Lars Strömberg - IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme · © Vattenfall AB IEA GHG Workshop on Oxyfuel...

© Vattenfall AB

IEA GHG Workshop on Oxyfuel Technology choice - Benchmarking

Lars StrömbergVattenfall AB

Corporate StrategiesBerlin / Stockholm

Cottbus 29-30th November 2005Cottbus, Germany

© Vattenfall AB 2

Schwarze Pumpe power plant

© Vattenfall AB 3

Why oxyfuel technology ????

Reduction of CO2

© Vattenfall AB 4

Boxberg IV

Why Oxy-fuel technology ?

We work with all three (four) technologies, but:

• Oxyfuel technology is the technology giving lowest costsat present

• It is suitable for coal and haverelatively little developmentwork left

• We can build on our goodexperience with present PF technology

© Vattenfall AB 5

Power Plant Lippendorf

© Vattenfall AB 6

Benchmarking

CO2 free power plant

© Vattenfall AB 7

• Numerous different views on costs for technologies exist.

• Recent IPCC report did not make it better– The IPCC report is based on reviewed papers published in

Journals, not conference papers or real figures from real cases– The IPCC report is obviously wrong in the tables stating present

generation cost of electricity

• Several of the IEA papers are of similar origin, or made on contract

CO2 free power plant - Why different costs ?

© Vattenfall AB 8

• Academic papers report as they should. – What they find in litterature, or in the lab, even if it sometimes is meaningless,

– For example, giving an interval from 7 – 80 €/ton. Correct probably, but misleading

• The costs are treated differently in different papers. – For example, transport is considered costing up to 50 €/ton CO2. We know that it

should cost about 3,7 €/ton from Scwarze Pumpe to Schweinrich. We often talk about the level 5 €/ton of CO2 for transport and 2 €ton for storage for a large case.

– Capital, O&M and Fuel costs differ largely– The way calculations are made differ significantly

• Costs for a small unit is much higher than for a large– There exist a considerable volume dependence. We often talk about a power unit

of up to 750 MW. There is no sense to capture CO2 from a small plant - It is too expensive. Transport costs for the pilot is 21 €/ton CO2

• Cost are different for a Coal and a Gasfired unit, even with similar technology– If costs are expressed as €/ton CO2, reduction from gas is more expensive due to

the higher gas price and the lower amount of CO2 produced– A large part of the cost is due to that it costs energy to separate the CO2. Energy is

taken from the plant. This energy is more expensive when fuel costs are higher. 15 €/ton for a coal plant is eqiuivalent to 50 €/ton for a gas fired unit

CO2 free power plant - Why different costs II

© Vattenfall AB 9

• Many data are biased. Almost all papers want to show something. – Many Norwegian papers seems to push for gas– American and French papers appears as they want to show that it is impossible due to

economic reasons– Results seems to be adjusted to a general “political” view in several countries.

• Many reports are based on marketing of products– For example, a market leading gas turbine manufacturer comes to the conclusion that a

plant including a gas turbine is the most beneficial. OK it’s their job.– A market leading Fluidized bed manufacturer comes to the conclusion that a CFB is more

beneficial than any other boiler technology.– Leading companies working with gasification not surprisingly comes to the conclusion

that a gasifier is the best and least expensive.- Even at present, which we all know is not correct. This is also expressed by the IPCC report !!

• Some American papers have a different way of handling the loss of energy output. – They consider it bought from the grid at some price. For a power plant this is not

adequate. It is taken from the own plant and increase the cost of production for the actual delivered energy

• Many studies are considering a retrofit situation. – Retrofitting an existing plant is more expensive than building a specially designed new

plant– Efficiency difference is 2 – 4 %-units.

