Water Usage and Loss of Power in Plants with CO2 Capture ...

Water usage and loss of power in power plants with CO2 capturein power plants with CO2 capture

Luca Mancuso – Process ManagerC

14th September 2010

Paolo Cotone – Principal Process Engineer Power Division - Foster Wheeler Italiana

14th September 2010

2010 EPRI Advanced Coal & CO2 Capture & Storage Seminar - Rome

Introduction

This study was carried out by Foster Wheeler for IEA Greenhouse GasR&D Programme (IEA GHG) to analyze and optimize water usage andrelated power losses in power plants without and with CO2 capture

The study evaluates bituminous-coal-fired power plants, using the following technologies:

USC-PC boiler

Oxy-fired USC-PC boiler

IGCC GE E h t ifiIGCC, GE Energy quench-type gasifier

22010 EPRI Advanced Coal & CO2 Capture & Storage Seminar – Rome

Reference studies

The study takes reference from previous reports, part of the IEA GHGR&D Programme, assessing coal power generation plants without andwith CO2 capture

Report Number PH4/33 (Nov 2004) – Improvement in powergeneration with post-combustion capture of CO2

Report Number 2005/9 (July 2005) Oxy Combustion Processes forReport Number 2005/9 (July 2005) – Oxy Combustion Processes forCO2 Capture from Power Plant

Report Number PH4/19 (May 2003) – Potential for improvement ingasification combined cycle power generation with CO2 capture


Objectives of the studyj y

Establish a rigorous accounting and comparison of water usage indifferent power plants with and without CO2 capture;

Establish a methodology for comparing water usage in power plants

Provide benchmark data for potential improvements and R&D programs

Assess performance, costs and impact on water usage of power plantslocated in areas where water supply is severely limited (dry-land)


Design Bases

Eastern Australian Bituminous Coal (S = 1.1% wt, dry ash free bases)

g

Emission limits

USC PC / Oxyfuel (1) IGCC (2)

NOx (as NO2) ≤ 200 mg/Nm3 ≤ 80 mg/Nm3

SOx (as SO2) ≤ 200 mg/Nm3 ≤ 10 mg/Nm3

Particulate ≤ 30 mg/Nm3 ≤ 10 mg/Nm3

Note:

(1) @ 6% O2 vol dry

(2) @ 15% O l d

LocationReference cases – wet land: NE coast of The Netherlands (as per

Particulate ≤ 30 mg/Nm3 ≤ 10 mg/Nm3 (2) @ 15% O2 vol dry

Reference cases wet land: NE coast of The Netherlands (as per original reports)

Dry land cases: dry in land region in South Africa


Design Bases

Ambient temperature

g

Reference cases – wet land: 9 °C

Dry land cases: 14 °C

C li tCooling water:Reference cases – wet land: Sea CW (primary system): 12→19°C

MCW (secondary system): 17→29°CMCW (secondary system): 17→29 C

Dry land cases: Sea CW (primary system): N/A

MCW (secondary system): 25→35°C

CO2 characteristics at plant B.L.:Pressure: 110 bar g (Supercritical)Purity:


Purity:CO2: > 99% mol (> 95% for oxyfuel combustion cases)

Study casesy

Case 1: Pulverised coal-fired power plant with ultrasupercritical steam cycle without CO2 capture (USC-PC without CCS)

Case 2: Pulverised coal fired power plant with ultrasupercritical steam cycle with post-combustion CO2 capture based on standard MEAcycle with post combustion CO2 capture based on standard MEA solvent (USC-PC with CCS)

Case 3: Pulverised coal fired power plant with ultrasupercritical steam cycle using oxyfuel combustion for CO2 capture

Case 4: IGCC using GEE Quench type gasifier without CO2 capture (IGCC without CCS)(IGCC without CCS)

Case 5: IGCC using GEE Quench type gasifier with pre-combustion CO2 capture based on physical solvent (IGCC with CCS)


