336 d. ciragoglu
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Like this? Share it with your network





Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



1 Embed 4

http://www.ese.iitb.ac.in 4



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

336 d. ciragoglu Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Devlet Ciragoglu 1*, Yıldırım İ. Tosun 2 1,2 Faculty of Engineering, University Sırnak, Sırnak * Corresponding Author. Tel: +90(538) 3642045, Fax: (486) 2164844, E-mail: dciragoglu@sirnak.edu.tr 1
  • 2. Aim  Deposition of gasified products plays an important role in providing the power generation fuels and chemicals.  Subsoil deposition of waste gas of power plant for Sırnak asphaltite  Under ground deposition of natural gas or waste gas CO2 into the coal mine rooms regarded in energy aspect 2
  • 3. Scope  The underground deposition process for waste gas     of Sırnak asphaltite , The subground space use, Civil construction of gas reservoir for waste gas and flue gas. The process can accept methane coal gas drainage. Deposition methane coal gas into sub soil caves. 3
  • 4.  Our main contribution is in analyzing the economic issues related with methane drainage enhancement, which can be seen as a follow-up to the technical issues. CCS technology may become available in the Turkish market and that current cost projections and expected efficiencies may be rational values. We may see profitmaximizing conditions in the methane drainage and gas market. Methane production may retrofit to install CCS in power plants under plausible values of an environment tax. 4
  • 5.  The absorption technology for capturing carbon dioxide from natural gas streams was developed more than 60 years ago to produce a more pure natural gas stream. The technology of sequestering carbon dioxide from a power plant’s flue gas was first implemented more than 20 years ago. city from coal and 48 percent from natural gas. Globally, coal and natural gas will continue to meet growing energy demand, particularly in emerging market counties, such as China and India [2, 4]. From 2007 to 2011, China’s total coal consumption increased by nearly 50 percent, while India’s increased by nearly 33 percent. During that same time period, China’s total natural gas consumption increased by more than 85 percent, while India’s increased by approximately 48 percent. CCS technology has the potential to yield dramatic reductions in CO2 emissions from the power and industrial sectors by capturing and storing anthropogenic CO2 in underground geological formations. Given the magnitude of CO2 emissions from coal and natural gas fired electricity generation, the greatest potential for CCS is in the power sector. 5
  • 6. CO2 separation options using membrane separation, cryogenic fractionation, absorption and adsorption 6
  • 7. CO2 capturing process with amine solutions 7
  • 8. 1/10000 Satelite image Coal Bed Methane Drainage Site in circle of Coal Mine Site, Sırnak, Turkey. 8
  • 9. Industrial cost of CO2 Capture and Transport. Industrial CO2 Source Cost of CO2 Capture and Transport ($/ ton CO2) Coal and biomass-to- 36.10 liquids Natural gas 36.29 processing Hydrogen plants 36.67 to 46.12 Refineries (Hydrogen) 36.67 to 46.12 Ammonia plants 39.69 Ethanol plants 42.15 Cement plants 81.08 9
  • 10. Effect of injection distance over CH4 Desorption from Coal Bed at 20 bar in 28 day. 10
  • 11. 0 Distance to Injection Well Point,m 2 4 6 8 10 12 Vertical Distance to Bottom Clay Layer,m 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 1 gün 7 gün 14gün 28 gün 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 11
  • 12. Distance to Injection Well Point,m Methane Sorption ,% 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 12
  • 13. Parameter Units Sırnak Plant w/CO2 Contr ol Net plant capacity MW (net) 135 75 CO2 emission rate g CO2/kWh (net) 750 83 SO2 emission rate g SO2/kWh (net) 15 0.003 NOx emission rate g NOx/kWh (net) 0.4 0.5 CO2 sequestered - 5 60 tonne CO2/yr Cost of electricity $/MWh (net) 39.2 CO2 mitigation co $/tonne CO2 avoid st ed 57.0 39.1 13
  • 14. CO2 capture Cost, $/ton 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 0 Methane Fuel Drainage Cost, $/1000m3 10 2 4 6 8
  • 15. •At projected capacity at near 200.000 m3/yr of coal seam gas per year we can manage proposed 40% gas yield and the cost of methane drainage mainly was changed on drainage performances in coal production method in-situ excavation site . •CO2 capturing and transporting and sequestering costs are decreased with flue gas desulfurization cost and even legal environmental taxes. Methane drainage will be enhanced with CO2 capturing and transporting and sequestering in the old excavated coal seams. As given in Figure 4, it could be revealed that CO2 capturing, transporting and sequestering costs with methane drainage decreased to near 11$/ton of CO2. 15
  • 16. •The present study has established a framework for quantifying amine (MEA) based absorption systems applied to coal fired power plants. •The present study has confirmed that fuel methane cost especially depended on coal seam parameters such as methane drainage depth and local coal seam methane content and also applied to coal fired power plants. 16
  • 17. 17