Webinar: CCS system modelling and simulation

1,771 views

Published on

As carbon capture and storage (CCS) moves towards large-scale commercialisation, stakeholders along the CCS chain are required to address and resolve design and operability details, from generation to storage, at a commercial scale for the first time.

As in other sectors, process simulation and modelling are key technologies for performing design calculations and analysis operations. Indeed, there is little that is new in terms of individual CCS chain components; conventional power stations, amine based CO2 capture plants, pipelines and compressors are mostly well understood.

However, there are still significant challenges in the commercial implementation of CCS. These arise principally from the fact that the whole CCS chain needs to be considered as a single system in order to make design and operation decisions that satisfactorily address the commercial imperatives and risk requirements of the various stakeholders along the chain.

The United Kingdom’s Energy Technologies Institute commissioned and co-funded a £3 million CCS System Modelling Toolkit involving E.On, EDF, Rolls-Royce, CO2DeepStore, Process Systems Enterprise and E4tech to deliver a robust, fully-integrated toolkit that can be used by CCS stakeholders across the whole CCS chain. The commercial tool arising from the project – gCCS – will be available in early 2014.

gCCS will contain a full complement of models for conventional power generation, new power generation, solvent-based carbon capture, compression, transmission and injection. In addition, it will be possible to incorporate models of other plants, such as air separation units, using commercially-available capabilities, or to create custom models that can be incorporated within the environment. The system will be able to model both steady-state and dynamic operation. It will also include costing capabilities for use in rigorous mathematical optimisation that can include both continuous and discrete decisions, providing a common basis for techno-economic decisions across the chain.

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
3 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,771
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
301
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
3
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • ETI surveyed their members for requirements for CCS technology development and system modelling was identified as one of the key enabling technologies.
  • Steady state scenarios – Standalone power plantCCS chain with Full load power plant and 90% CO2 captureCCS chain with Full load power plant and 50% CO2 captureCCS chain with 75% load power plant and 90% CO2 captureCCS chain with 50% load power plant and 90% CO2 captureCCS chain with Full load power plant and 90% CO2 capture in summer conditionsCCS chain with Full load power plant and 90% CO2 capture in winter conditions
  • DS 1.1 consists of Steady state conditions (full load) maintained for five hours.Continuously reducing the power plant load from 100% to 75% (5%/min) Subsequently maintaining 75% load for 1 hour Net output of the power plant is ramped up back to 100%Steady state conditions maintained for >23 hoursDS 1.2 consists of Steady state conditions (full load) maintained for five hours.Continuously reducing the power plant load from 100% to 75% (5%/min) Steady state conditions (75% load)maintained for >42 hours
  • ASUblack box model, estimates air and power consumption O2 is compressed to gasifier working pressure (~ 44 bar)N2 is compressed to GT inlet pressure (~ 27 bar)GasificationGasification occurs at high temperatures (~ 1400 ºC), yielding syngas & molten ash (slag)Reaction is cooled with BFW, generating MP steamSyngas is quenched with cold syngas to decrease temperature and prevent equipment damageSyngas is cooled in a series of heat exchangers, generating HP & MP steamProduced steam is used in other process blocksSyngas ConditioningSyngas at ~275 ºC is saturated in water and heated with WGS reactor #3 outlet stream to prevent condensation in WGS reactorsAt WGS reactor #1 inlet, steam is injected to meet a steam:CO molar ratio of ~2CO and H2O are shifted to H2 and CO2 in 3 stages of WGS reactors (standard in pre-combustion capture)At the same time, COS is shifted to H2S (H2S removal in AGR processes is more efficient)WGS reaction is exothermic and syngas is cooled between stages generating HP & MP steamWGS reactor #3 outlet is cooled in several integration HE with:Syngas saturator outletNitrogen from ASU“Clean” syngas from AGRAcid gas removalSyngas is further cooled with in gas/gas heat exchangers (GGH) (with nitrogen and clean syngas streams)Water is knocked out before syngas is fed to the acid gas removal unitPhysical absorption processes (e.g. Selexol, Rectisol) are preferred since there is a high acid gas partial pressureThe physical absorption process is represented by a simplified capture plant model, where the splits desired CO2 and acid gas (H2S,COS) are specifiedAcid gas stream (H2S, CO2 and COS sent to the SRU) usually contains some CO2 which is recycled back to AGR inlet, to simplify the flowsheet, the simplified capture plant sends an acid gas stream consisting of only H2S & COSSRU model incorporates sulphur recovery unit (O2-blown Claus process) + tail gas treatment processes (Shell ClausOffgas Treating,SCOT, process). It is a black box based on E.ON knowledge and estimates O2 and power consumption and steam export flow rateGas turbineConventional gas turbine, main difference is the fuel LHV, which is up to four times less than natural gas because of the requirement for dilution with N2.