Study cases (cont’d)y ( )

For each alternative, case without and with limitation on water usage is , gevaluated

Two concepts are applied in relation to the water usage:

Water withdrawal refers to the total water taken from a source and sent back to the same sourcesent back to the same source

Water consumption refers to the irrecoverable loss of water that is not returned to the sourcereturned to the source


Case #1 - USC PC without CCS (wet land)( )


Case #1 - USC PC without CCS (dry land)( y )


USC-PC w/o CCS: performancep

- 5 (SW pumps)+ 7 (air condenser)+1 Flue gas blower incresase+1 Flue gas blower incresase+1.5 DCC circuit


Case #2 - USC PC with CCS

Dry land case


USC-PC w CCS: performancep

- 10 (SW pumps)+ 5 (air condenser)+1 4 Flue gas blower incresase+1.4 Flue gas blower incresase+20 AGR and compression+0.5 DCC circuit


Case #3 - Oxyfuely

Dry land case


Oxy USC-PC: performancey p

- 6 (SW pumps)+ 5 (air condenser)+ 6 CO2 compression+ 6 CO2 compression+ 6 ASU


Case #4 – IGCC without CCS

Dry land case


IGCC w/o CCS: performancep

- 8 (SW pumps)+ 6 (air condenser)+ 6 booster blower+ 6 booster blower+5.5 DCC circuit+ 4.5 ASU


Case #5 – IGCC with CCS

Dry land case


IGCC w CCS: performancep

- 10 (SW pumps)+ 6 (air condenser)+ 6 booster blower 6 booster blower+13 DCC circuit+ 4.5 ASU+ 4 AGR and CO2 compression


Analysis of performance resultsy p

Efficiency penalty due to water usage limitation in a relatively narrow range ofi i d i h diff f h i h l i i l dvariation, despite the differences of the various technologies involved

Most of the power loss is due to different condensing pressure (74 vs. 40 mbar)

Higher penalty in CCS cases: CO2 capture and compression are heavilyg p y p p yaffected by the limitation on water usage

CO2 capture: higher temperature at absorber inletsolvent circulation increasesolvent circulation increaseregeneration heat increase

CO2 compression: higher temperature at compressor inlet (airintercooling) lead to compressor power absorptionintercooling) lead to compressor power absorptionincreaseHigher impact on post combustion cases


Economic analysis

Bases of the estimate:

y

LocationWet land: The Netherlands

D l d S th Af iDry land cases: South Africa

Cost level: 4Q2009

Fuel costs:Fuel costs:Cost of coal: 1.5 €/GJ (same as all reference studies)


Economic analysis (cont’d)

Bases for evaluation of Cost of Electricity (COE):

y ( )

10% discount rate

25 operating years

No cost of CO transport and storage consideredNo cost of CO2 transport and storage considered

No selling price attributed to the sequestered CO2

Bases for evaluation of Cost of Water saved:Bases for evaluation of Cost of Water saved:Electricity cost: 50 €/MWh

Delta TIC between wet and dry land case

Delta net power output between wet and dry land case

Delta O&M Costs between wet and dry land case


Economic summaryyCASE Total

investment cost

% TIC increase

Yearly operating

hours

Yearly O&M costs

Specific Investment

cost

COE

Cost of water savedcost

M€ % hours

h/y M€/y cost

Euro/kWe c€/kWh savedc€/t

1 wet 880.1 + 5.0%

7,884 (90%) 133.6 1,161.6 4.0 - 1 dry 924.6 7,884 (90%) 135.9 1,275.3 4.3 3.3 2 wet 1 101 4 7 709 (88%) 162 1 1 654 7 5 8 -2 wet 1,101.4

