This document presents a techno-economic analysis of an air-blown integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plant with a hybrid CO2 capture system. The analysis evaluates the plant's performance parameters, including energy and exergy efficiencies, with and without CO2 capture. It finds that CO2 capture reduces the plant's energy efficiency by around 11.7% points. The highest energy losses during CO2 capture occur in the reboiler, which accounts for 45% of total capture losses. The levelized cost of electricity is estimated to increase from INR 3.33/kWh without capture to INR 5.21/kWh with the hybrid capture system.

1. A Presentation on
TECHNO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF AIR-BLOWN
INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED CYCLE (IGCC) POWER PLANT
WITH HYBRID CO2 CAPTURE SYSTEM
Sujit Karmakar
Department of Mechanical Engineering
National Institute of Technology Durgapur
West Bengal
Ajit Kumar Kolar
Heat Transfer and Thermal Power Lab
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Madras
Chennai, Tamil Nadu
Presented by
SUJIT KARMAKAR
IV th ICAER– December 10, 2013
1/17

2. CONTENTS
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODOLOGY
 IGCC PLANT CONFIGURATION
 COAL CHARACTERISTICS
 PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS
 IGCC PLANT WITH HYBRID CO2 CAPTURE SYSTEM
 RESULT
 CONCLUSIONS
IV th ICAER– December 10, 2013
2/17

3. INTRODUCTION
 Carbon dioxide (CO2) - key greenhouse gas (GHG)
causing global warming and affects climate adversely
World CO2 emission (2011) : 31 GT/yr
 India's
per capita per yr CO2 emission : 1.4 tonnes, less
than one-third of the world average and about 12 times
less than the United States
 India
accounts for about 5.5% of the world's CO2
emissions
(Source: IEA Key World Energy Statistics, 2011)
IV th ICAER– December 10, 2013
2/44
3/17

4. INTRODUCTION
(CONTD..)
(Source: IPCC special report on CCS)
IV th ICAER– December 10, 2013
4/17

5. INTRODUCTION
(CONTD..)
INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED CYCLE (IGCC)
ST
Steam
Coal
Gasifier
Hot gas
clean-up
Combustor
GT
HRSG
Air
Stack
• Elaborate gas clean-up (mainly consisting of particulate control) is required
before the gasifier product gas is combusted and sent to the gas turbine
(pre-combustion clean-up)
5
IV th ICAER– December 10, 2013
5/17

6. METHODOLOGY
 3-E (energy, exergy, and environment) analysis is
carried out using a flow-sheeting program,
“Cycle-Tempo : Release 5 ”
 Simulation of MEA based CO2 capture plant using
flow sheet program “Aspen Plus: Release 2004”
 Economic analysis is carried out using annualized
and levelized costs of electricity generation
IV th ICAER– December 10, 2013
6/20
6/17

7. IGCC POWER PLANT CONFIGURATION (BASE PLANT)
Single Pressure HRSG
Air Blown Gasifier
Gasifier operating Condition: 18 bar/950°C
Air/fuel: 1.58
Steam/fuel: 0.17
GT: 15.5 bar/1288°C
ST: 101 bar/540°C
CO2: 5-6 vol %
IV th ICAER– December 10, 2013
7/17

8. COAL CHARACTERISTICS
Indian (High Ash - HA)
As-Received
Dry Basis
Proximate
Analysis
(wt%)
(wt%)
Fixed Carbon
24.00
27.27
Volatile Matter
21.00
23.86
Mineral Matter
43.00
48.87
Moisture
12.00
-
Ultimate
As-Received
Dry Basis
Analysis
(wt%)
(wt%)
Carbon
34.46
39.16
Hydrogen
2.43
2.76
6.97
7.92
Nitrogen
0.69
0.78
Sulfur
0.45
0.51
Mineral Matter
43.00
48.87
Moisture
12.00
-
HHV (MJ/kg)
13.96
15.83
Exergy (MJ/kg)
15.26
17.30
Oxygen
(by difference)
IV th ICAER– December 10, 2013
8/17

9. PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS

Plant energy efficiency,
=

Net electricity output
Mass flow rate of coal HHV of the coal
Plant exergy efficiency,
Net electricity output
=
Mass flow rate of coal Specific exergy of the coal
Baehr correlation :
Ex coal
(0.9775 LHVcoal + 2.410)
(0.0065 LHVcoal + 0.054)
Excoal is specific exergy of coal in MJ/kg
 Levelized cost of electricity (LCoE)
IV th ICAER– December 10, 2013
9/17

10. IGCC POWER PLANT WITH HYBRID CO2 CAPTURE SYSTEM
WGS Reaction: CO + H2O ↔ CO2 + H2
CO2 concentration: 11 vol %
HT WGS: 400°C
LT WGS: 210°C
CO2 selective rubbery
polymeric membranepermeance 1000 GPU
Two-stage membrane
IV th ICAER– December 10, 2013
10/17

11. MEA BASED CO2 CAPTURE SYSTEM
Absorber stages: 10
Reboiler heat duty: 238 MWth
Stripper stages: 12
(4.3 MJ/kg of CO2)
Lean MEA loading: 0.2
Aqueous MEA solution: 30% vol.
Absorber operating pressure: 1.2 bar
Stripper operating pressure: 1.9 bar
IV th ICAER– December 10, 2013
11/17

12. RESULT-PERFORMANCE
HYBRID CO2 CAPTURE
Power output (MWe)
Gas turbine
Without CO2 capture
With CO2 capture
286
286
Steam turbine
171
140
Total
Plant energy efficiency (%)
457
37.9
426
26.2
Plant exergy efficiency (%)
34.8
24.0
MEA BASED CO2 CAPTURE
Plant energy efficiency (%)
37.9
24.3
Plant exergy efficiency (%)
34.8
22.3
MEMBRANE BASED CO2 CAPTURE
Plant energy efficiency (%)
37.9
24.1
Plant exergy efficiency (%)
34.8
22.1
IV th ICAER– December 10, 2013
12/16
12/17