  • Webinar: CCS system modelling and simulation

    1. 1. CCS System Modelling and Simulation Webinar – 21 November 2013, 1600 GMT
    2. 2. Webinar Program 2013-14              CCS systems integration (ROAD) Making the business case for CCS (2Co) Global Status of CCS: 2013 (Global CCS Institute) North West Sturgeon Refinery Project overview (North West Redwater Partnership) Commercial structures for CO2 networks (National Grid) Whole-chain system modelling for CCS (gCCS) Pipeline design and operation (ECOFYS) Progressing onshore storage in Europe (CIUDEN) The role of export credit agencies, commercial banks and multilateral banks in funding CCS demonstration projects (Société Générale) TCEP business case and contracting strategy (Summit Power) Key social research findings (CSIRO) ULCOS stakeholder engagement (ArcelorMittal) Relative permeability guideline (Stanford University) http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/get-involved/webinars
    3. 3. QUESTIONS  We will collect questions during the presentation.  Your MC will pose these questions to the presenter after the presentation.  Please submit your questions directly into the GoToWebinar control panel. The webinar will start shortly.
    4. 4. Alfredo Ramos Plasencia  Worked at PSE in a range of roles, starting as a consultant in 2006 and working up to his current role as Vice President Strategic Business Development CCS & Power.  Prior to this, Alfredo worked in water services and at Aachen University in Germany.  He graduated from Aachen University in 2000 with a Master of Science in Chemical Engineering.  Alfredo will provide an overview of CCS System Modelling and Simulation and will present some of the capabilities of gCCS, which is being developed by PSE.
    5. 5. THE ADVANCED PROCESS modelling COMPANY CCS System Modelling and Simulation Alfredo Ramos, Head of Power & CCS Business Unit A webinar hosted by the Global CCS Institute November 21st 2013 A gPROMS PLATFORM PRODUCT © 2013 Process Systems Enterprise Limited
    6. 6. Overview  PSE Introduction  Systems modelling for CCS  Case Study System description Steady-state analysis Dynamic analysis  Conclusions © 2013 Process Systems Enterprise Limited
    7. 7. PSE HISTORY: FROM RESEARCH TO INDUSTRY 1989 – 1997 1997 Now USA 100s of person-years of R&D with industry Company ‘spun out’ Acquires technology Simulation & modelling, optimisation, numerical solutions techniques, supply chain Private, independent company incorporated in UK London HQ Saudi Arabia India Germany Thailand    Malaysia China Software and services (60:40) Major process industry focus – all sectors Strong R&D Strong commercials Royal Academy MacRobert Award for Engineering Innovation © 2013 Process Systems Enterprise Limited Japan Advanced Process Modelling  UK’s highest engineering award Korea
    8. 8. BUs responsible for business & product development Oil & Gas Chemicals & Petrochemicals Life Sciences, Consumer & Fine Chemicals Software Technology Group The gPROMS platform Equation-oriented modelling & solution engine © 2013 Process Systems Enterprise Limited Power & CCS
    9. 9. Systems modelling for CCS © 2013 Process Systems Enterprise Limited