+7.7% 7,709 (88%) 162.1 1,654.7 5.8 -

2 dry 1,186.6 7,709 (88%) 166.3 1,904.6 6.5 0.8 3 wet 1,053.7

+4.1% 7,446 (85%) 125.3 1,982.8 6.4 -

3 dry 1,097.3 7,446 (85%) 127.6 2,233.0 7.1 9.0 4 et 1 225 0 7 446 (85%) 162 1 1 482 1 5 04 wet 1,225.0

+6.0% 7,446 (85%) 162.1 1,482.1 5.0 -

4 dry 1,298.7 7,446 (85%) 165.9 1,670.1 5.6 7.3 5 wet 1,378.7

+5.9% 7,446 (85%) 175.7 1,887.9 6.3 -

5 dry 1,460.1 7,446 (85%) 179.8 2,175.7 7.1 0.9



investment cost

% TIC increase

Yearly operating

hours

Yearly O&M costs

Specific Investment

cost

COE


M€ % hours

h/y M€/y cost


1 wet 880.1 + 5.0%

7,884 (90%) 133.6 1,161.6 4.0 - 1 dry 924.6 7,884 (90%) 135.9 1,275.3 4.3 3.3 2 wet 1 101 4 7 709 (88%) 162 1 1 654 7 5 8 -2 wet 1,101.4

+7.7% 7,709 (88%) 162.1 1,654.7 5.8 -

2 dry 1,186.6 7,709 (88%) 166.3 1,904.6 6.5 0.8 3 wet 1,053.7

+4.1% 7,446 (85%) 125.3 1,982.8 6.4 -

3 dry 1,097.3 7,446 (85%) 127.6 2,233.0 7.1 9.0 4 et 1 225 0 7 446 (85%) 162 1 1 482 1 5 04 wet 1,225.0

+6.0% 7,446 (85%) 162.1 1,482.1 5.0 -

4 dry 1,298.7 7,446 (85%) 165.9 1,670.1 5.6 7.3 5 wet 1,378.7

+5.9% 7,446 (85%) 175.7 1,887.9 6.3 -

5 dry 1,460.1 7,446 (85%) 179.8 2,175.7 7.1 0.9

TIC percentage increase falls in a narrow range of variation (4% and 8%), despitethe differences of the various technologies involved



investment cost

% TIC increase

Yearly operating

hours

Yearly O&M costs

Specific Investment

cost

COE


M€ % hours

h/y M€/y cost


1 wet 880.1 + 5.0%

7,884 (90%) 133.6 1,161.6 4.0 - 1 dry 924.6 7,884 (90%) 135.9 1,275.3 4.3 3.3 2 wet 1 101 4 7 709 (88%) 162 1 1 654 7 5 8 -2 wet 1,101.4

+7.7% 7,709 (88%) 162.1 1,654.7 5.8 -

2 dry 1,186.6 7,709 (88%) 166.3 1,904.6 6.5 0.8 3 wet 1,053.7

+4.1% 7,446 (85%) 125.3 1,982.8 6.4 -

3 dry 1,097.3 7,446 (85%) 127.6 2,233.0 7.1 9.0 4 et 1 225 0 7 446 (85%) 162 1 1 482 1 5 04 wet 1,225.0

+6.0% 7,446 (85%) 162.1 1,482.1 5.0 -

4 dry 1,298.7 7,446 (85%) 165.9 1,670.1 5.6 7.3 5 wet 1,378.7

+5.9% 7,446 (85%) 175.7 1,887.9 6.3 -

5 dry 1,460.1 7,446 (85%) 179.8 2,175.7 7.1 0.9

Cases without CO2 capture: dry land design TIC percentage increase higher inIGCC than in USC-PC. Impact on investment cost for USC-PC limited to power


island and utilities, while for IGCC the dry land design also impacts the ASU


investment cost

% TIC increase

Yearly operating

hours

Yearly O&M costs

Specific Investment

cost

COE


M€ % hours

h/y M€/y cost


1 wet 880.1 + 5.0%

7,884 (90%) 133.6 1,161.6 4.0 - 1 dry 924.6 7,884 (90%) 135.9 1,275.3 4.3 3.3 2 wet 1 101 4 7 709 (88%) 162 1 1 654 7 5 8 -2 wet 1,101.4