CO2 free power plant - Why different costs III

© Vattenfall AB 10

Benchmarking 12001 - 4


© Vattenfall AB 11

Data for the 2004 study• Data for the capture alternatives and reference plants from recent studies made by

IEA GHG – IGCC options from study 2003– Post-combustion options for bituminous coal and natural gas from study from 2004– Oxyfuel options for bituminous coal (without FGD) and natural gas from study 2004,

costs updated 2005• Data for reference plants from ENCAP• Oxyfuel lignite

– Oxyfuel options for lignite, with and without FGD, based on 1000 MWgross lignite fired ENCAP reference plant with atm. lignite drier and 1st “base” oxyfuel concept by VF (within ENCAP SP3).

– Cost changes compared to reference plant based on IEAGHG oxyfuel study 2004 and other data presently available. The oxyfuel case will be further optimised – work ongoing

• Interest rate 7% real, 25 years, 7500 hrs/year• Bit. Coal 5.7 €/MWh, Lignite 3.9 €/MWh, Gas 13 EUR/MWh

© Vattenfall AB 12

Adjustments• It was noted that the IEA commissioned studies generally presented very

high fixed O&M costs (insurance and taxes specifically) on the coal fired plants compared to data from ENCAP partners and some of our own internal information

– IEA data adjusted to the same level as in the ENCAP guidelines (25.2 €/kWegross for all PF coal cases, 2.6% of total investment in the IGCC cases)

– Capture cases were adjusted so that the fixed O&M (% of investment) is kept constant between reference and capture cases

• After this adjustment, the coal fired reference cases present total COE at approximately the same level which indicates that the cases uses similar basic assumptions

• In addition, natural gas and coal reference cases show total COEs that are in the same range – seems to agree with actual situation today considering the variations in fuel price

• Reference IGCC today is not competitive with PF – also agrees with actual situation

© Vattenfall AB 13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

ENCAP PF Bitum

IEA GHG PF 20

04 no

captu

re

IEA GHG PF 20

04 no

captu

re ad

justed

IEA GHG PF 20

04 po

stcom

b. Adju

sted

IEA GHG PF 20

20 no

captu

re

IEA GHG PF 20

20 no

captu

re ad

justed

IEA GHG PF 20

20 po

stcom

b. Adju

sted

Mitsui

2004

PF n

o cap

ture

Mitsui

2004

PF n

o cap

ture ad

justed

Mitsui

2004

O2/C

O2 PF ad

justed

Mitsui

2020

PF n

o cap

ture ad

justed

Mitsui

2020

O2/C

O2 PF ad

justed

IEA GHG IG

CC 2003 n

o cap

ture

IEA GHG IG

CC 2003 n

o cap

ture a

djuste

d

IEA GHG IG

CC 2003 p

re-co

mb. Adju

sted

IEA GHG IG

CC 2020 n

o cap

ture

IEA GHG IG

CC 2020 n

o cap

ture a

djuste

d

IEA GHG IG

CC 2020 p

re-co

mb. Adju

sted

ENCAP PF Lign

iteOxy

fuel W

FGD

Oxyfue

l with

out W

FGD

ENCAP CCGT

IEA GHG 20

04 N

GCC no ca

pture

IEA GHG 20

04 N

GCC postc

omb.

IEA GHG 20

20 N

GCC no ca

pture

IEA GHG 20

20 N

GCC postc

omb.

Mitsui

2004

NGCC no

captu

re

Mitsui

2004

O2/C

O2 NGCC

CO

E [E

UR/

MW

he]

FuelO&M varriableO&M fixedcapital

Hard Coal Natural gasPF post comb. PF oxyfuel IGCC pre comb. NG post comb. NG oxyfuel

LigniteOxyfuel

Cost of electricity with and without CO2 capture

© Vattenfall AB 14

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

IEA GHG P

F 2004

no ca

pture

IEA GHG P

F 2004

postc

omb.

IEA GHG P

F 2020

no ca

pture

IEA GHG P

F 2020

postc

omb.

