,5

49,0

20 25 30 35 40

Speci

fic

cost

s ($

/kW

e)

Net

cycl

e e

ffic

iency

(%

)


10K

6K

3K

2nd

Euro

pea

n s

CO

2sy

mp

osi

um

–Es

sen

–M

ou

nir M

ECH

ERI

TIT = 600°C

Solid lines = performance

Dashed lines = specific costs


Coal + 30 CCS ~ 5 000 $/kWe


Source EIA


18

Economic impact of the turbine inlet CO2 temperature


2200

2300

2400

2500

2600

2700

2800

20 25 30 35 40

Speci

fic

cost

($/k

We)


800-0R

700-2R

700-1R

700-0R

600-2R

600-1R

600-0R

2nd

Euro

pea

n s

CO

2sy

mp

osi

um

–Es

sen

–M

ou

nir M

ECH

ERI

LEGEND

XXX – YRwith

XXX = TIT in °CY = number of reheat

(Pinch = 10K)


Coal + 30 CCS ~ 5 000 $/kWe


Source EIA


19

Economic sensitivity analysis


2321

1700

1900

2100

2300

2500

2700

2900

Speci

fic

cost

s ($

/kW

e)

T C

2nd

Euro

pea

n s

CO

2sy

mp

osi

um

–Es

sen

–M

ou

nir M

ECH

ERI

Assumptions

Base case :TIT = 600°COne reheatPinch = 10 K

+ 30 % And

-30 %applied to the main components’ costs

20

Outline


2. Methodology

3. Results



2nd

Euro

pea

n s

CO

2sy

mp

osi

um

–Es

sen

–M

ou

nir M

ECH

ERI

21

Conclusions


Best technical option Best economic optionVS

TIT800°C 600°C

reheat2 1

R- pinch3K 10K

C. Pressure Outlet40 MPa 30 MPa

Net eff.54.5% 47.5%

Specific cost~3,6 k$/kWe ~2,3 k$/kWe


22

Perspectives


Improvement of the economic model (currently = simplified correlations):

• Benchmark the model costs on existing component refinement

• Inclusion of data and equation for assessing the “cost of electricity” LCOE

• High impact of the “pressure-temperature” functions (fp and fT)

Inclusion of flexibility:

• Assessment of the impact of part-load conditions on the costs

• Multi-objective optimization?

2nd

Euro

pea

n s

CO

2sy

mp

osi

um

–Es

sen

–M

ou

nir M

ECH

ERI

23

Thank you for your attention

ContactM. Mounir MECHERI [email protected]

Acknowledgement

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No 764690.

mailto:[email protected]

24

References

[1] Mounir Mecheri and Yann Le-Moullec, Supercritical CO2 Brayton cycles for coal-fired power plants, Energy, Volume 103, 2016, Pages 758-771, ISSN 0360-5442 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.02.111

[2] Antonio C. Caputo, Mario Palumbo, Pacifico M. Pelagagge, Federica Scacchia, Economics of biomass energy utilization in combustion and gasification plants: effects of logistic variables, Biomass & Energy, 28, pp 35-51 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2004.04.009

[3] SungHo Park, JoonYoung Kim, MunKyu Yoon, DongRyul Rhim, ChoongSub Yeom, Thermodynamic and economic investigation of coal-fired power plant combined with various supercritical CO2 Brayton power cycle, Applied Thermal Engineering 130, pp 611-623, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.10.145

[4] Ravinder Kumar, Avdhesh Kr. Sharma, P. C. Tewari, Cost analysis of a coal-fired power plant using the NPV method, Journal of Industrial Engineering International, 11(4), 495-504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40092-015-0116-8

[5] Klaus Brun, Peter Friedman, and Richard Dennis. Fundamentals and Applications of Supercritical Carbon Dioxide (sCO2) Based Power Cycles. 2017. ISBN: 9780081008041

[6] Qiao ZHAO, Conception and optimization of supercritical CO2 Brayton cycles for coal-fired power plant application, May 2018

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.02.111

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2004.04.009

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.10.145

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40092-015-0116-8

sco closed brayton cycle for coal-fired power plant ...€¦ · 2 closed brayton cycle for...

Documents