Benchmarking - SINTEF · Concept of benchmarking: bringing performance indicators to one...
Transcript of Benchmarking - SINTEF · Concept of benchmarking: bringing performance indicators to one...
DNV GL © 26 MARCH 2015 SAFER, SMARTER, GREENER DNV GL © Benchmarking: Novel carbon capture technologies
26 MARCH 2015
Gerben Jans, Gerard Stienstra and Bert Heesink
ENERGY
Benchmarking
1
Novel carbon capture technologies
DNV GL © 26 MARCH 2015
Key elements of this presentation
Benchmarking:
– Why?
– How?
Benchmarking of technologies in early stage of development
Experiences of DNV GL at the Carbon Capture Mongstad project
2
DNV GL © 26 MARCH 2015
DNV GL Energy
An Energy Powerhouse uniting the strength of well-known brands: DNV GL -
Energy combines the strengths and rich heritage of a couple well-known brands
in energy, DNV KEMA, GL Garrad Hassan and GL Renewables Certification.
In energy, our 3,000 experts help customers throughout the electrical power
industry realize efficient, reliable and clean energy, for today and the future.
3 3
DNV GL © 26 MARCH 2015 4
Policy Production Transmission
& Distribution Use
DNV GL Energy - A Comprehensive Portfolio of Services
Power testing, inspections and
certification
Renewables advisory services
Renewables certification
Electricity transmission and distribution
Electricity production
Smart grids and smart cities
Energy market and policy design
Energy management and operations
services
Energy efficiency services
Software
Policy Production Transmission & distribution Use
DNV GL © 26 MARCH 2015
Benchmarking is part of our Energy Business Decision Support-services
5
Benchmarking
Due Diligence
Technical Consultancy
Electricity Market Regulation Consultancy
Roadmaps Future Energy Systems
Technology (Development) Assessments
Electricity Master Planning
Market Analysis & Modelling Services
Definition Benchmarking (European Benchmarking code of conduct): “Benchmarking is about the process of identifying and learning from best practices in other organizations”
DNV GL © 26 MARCH 2015
What is benchmarking?
6
DNV GL © 26 MARCH 2015
One of the first Benchmarks
7
Source: http://www.waymarking.com
The origin of the term bench mark, or benchmark,
Chiselled horizontal marks made by surveyors in stone structures,
Used to place an angle-iron in to form a “bench” for a levelling rod
So this levelling rod could be replaced on the exact same level
Source: Wikipedia
DNV GL © 26 MARCH 2015
Goal of benchmarking
Two types of goals
1. Metrics Benchmarking
(to determine (relative)
position in own sector)
Learn were you are, compared to others
2. Activity Benchmarking (find & implement ‘Best Practices’)
According to the European Benchmarking Code of conduct “Benchmarking is
about the process of identifying and learning from best practices in other
organizations ”
8
Benchmarking is about learning
Source: http://www.solomononline.com
DNV GL © 26 MARCH 2015
Goal of activity benchmarking
9
DNV GL © 26 MARCH 2015
Benchmarking cycle
10
KPI’s Performance
evaluation
Industrial installation
Set Performance Improvement Targets
Quality Control
“Best Practices”
Continuous Improvement
Reference data
Perf. data
Benchmark
Learn from best practices
Benchmarking
DNV GL © 26 MARCH 2015
KPI’s and reference data explained
A KPI is
– a performance measurement
– defined by a set of values used to measure against
– based on math that is the same for all situations
– used to evaluate the success of a particular activity in which it is engaged
Preferred reference data is
obtained from a peer group
11
Statistical Analysis
Quartile
(25%)
Performance Indicator
Standard
Methodology
Data BaseP
ee
r G
rou
p Quartile
(25%)
median
DNV GL © 26 MARCH 2015
Example results
POF = Planned Outage Factor
FOF = Forced Outage Factor
12
0.0%
4.0%
8.0%
12.0%
16.0%
20.0%
KPI-8POF
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
KPI-9FOF
Plant A
Plant B
Plant C
Peer group(median)
Peer group(top 25%)
Power plant maintenance performance
DNV GL © 26 MARCH 2015
Benchmarking of technologies in early stage of development
13
DNV GL © 26 MARCH 2015
Novel Technologies
14
Challenge: identify potential + compare across maturity
Maturity
potential
Different technologies, different potential, different maturity
DNV GL © 26 MARCH 2015
Issues for the benchmarking model
No reference performance data available -> no peer group
– Other reference needed?
Not the same level of maturity (model ≠ pilot ≠ demo ≠ full scale)
– How to scale for comparison across maturity?
Scaling means uncertainty
– What to do with uncertainty?
15
How to deal with these issues?
DNV GL © 26 MARCH 2015
Reference
When a peer group doesn’t exist one could use a well defined reference plant.
