Webinar: Post-combusion carbon capture - Thermodynamic modelling


Published on

Vladimir Vaysman from WorleyParsons gave a Global CCS Institute webinar on 12 March 2013 to present a generic methodology developed to provide independent verification of the impact on a coal–fired power station of installing and operating a post-combustion capture plant.

Vladimir illustrated the methodology using Loy Yang A power station in Australia in five different scenarios that cover carbon capture, air cooling, coal drying and plant optimisation.

The methodology offers a sound approach to provide performance data and protect technology vendor IP while also providing confidence to the wider CCS community to evaluate a project.

Vladimir is a Project Manager with more than 31 years of engineering experience, including 14 years with WorleyParsons. He has undertaken an array of design and analysis studies and developed significant expertise across a range of technologies, from pulverised coal and circulating fluidised bed, to integrated gasification combined cycle and carbon capture. Vladimir has participated in projects in Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Kazakhstan, Korea, Malaysia, Moldova, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Russia and Ukraine.

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Webinar: Post-combusion carbon capture - Thermodynamic modelling

  1. 1. Post Combustion Carbon Capture Thermodynamic Modeling by Vladimir Vaysman – Project Manager, WorleyParsons Reading, PA, USA – 11 March 2013
  2. 2. At the heart of most first-of-a-kind carbon capture projects, there are challenges for: 1 Project developers and financiers Accurate prediction of lifecycle costs 2 Regulators − Permitting and approval under existing models of environmental, planning and energy law. − Protection of technology provider’s IP 3 Communities − Understanding cost, resources, emissions 4 Carbon capture technology providers − Protection of expensive IP Background
  3. 3. The Global CCS Institute (GCCSI) has supported WorleyParsons to go through a process (study) to: Create a methodology to assist power station owners with the validation of performance and potential impacts on their facility operation. In so doing, to work with: a. Carbon capture project proponents Loy Yang Power and Energy Australia (formerly TruEnergy), and b. Carbon capture technology provider Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI), c. Coal drying technology provider – Great River Energy (GRE) while: Protecting the IP of the technology providers. Project Outline
  4. 4.  Loy Yang Power • Acquired by AGL (100% ownership) in June 2012. Owns and operates the Loy Yang A Power Station (2,200MW) and the adjacent Loy Yang coal mine in the state of Victoria, Australia • Is Victoria’s largest electricity generation facility supplying approximately one third of the state’s electricity requirements and supplies the equivalent of 8% of total generation for Victoria and the states of New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory, from a National Electricity Market perspective  Energy Australia (formerly TRUenergy) • Is an investor, generator and retailer in Australian energy and is committed to reducing emissions from the portfolio through Energy Australia’s climate change strategy announced in July 2007. • Is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the CLP Group, which is publicly listed in Hong Kong. CLP is one of the largest investor-owned power businesses in the Asia Pacific region and operates in Hong Kong, Australia, India, China, Taiwan and Thailand and has a market capitalization of approximately A$21 billion  Mitsubishi Heavy Industries • Is a leading global heavy machinery manufacturing and engineering company with a wide range of products including fossil & nuclear power systems, chemical plants, renewable energy technology, environmental control systems, aerospace systems, economical aircraft ocean going ships and other heavy industrial equipment • (PCC) technology is considered one of the most important product categories applicable to power generation in the future due to GHG and carbon dioxide abatement legislation which is expected to be introduced in many countries over the coming years Proponents