+7.7% 7,709 (88%) 162.1 1,654.7 5.8 -

2 dry 1,186.6 7,709 (88%) 166.3 1,904.6 6.5 0.8 3 wet 1,053.7

+4.1% 7,446 (85%) 125.3 1,982.8 6.4 -

3 dry 1,097.3 7,446 (85%) 127.6 2,233.0 7.1 9.0 4 et 1 225 0 7 446 (85%) 162 1 1 482 1 5 04 wet 1,225.0

+6.0% 7,446 (85%) 162.1 1,482.1 5.0 -

4 dry 1,298.7 7,446 (85%) 165.9 1,670.1 5.6 7.3 5 wet 1,378.7

+5.9% 7,446 (85%) 175.7 1,887.9 6.3 -

5 dry 1,460.1 7,446 (85%) 179.8 2,175.7 7.1 0.9

Cases with CO2 capture: dry land TIC percentage increase higher in USC-PC thanin IGCC. In USC-PC the dry land design affects the CO2 capture and compressioninvestment cost, in addition to the units mentioned before. Impact on IGCC plants


es e cos , add o o e u s e o ed be o e pac o GCC p a sis lower


investment cost

% TIC increase

Yearly operating

hours

Yearly O&M costs

Specific Investment

cost

COE


M€ % hours

h/y M€/y cost


1 wet 880.1 + 5.0%

7,884 (90%) 133.6 1,161.6 4.0 - 1 dry 924.6 7,884 (90%) 135.9 1,275.3 4.3 3.3 2 wet 1 101 4 7 709 (88%) 162 1 1 654 7 5 8 -2 wet 1,101.4

+7.7% 7,709 (88%) 162.1 1,654.7 5.8 -

2 dry 1,186.6 7,709 (88%) 166.3 1,904.6 6.5 0.8 3 wet 1,053.7

+4.1% 7,446 (85%) 125.3 1,982.8 6.4 -

3 dry 1,097.3 7,446 (85%) 127.6 2,233.0 7.1 9.0 4 et 1 225 0 7 446 (85%) 162 1 1 482 1 5 04 wet 1,225.0

+6.0% 7,446 (85%) 162.1 1,482.1 5.0 -

4 dry 1,298.7 7,446 (85%) 165.9 1,670.1 5.6 7.3 5 wet 1,378.7

+5.9% 7,446 (85%) 175.7 1,887.9 6.3 -

5 dry 1,460.1 7,446 (85%) 179.8 2,175.7 7.1 0.9

Similar TIC percentage increase in IGCC with and without CO2 capture.Difference between the two cases mainly limited to the CO2 compression unitthat, from an economic point of view, counts for less than one percentage point



investment cost

% TIC increase

Yearly operating

hours

Yearly O&M costs

Specific Investment

cost

COE


M€ % hours

h/y M€/y cost


1 wet 880.1 + 5.0%

7,884 (90%) 133.6 1,161.6 4.0 - 1 dry 924.6 7,884 (90%) 135.9 1,275.3 4.3 3.3 2 wet 1 101 4 7 709 (88%) 162 1 1 654 7 5 8 -2 wet 1,101.4

+7.7% 7,709 (88%) 162.1 1,654.7 5.8 -

2 dry 1,186.6 7,709 (88%) 166.3 1,904.6 6.5 0.8 3 wet 1,053.7

+4.1% 7,446 (85%) 125.3 1,982.8 6.4 -

3 dry 1,097.3 7,446 (85%) 127.6 2,233.0 7.1 9.0 4 et 1 225 0 7 446 (85%) 162 1 1 482 1 5 04 wet 1,225.0