Mitsui

2004

PF no cap

ture

Mitsui

2004

O2/C

O2 PF

Mitsui

2020

PF no cap

ture

Mitsui

2020

O2/C

O2 PF

IEA GHG IG

CC 2003

no ca

pture

IEA GHG IG

CC 2003

pre-c

omb.

IEA GHG IG

CC 2020

no ca

pture

IEA GHG IG

CC 2020

pre-c

omb.

ENCAP PF Lign

ite

Oxyfue

l WFGD

Oxyfue

l with

out W

FGD

IEA GHG 20

04 NGCC no c

aptur

e

IEA GHG 20

04 NGCC pos

tcomb.

IEA GHG 20

20 NGCC no c

aptur

e

IEA GHG 20

20 NGCC pos

tcomb.

Mitsui

2004

NGCC no

captu

re

Mitsui

2004

O2/C

O2 NGCC

COE

[EUR

/MW

he]

CO2 penalty 30EUR/TCO2 penalty 20EUR/TCO2 penalty 10EUR/TCOE

Hard Coal Natural gasLignite

Total generation cost of electricity with CO2 penalty

© Vattenfall AB 15

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

IEA GHGPF 2004

postcomb.

IEA GHGPF 2020

postcomb.

Mitsui 2004O2/CO2 PF


IEA GHGIGCC 2003pre-comb.


OxyfuelWFGD

OxyfuelwithoutWFGD

IEA GHG2004 NGCCpostcomb.


Mitsui 2004O2/CO2NGCC

COE

[EUR

/MW

h]

COE penaltyCOE origninal


Generation cost with and without CO2 capture

© Vattenfall AB 16

Gasification ?????


© Vattenfall AB 17

• The objective is to study and compare the physicalwashing step for capturing of CO2 for IGCC.

• To formulate a preferred concept on IGCC with CO2capture.

• To follow up the ENCAP SP2 and COORETEC activitieson IGCC and CO2 capture.

Techno-economical study IGCC

© Vattenfall AB 18

IGCC technology and process choices

Lignite Hard coal

Entrained flow HTWWet feed Dryfeed

Quench Gascooler

Oxygen

Air

Extraction GT El.drive

50-50

Selexol

Steam turbine Wet cykle

Humidifying

Gasifier ASU

Scrubber

H2S-separation

Sour shift

Hydrolysis

Clean shift

VenturiFilter

Gas turbine

One step

Rectisol aMDEA

Two step

CO2 / CO2 + H2S separation

N2 to GT

© Vattenfall AB 19

Dry IGCC-concept

ASU

Coal Preparation

GasifierPrenflo

Ash

Air

Oxygen

Milled Coal

Hard Coal

Sour ShiftReactor2 stage

Hot Gas Filter

GasCooler

AGRaMDEA

Two Gas

Turbines

OneSteam

Turbine

Ash CO2 + H2S

Pressurized Air from Gas Turbine

Power Power

Pressurized Nitrogen to Gas Turbine

Steam

50%

50%

© Vattenfall AB 20

Choice of av Acid gas removal

• Acid gases can be washed out with alcohol, glycole, amine, etc.

• Rectisol, aMDEA and Selexol are possible processes.• Physical solvents have lower regeneration need than

chemical solvents.• Rectisol and Selexol uses a physical solution of the acid

gases • aMDEA is a Physical.chemical solvent• Rectisol was not chosen, due to that it was used in ENCAP

SP2 and a too large electricty need for regeneration • aMDEA was chosen because IEA PH4/19 rreported a lower

loss of hydrogen, lower loss of solvents, lower energy needfor regeneration and we might get a good set of data from BASF and for it is used in many reference plants