  5. 5.  Great River Energy (GRE) • Is a Cooperative Power producer serving 1.7 million people in rural Minnesota, USA, operates 8 Power Plants (plus 2 in permitting stage), and 4,500 miles of transmission lines • GRE has developed and patented a unique coal drying and coal upgrading technology, termed DryFining • DryFining system (~ 1,000 tons/hr) is in commercial operation since December 2009 at the GRE Coal Creek station  WorleyParsons • Is one of the world's largest engineering and project delivery companies and has serviced the global resource, energy and infrastructure markets for over 30 years • Has extensive experience in the design and construction of CO2 capture, compression and pipeline transport, and the range of issues for deep geological storage • Has provided carbon capture plant design, and support contractor services for over 27 years to energy customers and national research organizations including the U.S. DoE and the EPRI Proponents
  6. 6. Independent evaluation requires the following critical roles:  Independent engineering contractor: Cooperative Power producer serving 1.7 million people in rural Minnesota, USA, operates 8 Power Selects modelling software , defines project scope, models power plant and integration of the PCC plant, coal drying plant and assessment of resulting plant performance  Host (Owner) of plant or unit: Provides the data of the power station’s boiler and steam turbine to Independent engineering contractor and PCC process provider. Provides resources to validate the thermodynamic models by comparing the outputs with real plant performance data  Technology (PCC process IP proprietor) provider: Provides data for operation of the core PCC-process including all inputs and outputs for a 5000tpd PCC plant retrofit  Technology (Coal Drying process IP proprietor) provider: Provides data for operation of the coal drying process including all inputs and outputs for a boiler retrofit Methodology Project Execution Roles
  7. 7. A case study to demonstrate the methodology to retrofit an existing Loy Yang A Power Station sub-critical PC (brown coal) fired unit with a commercial sized (5,000 tpd) PCC plant for the partial capture of CO2, while assessing process improvements, including: − a coal drying plant, and − integration of the PCC plant The methodology: − can be extended to similar retrofit or green-field applications of PCC-technology − does not model the transportation and storage of CO2 Methodology Study Framework
  8. 8. Involves selection of “cases” for actual study: Methodology Study Framework Base Plant PCC Plant Coal Drying Plant Optimisation Air Cooled Operation Base Case X Case 1 X X Case 2 X X X Case 3 X X X X Case 4 X X X Case 5 X X X X X
  9. 9. Methodology Overall Study Methodology
  10. 10. Importance of defining the evaluation methodology in the initial project phase Parameters chosen will depend on the technology evaluated In this project, the following are important for carbon capture facilities:  Steam Extraction Supply to PCC plant, MWth  Auxiliary Power Supply to PCC plant, MWe  CO2 Compression Power, MWe  Power Station Net Sent Out Generation, MWe  Water Requirements for the retrofit PCC plant, ML  CO2 emissions intensity per net power generated, kg CO2/ MWh net The following were added to address the impact of the coal drying process:  Power Unit Net Efficiency, %  Impact of Coal Drying Plant on Auxiliary Power Demand, MWe Methodology Definition of Evaluation Methodology
  11. 11. As recommended by the independent peer reviewer, a calculated Electricity Output Penalty (EOP) was also used to compare results for the different cases EOP = Net Power Output Reduction (kWhe/tCO2) CO2 captured mass flow where:- − Net Power Output Reduction (kW) = [Base Case Net generation (kW) ] – [Study Case Net Generation (kW) normalized to the Base case fuel input] CO2 captured mass flow (tonnes/h) Study Case Net Generation = Study Case Gross Generation − [Study Case base plant auxiliary power + PCC auxiliary power (including CO2 Compression ) + Coal Drying auxiliary power] Auxiliary power is the parasitic (power) loads of the plant/equipment of the respective base plant, PCC plant and coal drying plant Methodology Definition of Evaluation Methodology