    10. 10. CCS challenges Multiple stakeholders with different issues & challenges Government Policy Strategic Infrastructure development H&S Optimal operating point Efficiency Tools New design Various in-house Impurities Control Safety Grid demand Flexibility Efficiency Fuel mix Trip scenarios Sizing Flexibility Buffer storage Amine loading Tools Capital cost gPROMS optimization PROMAX Energy sacrifice Plus Aspen Heat integration Solvent issues Tools PROATES Dymola GTPro Aspen Plus Composition effects Phase behavior Tools Capacity OLGA Buffering / packing PIPESIM Routing Safety Depressurisation Control Leak detection Injection/storage Compression Supply variability Composition Thermodynamics Tools Temperatures / hydrates OLGA Well performance Prosper/Gap Long-term storage dynamics Back-pressures …currently being addressed by point solutions © 2013 Process Systems Enterprise Limited
    11. 11. System-wide modelling Key enabling technology for CCS  Explore complex decision space rapidly based on high-fidelity, technically realistic models resolve own technical and economic issues take into account upstream & downstream behavior   Manage interactions and trade-offs Evaluate technology – existing and next-generation judge relative merits of emerging technologies support consistent, future-proof choices  Integrating platform for working with other stakeholders in chain collaborative R&D, working with academia  Manage complexity and risk at multi-scale, network-wide level © 2013 Process Systems Enterprise Limited
    12. 12. The CCS System modelling Tool-kit Project 2011-2014  Energy Technologies Institute (ETI) ~$5m project commissioned & co-funded by the ETI Objective: “end-to-end” CCS modelling tool gPROMS modelling platform & expertise Project Management © 2013 Process Systems Enterprise Limited
    13. 13. gCCS initial scope (2014/Q2)  Process models Power generation Conventional: pulverised-coal, CCGT Non-conventional: oxy-fuelled, IGCC Solvent-based CO2 capture CO2 compression & liquefaction CO2 transportation CO2 injection in sub-sea storage  Materials models cubic EoS (PR 78) flue gas in power plant Corresponding States Model water/steam streams SAFT-VR SW/ SAFT- Mie amine-containing streams in CO2 capture SAFT- Mie near-pure post-capture CO2 streams Open architecture allows incorporation of 3rd party models © 2013 Process Systems Enterprise Limited
    14. 14. Why gSAFT? Accurate prediction of phase envelope for near-pure CO2 mixtures (Chapoy et al, 2011) © 2013 Process Systems Enterprise Limited
    15. 15. Case Study: CCS chain One of 4 major Case Studies designed to validate the tool © 2013 Process Systems Enterprise Limited
    16. 16. System overview Chemical absorption MEA solvent 90% CO2 capture 220km pipeline Dense phase CO2 Onshore and Offshore ~800MWe Supercritical Pulverized coal (acknowledgement: E.ON) © 2013 Process Systems Enterprise Limited 4 parallel compression trains 2 frames per train Surge control Offshore dense-phase (acknowledgement: Rolls-Royce) injection; 4 injection wells ~2km reservoir depth (acknowledgement: CO2DeepStore)
    17. 17. Sub-system #1 Supercritical pulverized coal power plant Governor valve Turbine sections Generator Boiler Air Coal Feed Water Heaters Flue gas treatment Deaerator Condenser > 10 recycles & closed water/steam loop © 2013 Process Systems Enterprise Limited
    18. 18. Sub-system #2 CO2 capture plant CO2 capture rate controler Solvent /water makeup controlers Absorber Condenser Stripper Reboiler CO2 inlet © 2013 Process Systems Enterprise Limited Direct Contact Cooler (DCC) Buffer Tank