NH

HN

Piperazin

© Vattenfall AB 21

IGCC technology and process choices

Lignite Hardcoal

Entrained flow HTWWet feed Dry feed

Quench Gascooler

Oxygen

Air

Extraction GT El. drives

50-50

Selexol

Steam turbine Wet cycle

Humidifaction

Gasifier ASU

Skrubber

H2S-separation

Sour shift

Hydrolysis

Clean shift

VenturiFilter

Gasturbin

One step

Rectisol aMDEA

Two step


N2 to GT

© Vattenfall AB 22

Wet IGCC-concept

ASU

Coal Preparation

GasifierTexaco

Ash

Air

Oxygen

Coal Slurry

Hard Coal


GasQuench

AGRaMDEA

Two Gas

Turbines

OneSteam

Turbine

Wet AshCO2 + H2S


Power Power


Steam

50%

50%

Water

© Vattenfall AB 23

IGCC technology and process choicesLignite Hard coal

Entrained flow HTWWet feed Dry feed

Quench Gascooler

Oxygen

Air

Extraction GT El. drive

50-50

Selexol

Steamturbine Wet cycle

Humidification

Gasifier ASU

Skrubber

H2S-separation

Sour shift

Hydrolysis

Clean shift

VenturiFilter

Gasturbine

One step

Rectisol aMDEA

Two step


N2 to GT

© Vattenfall AB 24

Wet and Dry IGCC-concept

ASU

Coal Preparation

GasifierAsh

Air

Oxygen

Coal Slurry

Hard Coal


Hot Gas Filter

GasCooler

AGRaMDEA

Two Gas

Turbines

OneSteam

Turbine

Ash CO2 + H2S


Power Power


Steam

50%

50%

Water

© Vattenfall AB 25

Technical / economical evaluation

Efficency with and without CO2 capture

25,0

30,0

35,0

40,0

45,0

50,0

PF CoalOxyfuel

VUAB IGCC dryCO2

VUAB IGCCwet CO2

VUAB IGCCwet (no quench)

CO2

IEA IGCC ShellCO2

IEA IGCCTexaco CO2

Effic

ency

[%]

Efficiency penaltyEfficiency with capture

© Vattenfall AB 26

• Dollar/Euro conversion rate = 1• Fuel cost hard coal: 5,7 EUR/MWhfuel• Operating hours: 7500 h• Intrest rate calculus: 7%• Depretiation time: 25 years• Fixed O&M cost: 3,5% of the investment in all IGCC cases (25,2 EUR/kWel in the

PF case)• Variable O&M cost: different depending on if aMDEA or Selexol and with or

without CO2-capture– aMDEA w/o CO2 separation = 0,7 EUR/MWhel gross– aMDEA with CO2 separation = 1,0 EUR/MWhel gross– Selexol w/o CO2 separation = 1,1 EUR/MWhel gross– Selexol with CO2 separation = 1,3 EUR/MWhel gross

• The cost calculations are preliminary• Investments costs for VUAB’s IGCC alternative are based on scaled values from

IEA’s IGCC report. Costs for the ASU and the Power Island should be revised, as also the values for the gasifier in the wet/dry case.

Economic assumptions for the COE calculations

© Vattenfall AB 27


Cost of ElectricityPreliminary investment figures for ASU and Power Island in VUAB IGCC cases

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

PF Coa

l toda

yPF C

oal O

xyfue

l

VUAB IGCC dr

y

VUAB IGCC dr

y CO2

VUAB IGCC W

et

VUAB IGCC W

et CO2

VUAB IGCC W

et (no

quen

ch)

VUAB IGCC W

et CO2 (

no qu

ench

)

IEA IG

CC Shell

IEA IG

CC Shell C

O2

IEA IG

CC Texac

o

IEA IG

CC Texac

o CO2

CO

E [E

UR

/MW

hel]

FuelO&M varriableO&M fixedcapital

© Vattenfall AB 28

Benchmarking 22005

”Including recent results ENCAP”


© Vattenfall AB 29

Calculation basis

• Fuel Prices:– Bituminous Coal 5.7 €/MWh, (1,6 €/GJ)– Lignite 3.9 €/MWh, (1,1 €/GJ)– Natural Gas 13 €/MWh (3,5 €/GJ)

• Interest rate 7,5 % real

• Economic lifetime 25 years

• Annual operation 7500 hrs/year

© Vattenfall AB 30

Calculation basis

• The calculations use one number for operating hours: 7500 hours.