+6.0% 7,446 (85%) 162.1 1,482.1 5.0 -

4 dry 1,298.7 7,446 (85%) 165.9 1,670.1 5.6 7.3 5 wet 1,378.7

+5.9% 7,446 (85%) 175.7 1,887.9 6.3 -

5 dry 1,460.1 7,446 (85%) 179.8 2,175.7 7.1 0.9

Highest TIC percentage increase in USC PC with CO2 captureCO2 capture and compression units cost represents a significant part of theoverall investment cost


o e a es e cos


investment cost

% TIC increase

Yearly operating

hours

Yearly O&M costs

Specific Investment

cost

COE


M€ % hours

h/y M€/y cost


1 wet 880.1 + 5.0%

7,884 (90%) 133.6 1,161.6 4.0 - 1 dry 924.6 7,884 (90%) 135.9 1,275.3 4.3 3.3 2 wet 1 101 4 7 709 (88%) 162 1 1 654 7 5 8 -2 wet 1,101.4

+7.7% 7,709 (88%) 162.1 1,654.7 5.8 -

2 dry 1,186.6 7,709 (88%) 166.3 1,904.6 6.5 0.8 3 wet 1,053.7

+4.1% 7,446 (85%) 125.3 1,982.8 6.4 -

3 dry 1,097.3 7,446 (85%) 127.6 2,233.0 7.1 9.0 4 et 1 225 0 7 446 (85%) 162 1 1 482 1 5 0

Lowest TIC percentage increase for the oxy fuel case:

4 wet 1,225.0 +6.0%

7,446 (85%) 162.1 1,482.1 5.0 -4 dry 1,298.7 7,446 (85%) 165.9 1,670.1 5.6 7.3 5 wet 1,378.7

+5.9% 7,446 (85%) 175.7 1,887.9 6.3 -

5 dry 1,460.1 7,446 (85%) 179.8 2,175.7 7.1 0.9 Lowest TIC percentage increase for the oxy-fuel case:- CO2 purification leads to the condensation of the water from the boiler flue

gases. No need for further water recovery system in the dry land casesM h l d l d i t ASU d i t l O f


- Much lower dry land impact on ASU compressors and intercoolers: O2 fromASU made available at a lower pressure with respect to IGCC


investment cost

% TIC increase

Yearly operating

hours

Yearly O&M costs

Specific Investment

cost

COE


M€ % hours

h/y M€/y cost


1 wet 880.1 + 5.0%

7,884 (90%) 133.6 1,161.6 4.0 - 1 dry 924.6 7,884 (90%) 135.9 1,275.3 4.3 3.3 2 wet 1 101 4 7 709 (88%) 162 1 1 654 7 5 8 -2 wet 1,101.4

+7.7% 7,709 (88%) 162.1 1,654.7 5.8 -

2 dry 1,186.6 7,709 (88%) 166.3 1,904.6 6.5 0.8 3 wet 1,053.7

+4.1% 7,446 (85%) 125.3 1,982.8 6.4 -

3 dry 1,097.3 7,446 (85%) 127.6 2,233.0 7.1 9.0 4 et 1 225 0 7 446 (85%) 162 1 1 482 1 5 04 wet 1,225.0

+6.0% 7,446 (85%) 162.1 1,482.1 5.0 -

4 dry 1,298.7 7,446 (85%) 165.9 1,670.1 5.6 7.3 5 wet 1,378.7

+5.9% 7,446 (85%) 175.7 1,887.9 6.3 -

5 dry 1,460.1 7,446 (85%) 179.8 2,175.7 7.1 0.9

Variable O&M costs: the only significant difference is the water make-up in IGCC

Fixed O&M costs: partially constant (fuel, labour and consumables); partiallyincreased proportionally with the investment cost of the plant on the same basis


increased proportionally with the investment cost of the plant on the same basisas the wet land case (maintenance, insurance and local taxes)


investment cost

% TIC increase

Yearly operating

hours

Yearly O&M costs

Specific Investment

cost

COE


M€ % hours

h/y M€/y cost


1 wet 880.1 + 5.0%

7,884 (90%) 133.6 1,161.6 4.0 - 1 dry 924.6 7,884 (90%) 135.9 1,275.3 4.3 3.3 2 wet 1 101 4 7 709 (88%) 162 1 1 654 7 5 8 -2 wet 1,101.4