13. RESULT-PERFORMANCE
Energy Balance- IGCC Pant without/ with CO2 capture
Component
Power (efficiency)
Heat rejected in cooling water
Heat rejected through stack
Heat rejected in bottom ash
CO2 capture
Others
Without CO2 capture
37.9
27.6
22.1
8.3
4.1
With CO2 capture
26.2
10.1
7.6
8.3
43.3
4.5
Energy Balance- MEA based CO2 capture plant
IV th ICAER– December 10, 2013
13/16
13/17

14. RESULT-PERFORMANCE
Exergy Balance- IGCC Pant
Component
Power (efficiency)
Loss in gasifier
Loss in combustor
Loss in bottom ash
Loss in HRSG
Loss through stack
Loss in steam turbine
Loss in gas turbine
Loss in condenser and cooling water
Loss due to CO2 capture
Others
Without CO2 capture Without CO2 capture
34.8
24.0
18.4
18.4
14.9
15.6
7.4
8.1
5.0
5.1
4.9
1.1
2.6
1.9
2.1
2.0
1.1
0.4
12.9
8.8
10.5
Economic Analysis- IGCC Pant without/ with CO2 capture
Without CO2 capture
LCoE (INR/kWh)
3.33
IV th ICAER– December 10, 2013
With CO2 capture
5.21
14/16
14/17

15. CONCLUSIONS
 The plant energy and exergy efficiencies are about 37.9 and 34.8%,
respectively for the IGCC plant without CO2 capture whereas, the same
are 26.2 and 24%, respectively with CO2 capture and about 11.7%-points
of plant energy efficiency is dropped due to CO2 capture.
 Majority of energy loss takes place during CO2 capture and the loss in
reboiler is found maximum, contributing 45% of the total losses during
CO2 capture.
 The reboiler heat duty in the MEA based CO2 capture system is 238 MWth
which is equivalent to 4.3 MJ per kg of CO2 captured.
 Maximum exergy destruction is in the gasifier which contributes 18.4% for
the IGCC plant without or with CO2 capture.
 The levelized cost of electricity generation of an IGCC plant without and
with hybrid CO2 capture system is estimated approx. INR 3.33 and 5.91
per kWh, respectively.
IV th ICAER– December 10, 2013
15/16
15/17

16. REFERENCES
[1] Central Electricity Authority [CEA] (2011) Operation performance of generating stations in the country during
the year 2010-11: An overview, Government of India.
[2] IPCC (2005) IPCC special report on Carbon Dioxide and Storage. Prepared by Working Group III of the
Intergovernmental panel on climate change. Edited by: Metz. B; Davidson. O.; Conick de H.; Loos. M; Meyer. L.
[3] Kohl A, Nielsen R (1997) Gas Purification, 5th edition, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, Texas.
[4] Aroonwilas, A., and Veawab, A., (2007) Integration of CO2 capture unit using single- and blended- amines into
supercritical coal-fired power plants: Implications for emission and energy management, Int J. Greenhouse Gas
Control, 1, pp. 143-150.
[5] Rao, A.B., and Rubin, E.S., (2002) A Technical, Economics, and Environmental Assessment of Amine-based CO2
capture Technologies for Power Plant Greenhouse Gas Control, Environ. Sci. Technology, 36, pp. 4467-4475.
[6] Zhao, L., Rienche, E., Menzer, R., Blum, L., and Skolten, D., (2008) A parametric study of CO2/N2 gas separation
membrane processes for post-combustion capture, Int J. Membrane Sc., 325, pp. 284-294.
[7] Suresh M.V.J.J. (2012), 4-E (Energy, Exergy, Environment, and Economic) Analysis of Advanced Coal
Technologies for Power Generation, Ph.D. Thesis, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, India.
[8] Merkel, T.C., Zhou, M., and Baker, (2012) Carbon dioxide capture with membranes at an IGCC power plant, Int
J. Membrane Sc., 389, pp. 441-450.
[9] Osikowska, A.S., Szymańska, K.J., and Kotowicz, J., (2012) Modeling and analysis of selected Carbon dioxide
capture methods in IGCC system, Energy, 45, pp. 92-100.
[10] Suresh, M.V.J.J., Reddy, K.S., and Kolar, A.K., (2010) 3-E analysis of advanced power plants based on high
ash coal, Int J. Energy Res., 34, pp. 716-735.
[11] Aspen Plus (2004) Aspen Plus, Aspen technology Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA
[12] Desideri, U., and Paolucci, A., (1999) Performance modeling of a carbon dioxide removal system for power
plants. Energy Convers. Manage., 40, pp. 1899-1915.
[13] Abu-Zahra, M.R.M., Schneiders, L.H.J., Niederer, J.P.M., Feron, P.H.M., and Versteeg, G.F., (2007) CO2 capture
from power plants Part 1. A parametric study of the technical performance based on monoethanolamine. Int. J.
Greenhouse Gas Control, 1, pp. 37-46.
[14] Cycle-Tempo release 5.0 (2007) Delft University of Technology.
[15] Romeo, L.M., Bolea, I., Escosa, J.M., (2008) Integration of power plant and amine scrubbing to reduce CO2
capture costs. Appl. Therm. Eng., 28, pp.1039-1046.
IV th ICAER– December 10, 2013
16/16
16/17

17. Thank You
IV th ICAER– December 10, 2013
17/16
17/17