    19. 19. Coupling between subsystems #1 and #2 Steam draw-off for amine regeneration Potential steam draw-off points Optimal drawoff point © 2013 Process Systems Enterprise Limited Pressure too high  efficiency penalty Pressure too low Pressure potentially too low at minimum plant loads
    20. 20. Sub-system #3 CO2 compression plant Fixed speed electric drive Variable speed electric drive Dehydration unit Compression section (Frame #1: 4 ; Frame #22) Cooler KO drum © 2013 Process Systems Enterprise Limited Surge valve
    21. 21. Sub-system #4 CO2 transmission pipelines Gate valve CO2 flowmeter Pipelines Schedule 40, 18’’ © 2013 Process Systems Enterprise Limited 20km -200m 160m Emergency shutdown valves (ESD) Vertical riser from sea bed 200km
    22. 22. Sub-system #5 CO2 injection & storage in reservoir Distribution header Choke valves Wellhead connections 20m above water, 70m submerged Wells 7’’, 2km Reservoir ~250 bar © 2013 Process Systems Enterprise Limited
    23. 23. System overview Chemical absorption MEA solvent 90% CO2 capture 220km of pipeline Onshore and Offshore  29,700 equations/variables  27,991 algebraic 4 compression trains  1,709 differential 2 frames per train ~800MWe  Computation time (on desktop computer) Surge control Supercritical Offshore dense-phase  ~200s for steady state (acknowledgement: Pulverized coal injection; 4 injection wells  (much) less for sensitivity runs Rolls-Royce) (acknowledgement: E.ON) ~2km reservoir depth  ~7h for 50h dynamic simulation © 2013 Process Systems Enterprise Limited (acknowledgement: CO2DeepStore)
    24. 24. Case Study: state-state analysis © 2013 Process Systems Enterprise Limited
    25. 25. Steady-state scenarios Scenario Description Power plant operation (% of nominal load) Capture plant operation (CO2 % captured) SS1.1 (a,b,c) Base Load Power Plant (a) 100%; (b) 75%; (c) 50% 0% (no capture) SS1.2 (a, b) Base load CCS Chain 100% (a) 90%; (b) 50% SS1.3 (a, b) Part Load Analysis (a) 75%; (b) 50% 90% SS1.4 Extreme Weather: Max Summer Extreme Weather: Max Winter 100% 90% 100% 90% SS1.5 Affected sub-systems Base Extreme Extreme Temperatures (oC) used for model calibration Case Summer Winter (e.g. Cooling water Stodola constants for steam turbines; HTA for feed water heaters, etc.) 7 Power, Capture, Compression 18 22 Air Sea water © 2013 Process Systems Enterprise Limited Power, Transmission, Injection Transmission, Injection 15 30 -15 9 14 4 NB. Geothermal gradient of +27.5oC / km
    26. 26. Steady-state analysis Power generation : coal milling + power plant auxiliaries : coal milling + power plant auxiliaries + CO2 compression : capture plant steam + CO2 compression 100% 75% 50% 100% 100% 75% 50% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 90% 50% 90% 90% 90% 90% Summer Winter © 2013 Process Systems Enterprise Limited
    27. 27. Steady-state analysis CO2 compression power 100% 90% 100% 50% 75% 90% 50% 90% 100% 90% 100% 90% Summer Winter Differences primarily due to changes in viscosity of fluid in pipeline © 2013 Process Systems Enterprise Limited
    28. 28. Case Study: dynamic analysis © 2013 Process Systems Enterprise Limited
    29. 29. Dynamic analysis Scheduled changes in power plant load Scenario DS1.1 Scenario DS1.2 Power Power Load Load 100% 100% 5 hours 75% 5 hours 23.5 hours 75% 5 mins 5 mins 5 mins 42.5 hours 1 hour Time © 2013 Process Systems Enterprise Limited Time