+7.7% 7,709 (88%) 162.1 1,654.7 5.8 -

2 dry 1,186.6 7,709 (88%) 166.3 1,904.6 6.5 0.8 3 wet 1,053.7

+4.1% 7,446 (85%) 125.3 1,982.8 6.4 -

3 dry 1,097.3 7,446 (85%) 127.6 2,233.0 7.1 9.0 4 et 1 225 0 7 446 (85%) 162 1 1 482 1 5 04 wet 1,225.0

+6.0% 7,446 (85%) 162.1 1,482.1 5.0 -

4 dry 1,298.7 7,446 (85%) 165.9 1,670.1 5.6 7.3 5 wet 1,378.7

+5.9% 7,446 (85%) 175.7 1,887.9 6.3 -

5 dry 1,460.1 7,446 (85%) 179.8 2,175.7 7.1 0.9

Cost of water saved very low in USC-PC with CCS and in IGCC with CCS. Thesignificant increase in investment cost (approx +85M€) is compensated by thehuge amount of water saved (approx 270 t/h)



investment cost

% TIC increase

Yearly operating

hours

Yearly O&M costs

Specific Investment

cost

COE


M€ % hours

h/y M€/y cost


1 wet 880.1 + 5.0%

7,884 (90%) 133.6 1,161.6 4.0 - 1 dry 924.6 7,884 (90%) 135.9 1,275.3 4.3 3.3 2 wet 1 101 4 7 709 (88%) 162 1 1 654 7 5 8 -2 wet 1,101.4

+7.7% 7,709 (88%) 162.1 1,654.7 5.8 -

2 dry 1,186.6 7,709 (88%) 166.3 1,904.6 6.5 0.8 3 wet 1,053.7

+4.1% 7,446 (85%) 125.3 1,982.8 6.4 -

3 dry 1,097.3 7,446 (85%) 127.6 2,233.0 7.1 9.0 4 et 1 225 0 7 446 (85%) 162 1 1 482 1 5 04 wet 1,225.0

+6.0% 7,446 (85%) 162.1 1,482.1 5.0 -

4 dry 1,298.7 7,446 (85%) 165.9 1,670.1 5.6 7.3 5 wet 1,378.7

+5.9% 7,446 (85%) 175.7 1,887.9 6.3 -

5 dry 1,460.1 7,446 (85%) 179.8 2,175.7 7.1 0.9

Cost of water saved much higher in the oxyfuel case. Low investment costincrease (+46 M€) is needed for a limited amount of water saved (33 t/h). This isbecause the water requirement is small also in the wet land case


Normalized cost of electricityy

163% 159%

178% 178%180%

200%

100%108%

145%

163% 159%

126%139%

157%

120%

140%

160%

100%

60%

80%

100%+12%

+12%

+10%

+13%

0%

20%

40% +8%

1 wet 1 dry 2 wet 2 dry 3 wet 3 dry 4 wet 4 dry 5 wet 5 dry

COE percentage increase falls in a relative narrow range of variation (8% and


13%)

THANK YOUTHANK YOUTHANK YOUTHANK YOU

A tiAny question:[email protected]

[email protected]

www.fwc.comwww.fosterwheeler.it

2010 EPRI Advanced Coal & CO2 Capture & Storage Seminar - Rome

Water Usage and Loss of Power in Plants with CO2 Capture ...

Documents

Transcript of Water Usage and Loss of Power in Plants with CO2 Capture ...