  12. 12. On this project, the software selected was: LYA Power Plant (Base Case Plant) Modelling Software  Commercially available software packages were assessed: 1. GE’s GateCycleTM 2. ThermoflowTM’s SteamPro 3. ThermoflowTM’s Themoflex  GateCycleTM software was chosen, because we feel: • It is easier to use for analysing off-design runs and “what if” scenarios • It allows the as-built Loy Yang A plant to be modelled more accurately using the component-by-component approach Methodology Selection of Software Tools
  13. 13.  Post Combustion Capture Plant Software • The PCC technology IP proprietor used their own software and provided WorleyParsons the relevant Vendor performance information/data • Validated using a third-party model to test the expected performance • The process undertaken involved simulating the output of the Loy Yang A boiler (flue gas flow, temperature, characteristics, etc.) and using an embedded PCC model in SteamPro software Methodology Selection of Software Tools
  14. 14.  Coal Drying Plant Software  Simulated using proprietary MS Excel-based model developed by the Lehigh University for Great River Energy (GRE), the coal drying technology proprietor  Validation of coal drying was carried out by a high level design check for the integration of coal drying plant with the coal fired power plant  Data provided by the coal drying IP Proprietor is sufficiently defined and understood by the validating consultant  The process undertaken for the coal drying involved simulating the output of the Loy Yang A boiler (flue gas flow, temperature, characteristics, etc.) and carrying out a number of iterations with the data generated on Lehigh University’s Excel- based model Methodology Selection of Software Tools
  15. 15. Data collection and review, as input for the thermodynamic modelling Set up the thermodynamic model • validate it so that it reproduces the existing unit’s performance • provides assurance that the model will predict cycle performance under the various design modes For each design case, perform simulations and produce • overall block flow diagrams • host unit power plant heat and mass balance diagrams Validate results against real performance data (where possible) or against general thermodynamic and process requirements Methodology Construct and Validate the Thermodynamic Models
  16. 16. Establish Evaluation Basis  Site Conditions  Coal Specification  Boiler Inputs and Outputs and limitations (flue gas composition, P, T, flow rate)  Steam Cycle inputs and Outputs (Heat & Mass Balance diagrams for several operating modes)  Plant Cooling system parameters  Required CO2 capture efficiency, CO2 pipeline parameters The above information is critical design input for technology providers to develop  PCC Data  Coal Drying Data Plant Configuration and Technology
  17. 17. Loy Yang A Power Station Plant Block Flow Diagram of Existing Power Station retrofitted with Coal Drying and PCC Plant
  18. 18. Establish Evaluation Basis The 5,000 tpd PCC plant has three main sections: (1) Flue gas pre-treatment section (2) CO2 capture section (3) CO2 Compression and Dehydration section PCC Plant Technical Process Description
  19. 19. For one study case (Case 5), the air cooling system will replace the wet cooling system of the PCC plant for:  Flue Gas Cooling Water Cooler  Wash Water Cooler  Lean Solution Cooler  Absorption Intermediate Cooler  Regenerator Condenser  1st Stage to 6th Stage Discharge Coolers  Low/High Pressure Stage CO2 Compressor Stage Cooler PCC PCC Plant Dry Air Cooling System
  20. 20. Coal Drying plant Waste Heat Coal Bag House Fines Refined Coal
  21. 21. Base Case: Host Unit - LYA Power Plant
  22. 22. Case 1: Host Unit and Post Combustion Capture Plant Model
  23. 23. Case 2: Host Unit with Coal Drying Plant Model
  24. 24. Case 3: Host Unit with Coal Drying, PCC Plant, Optimization
  25. 25. Case 4: Host Unit with PCC Plant and Optimization