    30. 30. Dynamic analysis Stem position 5 6 7 (b) Power plant net efficiency 8 9 400 10 800 700 Power plant net efficiency 3 4 5 6 7 (c) Governor valve stem position 8 9 1 600 500 400 10 800 Governor valve stem position 0.5 3 4 5 6 7 8 (d) LP turbine inlet valve stem position 9 1 700 600 500 400 10 800 700 0.5 0 Mass flowrate (kg/s) 4 600 3 4 5 LP turbine inlet valve stem position 8 9 6 7 (e) Flue gas mass flowrate 500 400 10 800 800 750 700 700 Flue gas mass flowrate 650 600 3 4 5 6 7 (f) CO2 volume fraction in flue gas 8 9 0.138 600 500 400 10 800 700 0.1375 0.137 CO2 vol fraction 3 4 5 © 2013 Process Systems Enterprise Limited 6 7 Time (hours) 8 9 600 500 400 10 Net Power (MWe) 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 3 500 Net Power (MWe) 50 0 Volume fraction 600 Coal mass flowrate 55 Net Power (MWe) 700 60 Net Power (MWe) 800 65 Net Power (MWe) (a) Coal mass flowrate 70 Net Power (MWe) Stem position Net Efficiency (%) Mass flowrate (kg/s) Power plant Controller maintains steam to reboiler >3.5bar Steam is saturated here
    31. 31. Dynamic analysis CO2 capture plant (a) CO2 capture rate 800 94 700 92 90 600 88 84 500 CO2 capture rate 86 3 4 5 6 7 8 Net Power (MWe) CO2 capture rate (%) 96 400 10 9 Time (hours) (a) CO2 product flowrate 700 1400 1300 600 Solvent flowrate to absorber 4 5 6 7 8 Time (hours) 120 800 700 100 600 Steam to reboiler 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 500 400 10 Time (hours) DS 1.1 DS 1.2 © 2013 Process Systems Enterprise Limited Net Power (MWe) Reboiler steam requirement (kg/s) (c) Reboiler steam requirement 80 DS 1.1 DS 1.2 130 600 120 CO2 production rate (kg/s) 110 100 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 500 400 10 Time (hours) 400 10 9 700 140 (b) Specific regeneration requirement 4 800 700 3.5 600 Reboiler load (GJ/te CO2) 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 500 Net Power (MWe) 3 800 150 400 10 Time (hours) (c) Solvent specific demand 25 800 700 20 600 Solvent demand (m3 solvent/te CO2) 15 10 3 4 5 6 7 Time (hours) 8 9 500 400 10 Net Power (MWe) 1000 500 Specific regeneration requirement (MJ/kg CO2) 1100 Solvent specific demand (m3/tonne CO2) 1200 Net Power (MWe) Lean solvent flowrate (kg/s) 1500 CO2 product flowrate (kg/s) 160 800 Net Power (MWe) (b) Lean solvent flowrate to absorber 1600
    32. 32. Dynamic analysis Power/CO2 capture two-way coupling (a) Flue gas mass flowrate 700 700 600 500 Flue gas flowrate 600 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 400 10 (b) Power plant net efficiency vs reboiler steam demand Net Efficiency (%) 41 120 40 39 100 38 Power plant net efficiency vs. reboiler steam demand 37 36 3 4 5 © 2013 Process Systems Enterprise Limited 6 7 Time (hours) 8 9 Net Power (MWe) 800 80 10 Reboiler steam demand (kg/s) Mass flowrate (kg/s) 800
    33. 33. Dynamic analysis CO2 capture plant (a) Absorber sump level 700 60 600 Absorber sump level 50 40 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 500 Net Power (MWe) 800 70 Level (%) 80 400 10 (b) Stripper sump level 700 60 600 Stripper sump level 50 40 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 500 Net Power (MWe) 800 70 Level (%) 80 400 10 (c) Absorber liquid holudp at 8.5m 800 0.035 700 0.03 600 0.025 0.02 3 4 5 6 7 Liquid vol. fraction at absorber mid-point 8 9 500 Net Power (MWe) Volume fraction 0.04 400 10 (d) Buffer tank level 700 200 600 Solvent buffer tank level (%) 100 0 3 4 © 2013 Process Systems Enterprise Limited 5 6 7 Time (hours) 8 9 500 400 10 Net Power (MWe) 800 300 Level (%) 400