• The problem is that operation time per year will be depending on

– Variable cost – dispatch order. – Availability.

• Some units with high variable cost will not be operated during summer in northern Europe. (high gas prices ?)

• Vattenfalls existing ultra supercritical coal fired plants have a very high availability > 95 % including planned overhaul

• The cost of fuels is very uncertain, but coal more stable than gas. Lignite is cost based

© Vattenfall AB 31

Supply Curve 2005 ohne NeubautenÖffentliche Versorgung + Industrie

0,00

1,00

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

6,00

7,00

8,00

9,00

10,00

11,00

12,00

13,00

14,00

15,00

16,00

17,00

18,00

19,00

0,00 10000,00 20000,00 30000,00 40000,00 50000,00 60000,00 70000,00 80000,00 90000,00 100000,00 110000,00

VerfügbareNetto-Engpassleistung in MW el.

Pf / kWh (Fuel+Pers.+O&M)

SUPPLY CURVE 2005 AFTER DECOMMISSIONINGLong-term variable Costs

52GWBaseload

78GWPeakload

KWK-Anlagen<100MW (Stadtw)

60GWAverage Load

About 11000 MW transfer from abroadis possible

L.S. 2001 12 06

© Vattenfall AB 32

Supply and Demand in Germany

TWh/yearCapacity550500300100

Demand

marginal cost

€/MWh

€/ton

40

20

0

CO2 (0)CO2 (5)CO2 (10)CO2 (20)

Lars Strömberg 2003 04 22

Vattenfall AB

Corporate Strategies

© Vattenfall AB 33

Benchmarking

Oxyfuel alternatives

© Vattenfall AB 34

Net efficiencies (LHV) for PF and CFB cases

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

PF+drier nocapture

PF oxyfuelwith FGD

PF oxyfuelwithout FGD

PF nocapture

PF oxyfuelwith FGD


CFB nocapture

CFB oxyfuel

Net

el e

ffici

ency

(%LH

V)

Lignite Bituminous Bituminous

© Vattenfall AB 35

Specific investments for PF and CFB alternatives

Tot. specific investment (EUR/kWe net)

1337

19991959

1020

16631613

1288

1917

500

700

900

1100

1300

1500

1700

1900

2100

PF+drier nocapture

PF oxyfuelwith FGD


PF nocapture

PF oxyfuelwith FGD


CFB nocapture

CFB oxyfuel

Spec

ific

inve

stm

ent (

EUR

/kW

e)

Lignite Bituminous Bituminous

© Vattenfall AB 36

Cost of electricity incl. CO2 penalty

COE at different levels of cost of CO2 emission certificate

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

PF+drierno

capture

PFoxyfuel

with FGD

PFoxyfuelwithoutFGD

PF nocapture

PFoxyfuel

with FGD

PFoxyfuelwithoutFGD

CFB nocapture

CFBoxyfuel

CO

E (E

UR

/MW

h)

30 EUR/ton20 EUR/ton10 EUR/ton0 EUR/ton

Lignite Bituminous coal

Bituminous coal

© Vattenfall AB 37

Avoidance costs for oxyfuel alternativesCO2 avoidance cost

0

5

10

15

20

25

PF oxyfuel withFGD

PF oxyfuel withoutFGD

PF oxyfuel withFGD

PF oxyfuel withoutFGD

CFB oxyfuel

CO

2 av

oida

nce

cost

(EU

R/t

CO

2) Lignite Bituminous Bituminous

© Vattenfall AB 38

Benchmarking

Oxyfuel PF alternativevs.