  26. 26. Case 5: Host Unit with Coal Drying, PCC Plant (with Air Cooling) and Optimization
  27. 27. Validation of Methodology by Independent Peer Review This validation process focused on the review of the methodology, not review specific performance data from either the power station or the PCC process The Independent Peer Reviewer do not have access to any proprietary information from either the power station or the technology IP proprietors The validation was carried out through close involvement of the Independent Peer Reviewer in the following phases: • Kick-off meeting and definition of methodology at the start of the project • Intermediate methodology review after the base cases have been established • Final review at project end
  28. 28. Post Combustion Capture Integration
  29. 29. Post Combustion Capture Integration
  30. 30. Post Combustion Capture Integration Operating Flexibility of Power Station Boiler Plant • The power station’s boiler plant should be able to operate at the modelled design conditions without any adverse effect • In the model cases where coal drying is integrated, the minimum dried coal moisture content was selected so as not to have any adverse impact on the flue gas acid dew point in the existing power station stack Operating Flexibility of PCC Plant • The PCC plants should have an ability to adjust to Power Station load changes • Only a slipstream of the flue gas is being processed by the PCC in the studied configuration
  31. 31. Post Combustion Capture Integration Implications of an actual PCC Retrofit with Coal Drying • Engineering and addition of the PCC plant and CO2 compression system, modifications to the boiler flue gas system, steam cycle/condensate systems, and additions/modifications to the balance of plant systems • It is recommended to further investigate aspects related to the above, including : • Impact of changes on the existing ID fan and stack operation (not taken into account in this assessment, e.g. in Cases 2, 3 and 4) • Impact of the flue gas cooler that results in the flue gas temperature and volumetric flow rate to the stack being reduced as compared to the Base Case (e.g. Case 4) • Adequacy of the existing stack liner material given flue gas temperature entering the stack will be lower as compared to the Base Case
  32. 32. Results Power Generation Outputs CO2 CAPTURE SUMMARY Base Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 CO2 Captured, (tpd) - 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 CO2 Produced, (tpd) 14,831 14,831 14,081 14,081 14,854 14,081 CO2 Emitted, (tpd) 14,831 9,831 9,081 9,081 9,854 9,081 Gross Specific Emission, (kg/kWh) 1.086 0.772 0.717 0.708 0.743 0.708 Net Specific Emission, (kg/kWh) 1.185 0.917 0.849 0.836 0.877 0.836 Electricity Output Penalty, (kWh/t CO2 ) - 419.89 274.70 233.60 284.36 233.60 SYSTEM CONFIGURATION Base Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Base Plant X X X X X X PCC Plant X X X X X Coal Drying X X X Plant Optimization X X X Air Cooled (PCC Plant Only) X POWER GENERATION SUMMARY kW kW kW kW kW kW Main Steam Turbine Generation 568,960 530,810 527,700 528,840 549,390 528,840 Expander Generation 5,320 3,130 5,320 Total Gross Power Generation 568,960 530,810 527,700 534,160 552,520 534,160 Net Power Generation 521,380 446,460 445,840 452,380 468,270 452,480 Net Power Output Reduction - 74,920 75,540 69,000 53,110 68,900 Gross Plant Efficiency, % 31.46% 29.35% 30.74% 31.12% 30.53% 31.12% Net Plant Efficiency, % 28.82% 24.68% 25.97% 26.36% 25.88% 26.36% AUXILIARY LOAD POWER SUMMARY kW kW kW kW kW kW Base Plant Auxiliary Load 47,580 47,450 44,350 44,270 47,350 44,170 PCC Plant Auxiliary Load - 36,900 34,500 34,500 * 36,900 * 34,500 Coal Drying Plant Auxiliary Load - - 3,010 3,010 - 3,010 Total Plant Auxiliary Load Power 47,580 84,350 81,860 81,780 * 84,250 * 81,680 Note: (*) The actual PCC Plant Auxiliary Load and hence the Total Plant Auxiliary Load for Case 4 and Case 5 will be either equal or less than the figures shown in table above. For the purpose of this study, a detailed assessment of the PCC auxiliary load has not been carried out.