    34. 34. Dynamic analysis CO2 compression plant 800 5 6 7 8 400 10 9 (a) Compressor section 1 surge margin 800 4.5 700 4 600 3.5 3 500 Drive #2 power 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Surge margin (%) 5 Net Power (MWe) 400 10 (c) Dehydrator inlet pressure 600 Dehydrator inlet pressure 38.1 38 3 4 5 6 7 8 500 400 10 9 (d) Compressor discharge pressure 800 99 700 Compressor discharge pressure 98 97 96 3 4 5 6 7 Time (hours) © 2013 Process Systems Enterprise Limited 8 9 600 500 400 10 DS 1.1 DS 1.2 Net Power (MWe) Pressure (bara) 100 Compressor surge control Surge margin (%) 38.2 Surge margin (%) 700 Surge margin (%) 38.3 Surge margins 50 800 40 700 30 600 20 Drive #1, Section #1500 10 0 3 4 5 6 7 (b) Compressor section 2 surge margin 8 9 400 10 50 800 40 700 30 600 20 500 Drive #1, Section #2400 10 0 800 Net Power (MWe) Pressure (bara) 38.4 Surge margin (%) Power requirement (MWe) (b) Electric drive 2 power requirement 3 4 5 6 7 (c) Compressor section 3 surge margin 8 9 10 50 800 40 700 30 600 20 500 10 0 3 4 5 Drive #1, Section #3400 6 7 (d) Compressor section 4 surge margin 8 9 10 50 800 40 700 30 600 20 500 Drive #2, Section #1400 10 0 3 4 5 6 7 (e) Compressor section 5 surge margin 8 9 10 50 800 40 700 30 600 20 Drive #2, Section #2500 10 0 3 4 5 6 7 (f) Compressor section 6 surge margin 8 9 400 10 50 800 40 700 30 600 20 500 10 0 3 4 5 6 Drive #2, Section #3400 7 Time (hours) 8 9 Net Power (MWe) 4 Net Power (MWe) 3 Surge margin (%) 7 500 Net Power (MWe) Drive #1 power Net Power (MWe) 600 10 Net Power (MWe) 7.5 Net Power (MWe) 700 Net Power (MWe) Power requirement (MWe) (a) Electric drive 1 power requirement 8
    35. 35. Dynamic analysis CO2 transmission pipelines Buffer potential for flexible operation (a) Pipeline inlet pressure 800 98 700 96 600 94 500 92 90 0 5 10 15 20 25 Net Power (MWe) 100 Pressure (bara)  400 30 (b) Pipeline outlet pressure 700 106 600 104 500 102 100 0 5 130 Pipeline inlet At landfall valve At 100km Pipeline outlet 120 110 5 10 15 20 25 Time (hours) 30 35 40 45 50 15 20 25 400 30 (c) Pipeline pressure difference 9 800 8.5 700 8 600 7.5 500 7 0 5 10 15 20 25 400 30 (d) Pipeline inlet mass flowrate Mass flowrate (kg/s) 100 10 150 800 140 700 130 600 120 500 110 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 Net Power (MWe) 140 Pressure difference (bar) Mass flowrate (kg/s) 150 800 108 Net Power (MWe) Pressure (bara) 110 Net Power (MWe) 160 400 30 800 140 700 130 600 120 500 110 100 0 5 10 15 Time (hours) 20 25 400 30 DS 1.1 DS 1.2 © 2013 Process Systems Enterprise Limited Net Power (MWe) Mass flowrate (kg/s) (e) Pipeline outlet mass flowrate 150
    36. 36. Dynamic analysis CO2 injection & storage (a) Injection subsystem inlet pressure 700 105 600 500 0 5 10 15 20 (b) Injection subsystem outlet pressure 400 30 25 270 600 500 0 5 10 15 20 (c) Injection subsystem pressure difference 400 30 25 168 800 700 Mass flowrate (kg/s) Mass flowrate (kg/s) 167.5 600 500 167 Net Power (MWe) 700 265 Pressure difference (bar) 800 0 5 10 15 20 (d) Injection subsystem inlet mass flowrate 400 30 25 150 800 140 700 130 600 120 500 110 100 0 5 10 15 20 (e) Mass flowrate of injected CO2 Net Power (MWe) Pressure (bara) 275 Net Power (MWe) 100 Net Power (MWe) 800 400 30 25 150 800 140 700 130 600 120 500 110 100 0 5 10 15 Time (hours) 20 400 30 25 DS 1.1 DS 1.2 © 2013 Process Systems Enterprise Limited Net Power (MWe) Pressure (bara) 110