Other generation technologies and fuels

© Vattenfall AB 39

Net efficiencies (LHV) with and without CO2 capture

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

PF+dri

er no

captu

re

PF oxy

fuel w

ith F

GDIG

CC captu

re

PF Pos

tcombu

stion

"Eco

namine

SM+"

PF no c

aptur

e

PF Oxy

fuel w

ith FGD

IGCC "T

exac

o" ca

pture

aMDEA

IGCC "S

hell"

captu

re aM

DEA

PF Pos

tcombu

stion

"Eco

namine

SM+"

NGCC no ca

pture

NGCC postc

ombu

stion

"Eco

namine

SM+"

Plan

t ele

ctric

al e

ffici

ency

(LH

V) [%

]

Natural GasLignite Bituminous Coal

© Vattenfall AB 40

Specific investments with and without CO2 capture

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

PF+dri

er no

captu

re

PF oxy

fuel w

ith F

GDIG

CC captu

re

PF Pos

tcombu

stion

"Eco

namine

SM+"

PF no c

aptur

e

PF Oxy

fuel w

ith FGD

IGCC "T

exac

o" ca

pture

aMDEA

IGCC "S

hell"

captu

re aM

DEA

PF Pos

tcombu

stion

"Eco

namine

SM+"

NGCC no ca

pture

NGCC postc

ombu

stion

"Eco

namine

SM+"

Spec

ific

inve

stm

ent [

EUR

/kW

e ne

t]


© Vattenfall AB 41

Cost of electricity for different options

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

PF+dri

er no

captu

re

PF oxy

fuel w

ith FGD

IGCC ca

pture

PF Pos

tcombu

stion

"Eco

namine

SM+"

PF no c

aptur

e

PF Oxy

fuel w

ith FGD

IGCC "T

exac

o" ca

pture

aMDEA

IGCC "S

hell"

captu

re aM

DEA

PF Pos

tcombu

stion

"Eco

namine

SM+"NGCC no

captu

re

NGCC postc

ombu

stion

"Eco

namine

SM+"

CO

E (€

/MW

he)

Fuel cost EUR/MWheO&M cost variable EUR/MWheO&M cost fixed EUR/MWheCapital cost EUR/MWhe

Lignite Bituminous coal Natural Gas

© Vattenfall AB 42

Total generation cost with CO2 penalty

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

PF+dri

er no

captu

re

PF oxy

fuel w

ith FGD

IGCC ca

pture

PF Pos

tcombu

stion

"Eco

namine

SM+"

PF no c

aptur

e

PF Oxy

fuel w

ith FGD

IGCC "T

exac

o" ca

pture

aMDEA

IGCC "S

hell"

captu

re aM

DEA

PF Pos

tcombu

stion

"Eco

namine

SM+"NGCC no

captu

re

NGCC postc

ombu

stion

"Eco

namine

SM+"C

OE

[EU

R/M

Whe

]

COE CO2 penalty 10EUR/T CO2 penalty 20EUR/T CO2 penalty 30EUR/T


© Vattenfall AB 43

CO2 Avoidance cost

05

1015202530354045

PF oxy

fuel w

ith FGD

IGCC ca

pture

PF Pos

tcombu

stion

"Eco

namine

SM+"

PF Oxy

fuel w

ith FGD

IGCC "T

exac

o" ca

pture

aMDEA

IGCC "S

hell"

captu

re aM

DEA

PF Pos

tcombu

stion

"Eco

namine

SM+"

NGCC postc

ombu

stion

"Eco

namine

SM+"CO

2 av

oida

nce

cost

[EU

R/to

n C

O2]


© Vattenfall AB 44

Variable cost of electricityFigure 9: Variable COE including CO2 emission penalty

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

PF+drie

r no c

aptur

e

PF oxyfu

el with

FGDIG

CC captu

re

PF Pos

tcombu

stion

"Eco

namine

SM+"

PF no ca

pture

PF Oxy

fuel w

ith FGD

IGCC "T

exac

o" ca

pture

aMDEA

IGCC "S

hell"

captu

re aM

DEA

PF Pos

tcombu

stion

"Eco

namine

SM+"