  33. 33. Results Retrofit PCC Makeup Water Requirements
  34. 34. Application of the Modelling Methodology Adaptability to a Generic Coal Fired Power Plant • The models (GateCycleTM ) built of power station steam cycle, coal drying process and PCC process) are able to be adapted for use on a generic subcritical coal fired power plant that is to be retrofitted with a post combustion carbon capture plant • The proposed methodology can be universally adopted for the independent valuation of CCS-project performance impacts • Whilst the specific outcomes of each step will differ, the general steps to be taken are broadly similar Other Plausible Model Cases • This study has only included five model cases based on one specific PCC process technology, where a specific solvent is utilised for carbon capture • The same methodology can be applied in evaluating other cases with different solvent types employed in post combustion capture • This is on the basis of experience gained from recent confidential WorleyParsons’ study projects delivered to various customers
  35. 35. Conclusions • The methodology adopted in this study achieves the project goal • It is important to minimize the technology vendor’s “black box” as much as possible from the remaining plant • Selection of suitable software tools is critical to achieving the project goals since there is no software package currently available that is able to integrate all required technology components • The cases selected for this study are targeted to identify and compare sensitivities of energy penalties of different technical solutions with a specific and pre-selected PCC technology, and several approaches to reduce the energy penalty associated with the PCC retrofit have been assessed in the course of this work • Findings suggest that an additional cost benefit analysis needs to be undertaken to establish which design approach is most beneficial and/or of net advantage in reducing the overall cost of CO2 capture in subcritical coal- fired power plants firing high moisture coals
  36. 36. Recommendations • The specifics of the methodology described in this report were developed in relation to retrofit of PCC to a particular power plant. This methodology can, in general, be applied for such projects on other plants • It is recommended that an independent evaluation be included at every critical stage of a PCC project • This evaluation concludes that the thermodynamic modelling and integration of a PCC plant into an existing or new fossil fuel fired power station can be performed with commercially available software
  37. 37. References • WorleyParsons, 29th July-2010, ‘DryFiningTM, Coal Drying Prefeasibility Study Phase 1a Report, Rev 0’, WorleyParsons, Melbourne • Sinclair Knight Merz, 29th September 2009, ‘Power Enhancement Project, Post Upgrade Report Units1, 3 and 4, Final’, Sinclair Knight Merz, Melboune • HRL Technology Pty Ltd, August 2007, ‘Loy Yang A Power Station - Unit 3 Net Unit Heat Rate Tests Pre And Post-Upgrades Conducted 22nd March and 6th June 2007 Report No: Hlc/2007/111’, HRL Technology Pty Ltd, Melbourne • WorleyParsons, 20th January 2012, ‘Loy Yang Large Scale Demonstration PCC Plant Basis of Design, Rev 2’, WorleyParsons, Melbourne • HRL Technology Pty Ltd, August 2011, ‘Emissions Sampling On Loy Yang A Unit 4, Flue 1 and 2, 27 - 30 June 2011 (High Load) 19 – 22 July 2011 (Low Load); Report No: HLC/2011/244’, HRL Technology Pty Ltd, Melbourne • WorleyParsons, 19th December 2011, ‘Loy Yang Large Scale Demonstration PCC Plant - Efficiency Offset Study’, WorleyParsons, Melbourne • Lucquiaud,M, Gibbins, J, March 2011, ‘On the integration of CO2 capture with coal-fired power plants: A methodology to assess and optimize solvent-based post-combustion capture systems’, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, The Institution of Chemical Engineers, (doi:10.1016/j.cherd.2011.03.003), Elsevier B.V. • Lucquiaud, M, Gibbins, J, November 2010, ‘Effective retrofitting of post-combustion CO2 capture to coal-fired power plants and insensitivity of CO2 abatement costs to base plant efficiency’, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, (doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2010.09.003), Elsevier B.V. • Independent Peer Reviewer, ‘Notes on effective thermodynamic post-combustion capture integration and sensitivity analyses of the thermodynamic model developed for the PCC retrofit’, Peer Reviewer, Melbourne
  38. 38. For further information contact: Vladimir Vaysman Project Manager - Select 2675 Morgantown Rd. Reading PA 19607 United States of America Tel: +1-610-855-2588 e-mail: vladimir.vaysman@worleyparsons.com Or Matt Robinson Power Sector Manager Level 12, 333 Collins Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Australia Tel: +61-(0)-3-86763775 e-mail: matthew.robinson@worleyparsons.com www.worleyparsons.com