    37. 37. Conclusions © 2013 Process Systems Enterprise Limited
    38. 38. Conclusions  Model-based engineering of CCS chains diverse stakeholders with different concerns & priorities  need for coordination  A complex system… …complex components …complex steady-state and dynamic interactions  BUT…within capabilities of current state-of-the-art modelling technology © 2013 Process Systems Enterprise Limited  An end-to-end modelling tool Capture, formalise & deploy existing knowledge on CCS technology Common language for communication Open architecture allow incorporation of future technology
    39. 39. When?  Now gCCS v1.0 alpha 1 available for evaluation to selected universities & research consortia lead users among industrial partners  Soon (1-2 month timescale) gCCS v1.0 alpha 2 release planned for January 2014 Main feature: Physical properties in component models for CO2 Capture, Compression and Transport + Injection/storage provided by gSAFT  To follow (5-6 month timescale) gCCS v1.0 beta to be released in Q2 2014 Main additions:  Costing functionality  streamlined component models  online documentation & training © 2013 Process Systems Enterprise Limited
    40. 40. Acknowledgements  This work was carried out as part of a £3m project commissioned and co-funded by the Energy Technologies Institute (ETI) and project participants E.ON, EDF, Rolls-Royce, Petrofac (via subsidiary CO2DeepStore), PSE and E4tech.  The project is aimed at delivering a robust, fully integrated tool-kit that can be used by CCS stakeholders across the whole CCS chain. © 2013 Process Systems Enterprise Limited
    41. 41. PSE’s CCS Technology Team  Gerardo Sanchis  Power plant Product development Power plant  Mário Calado Compression Systems Capture processes  Dr  Adekola Lawal  Capture processes Transmission & injection  Dr Javier © 2013 Process Systems Enterprise Limited Dr Javier Fuentes Software development Alfredo Ramos Technology Manager  Mark Matzopoulos Marketing & Business Development Rodríguez Capture processes Physical properties (gSAFT) Dr Nouri Samsatli  Prof Costas Pantelides Chief Technologist
    42. 42. Thanks for your attention! Contact Alfredo Ramos – Head Power & CCS Business Unit a.ramos@psenterprise.com © 2013 Process Systems Enterprise Limited
    43. 43. On-going developments Model libraries – Power plant  Oxyfuel Flowsheet with Steam Cycle © 2013 Process Systems Enterprise Limited
    44. 44. Tool-kit components Model libraries – Power plant  Combined Cycle Gas Turbine flowsheet Combustor Compressor and Gas Turbine Steam drum Economisers, superheaters, evaporators Loop breaker Recycle breaker Generator Steam turbines Condenser © 2013 Process Systems Enterprise Limited
    45. 45. On-going developments Model libraries – Power plant  Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle power plant (IGCC) HRSG and steam turbines Gasification and syngas cooling Air separation unit (ASU) and compression © 2013 Process Systems Enterprise Limited Gas turbine Acid gas removal (AGR) and sulphur recovery unit (SRU) Syngas conditioning
    46. 46. QUESTIONS / DISCUSSION Please submit your questions in English directly into the GoToWebinar control panel. The webinar will start shortly.
    47. 47. Please submit any feedback to: webinar@globalccsinstitute.com

    ×