NGCC no ca

pture

NGCC postc

ombu

stion

"Eco

namine

SM+"

Varia

ble

CO

E [E

UR

/MW

he]

CO2 penalty 30EUR/CO2 penalty 20EUR/CO2 penalty 10EUR/Variable COE


© Vattenfall AB 45

CO2 capture rate

80828486889092949698

100

PF oxy

fuel w

ith FGD

IGCC ca

pture

PF Pos

tcombu

stion

"Eco

namine

SM+"

PF Oxy

fuel w

ith FGD

IGCC "T

exac

o" ca

pture

aMDEA

IGCC "S

hell"

captu

re aM

DEA

PF Pos

tcombu

stion

"Eco

namine

SM+"

NGCC postc

ombu

stion

"Eco

namine

SM+"C

O2 C

aptu

re R

ate

[%] Natural GasLignite Bituminous Coal

© Vattenfall AB 47

Capture technologies

• All capture alternatives based on coal show COEs differing a little (43 - 47 €/MWhe)

– Oxyfuel is a promising alternative – around 45 €/MWhe for both bituminous coal and lignite

• Cost of electricity for capture alternatives with natural gas are at similar level as the the ones for coal, considering the uncertainties in the estimates

• CO2 avoidance cost around 20 €/ton CO2 (16-24 €/ton) for coal– Note that the IGCC case uses IGCC as reference case, the CO2 avoidance cost

increases if PF is used as reference• CO2 avoidance cost around 40 €/ton for natural gas cases

• With a CO2 emission penalty of 20 €/ton, the competition is between coal fired plants with capture and natural gas plants without capture.

© Vattenfall AB 48

Capture technologies year 2020 status

• All capture alternatives based on coal show similar COEs (34 - 38 €/MWhe)– For the oxyfuel case, only improvements in basic steam turbine

technology has been accounted for, there is still a potential to improve process parts related to the oxyfuel conceptand air separation. Oxyfuel is still a promising alternative!

• Capture alternatives for natural gas are at similar level as the the ones for coal, considering the uncertainties in the estimates

• CO2 avoidance cost around 17 -18 €/ton CO2 for PF coal, IGCC 2020 about 7 €/ton

– OBS that IGCC case uses IGCC as reference case, the CO2 avoidance cost increases if PF is used as a reference

• CO2 avoidance cost around 27 €/ton for natural gas cases

© Vattenfall AB 49

1. Numerous different views on costs for technologies exist. Our internal studies point at oxyfuel as the least expensive.

2. We have investigated the IGCC technology thoroughly. We do not see it competitive unless very specific conditions. It is calculated slightly more expensive at present.

– The availability and the reliability must be increased considerably and technical performance must be increased

3. Post combustion is commercially available at present up to the size 500 MW. It is calculated more expensive at present.

– The energy consumption for regenerating the absorbent must come down considerably to make it competitive.

4. We have good experience from PC technology. We operate 7 large supercritical units with hard coal and lignite. We build 3 new at present. Our German competitors also build several new units at present.

CO2 free power plant - Why oxyfuel technology ?

© Vattenfall AB 53

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

IEA GHGPF 2004

postcomb.

IEA GHGPF 2020

postcomb.

Mitsui 2004O2/CO2

PF

Mitsui 2020O2/CO2

PF



OxyfuelWFGD

OxyfuelwithoutWFGD

IEA GHG2004

NGCCpostcomb.

IEA GHG2020

NGCCpostcomb.


Plan

t ele

ctri

cal e

ffici

ency

(LHV

) [%

]

efficiency penaltyEl-efficiency, CO2 sep


Electric efficiency with and without CO2 capture

© Vattenfall AB 54

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

IEA GHGPF 2004

postcomb.

IEA GHGPF 2020

postcomb.

Mitsui 2004O2/CO2

PF

Mitsui 2020O2/CO2

PF



OxyfuelWFGD

OxyfuelwithoutWFGD

IEA GHG2004

NGCCpostcomb.