1. Reference plant
2. Plant to be benchmarked
16
PP 1
PP 1 + CAP 1
PP 1 + CAP 2
PP 1
Benchmark
Co
mp
ari
so
n
DNV GL © 26 MARCH 2015
Uncertainty
17
Commercial application
“Performance”
“Cost”
New version,
followed by improvement
Maturity
DNV GL © 26 MARCH 2015
Benchmarking model
18
Concept of benchmarking: bringing performance indicators to one (artificial) level for comparison, generally executed by an independent 3rd party
maturity
potential
prove of concept & prototyping
Scale up
Benchmark for comparison
Build process / application
1 2
Benchmarking model Data
DNV GL © 26 MARCH 2015
Example results: ROAD 250 MWe DEMO - design alternatives
19
Net Electrical output and reboiler duty compared: illustrative of the need to have a model to bring all inputs to the same level of comparison. source: de Miguel Mercader et al, IJGGC, 2013
94%
91%
94%
100%
90%
83%
86%
100%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
MEA intermediate
HEX no integration
MEA LVC+split nointegration
MEA LVC nointegration
Base case MEA nointegration
relative
reboilerduty
variation
relative
efficiencypenalty
variation
Base Case = 100 %
energy penalty, relative to base
Reboiler duty, relative to base case
DNV GL © 26 MARCH 2015
Let’s take a side-step - Example use of TRL Carbon Capture Mongstad (CCM)
20
DNV GL © 26 MARCH 2015
New gas fired CHP plant at Mongstad Refinery (2010)
CCM Agreement
CHP plant may be
operated on the
condition that CO2 is
captured and stored
Max. capacity 1.3
Mton/yr
Start-up foreseen in
2020
Only amine based and
ammonium carbonate
based technologies
considered
21
DNV GL © 26 MARCH 2015
Typical post-combustion CO2 capture plant
22
Source: CCM
DNV GL © 26 MARCH 2015
Participating Technology Vendors
1. Huaneng CERI Powerspan
– Proprietary amine based ECO2 solvent
2. Siemens
– Proprietary amino acid salt based AAS solvent
3. Aker Clean Carbon (ACC)
– Proprietary amine based S-21 solvent
4. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI)
– Proprietary amine based KS-1 solvent
5. Alstom
– Ammonium carbonate solvent
23
DNV GL © 26 MARCH 2015
Technology qualification process
Goals:
• Prove capture plant is TRL 4*
• Energy performance meet minimum requirements
• Emissions meet minimum requirements
24
Executed by Statoil +
Technology Vendors
Our main task “follow-up,
verification and evaluation of all
technology qualification activities“
*According to Statoil WR-1622
DNV GL © 26 MARCH 2015
Technology Readiness Level goal
TRL 4: Representative of full scale prototype (or production unit) built and put
through a qualification test program in (simulated or actual) intended environment
Technology Readiness Level (Statoil WR-1622)
25
Level Development stage
TRL 0 Unproven Idea
TRL 1 Analytically Proven Concept
TRL 2 Physically Proven Concept
TRL 3 Prototype Tested
TRL 4 Environment Tested
TRL 5 System Integration Tested
TRL 6 System Installed
TRL 7 Proven Technology
DNV GL © 26 MARCH 2015
Technology Readiness Levels
26
maturity
potential
Strict definitions for TRL level
TRL 6 TRL 7 TRL 5 TRL 3 TRL 4
Expert judgment
Assigned TLR level
TRL 2
DNV GL © 26 MARCH 2015
Technology qualification process
Goals:
• Prove capture plant is TRL 4*
• Energy performance meet minimum requirements
• Emissions meet minimum requirements
27
Executed by Statoil +
Technology Vendors
Our main task “follow-up,
verification and evaluation of all
technology qualification activities“
Main risks
*According to Statoil WR-1622
DNV GL © 26 MARCH 2015
Main development risks identified
Scale-up of absorber (and stripper)
(Diameter 0.5 m) (Diameter ~20 m)
Severe solvent degradation
– O2 and NOx in flue gas
H&E aspects
– Carcinogenic nitrosamines and nitramines
– Amines and other degradation products
– Waste (water)
– NH3
28
DNV GL © 26 MARCH 2015
Example step out A: (design and scale-up of) Absorber
TRL assessed per technology step out category
29
DNV GL © 26 MARCH 2015
TRL assessment of technology vendors on three project phases
Because of confidentiality reasons, these numbers are not corresponding to the actual outcome of the CCM project
30
2.92.5 2.5
3.53
2.5
3.93.4
2.5
0
1
2
3
4
5
A B C
TRL at TQP-1 TRL at TQP-2 TRL at TQP-3
DNV GL © 26 MARCH 2015 31
TRL 4 ?
Technology Center Mongstad source: http://www.gassnova.no
DNV GL © 26 MARCH 2015
SAFER, SMARTER, GREENER
www.dnvgl.com
Thanks
32
Gerben Jans
+31 (0)26 3566210