IEA GHG2020

NGCCpostcomb.


Spec

ific

inve

stm

ent [

EUR/

kWe

net]

Spec. inv. penaltySpec. inv.


Specific investment cost with and without CO2 capture

© Vattenfall AB 55

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

IEA GHG PF2004

postcomb.

IEA GHG PF2020

postcomb.





OxyfuelWFGD

OxyfuelwithoutWFGD




CO

2 av

oida

nce

cost

[EU

R/to

n CO

2]


CO2 avoidance cost

© Vattenfall AB 56

Age of coal fired plants

0

5

10

15

20

25

0-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-40 > 40

Age in years

Perc

enta

ge o

f tot

al

capa

city

0

25

50

75

100

125

Num

ber o

f uni

ts

Percentage of total capacity Number of units

© Vattenfall AB 57

Bas för IGCC-arbete

• 6 cases studied • 3 cases with and 3 cases without CO2- capture

Data from• IEA-reports as GHG PH4/19• ENCAP SP2• DOE - reports• TU Dresden• BASF• GT World Handbook

Calculations with • Ebsilon• Gate for the gasturbine• Shift med Excel and Aspen Plus (verification)

Work performance IGCC

© Vattenfall AB 58

Choice of av Acid gas removal

aMDEA Activivated Methyl-Di-Ethanol-Amine, technology offered by BASF.DEA di-ethanol-amineNMP n-methyl-2 pyrrolidonDGA di-glycol-amineDMPEG dimethyl-ether-polyethylene-glycolPurisol NMP (n-methyl-2 pyrrolidon) technology from LurgiRectisol Cold (-60ºC) Methanol as solvent Selexol Physical solvent with dimethyl ether of polyethylene glycolSulfinol MDEA technology with license from Shell

© Vattenfall AB 59


• In all cases sour shift is used• In the total investment 5% addition for”owners cost” and 10% för ”contingencies” are included

VUAB IGCC Dry

VUAB IGCC Dry CO2

VUAB IGCC Wet

VUAB IGCC Wet CO2

VUAB Wet no quench

VUAB Wet no quench CO2

IGCC Shell

IGCC Shell CO2

IGCC Texaco

IGCC TexacoCO2

Gasification press. [bar]

25 25 25 25 25 25 37 37 65 65

AGR aMDEA aMDEA aMDEA aMDEA aMDEA aMDEA aMDEA aMDEA Selexol SelexolGT press. ratio

17 17 17 17 17 17 15,8 15,8 15,8 15,8

GT firing temp. [C]

1401,5 1401,5 1401,5 1401,5 1401,5 1401,5 1352 1352 1352 1352

Coal LHV [kJ/kg]

26016 26016 26016 26016 26016 26016 26016 26016 26016 26016

Coal [MW] 1821,6 1976,5 1891,7 2033,3 1929,1 1983,5 1800,8 1950,3 2177,3 2322,5El. Gross [MW ]

939,7 885,8 906,6 876,3 976,5 876,3 909,8 883,3 988,7 979,9

Aux. Cons. [MW ]

110,1 182 117,5 187 122,4 184,1 132,9 199,2 160,2 237,1

El. Net [MW ] 829,6 703,8 789,1 689,3 854,1 692,2 776,9 684,1 828,5 742,8 ηe [%] 45,5 35,6 41,7 33,9 44,3 34,9 43,1 35,1 38,0 32,0 Tot. invest. [MEUR]

935,4 1044,9 769,4 856,3 943,8 982,6 936,8 1038,6 865 925,4

Spec. inv. [EUR/kWe]

1297 1707 1121 1429 1271 1632 1387 1746 1200 1432,8

Lars Strömberg - IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme · © Vattenfall AB IEA GHG Workshop on Oxyfuel...

Documents

Transcript of Lars Strömberg - IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme · © Vattenfall AB IEA GHG Workshop on Oxyfuel...