Cutting Cost of CO2 Capture in Process Industry (CO2stCap) Project overview & first results for partial CO2 capture at integrated steelworks
•
1 like•1,101 views
The CO2StCap project is a four year initiative carried out by industry and academic partners with the aim of reducing capture costs from CO2 intensive industries (more info here). The project, led by Tel-Tek, is based on the idea that cost reduction is possible by capturing only a share of the CO2emissions from a given facility, instead of striving for maximized capture rates. This can be done in multiple ways, for instance by capturing only from the largest CO2 sources at individual multi-stack sites utilising cheap waste heat or adapting the capture volumes to seasonal changes in operations. The main focus of this research is to perform techno-economic analyses for multiple partial CO2 capture concepts in order to identify economic optimums between cost and volumes captured. In total for four different case studies are developed for cement, iron & steel, pulp & paper and ferroalloys industries. The first part of the webinar gave an overview of the project with insights into the cost estimation method used. The second part presented the iron & steel industry case study based on the Lulea site in Sweden, for which waste-heat mapping methodology has been used to assess the potential for partial capture via MEA-absorption. Capture costs for different CO2 sources were compared and discussed, demonstrating the viability of partial capture in an integrated steelworks. Webinar presenters included Ragnhild Skagestad, senior researcher at Tel-Tek; Maximilian Biermann, PhD student at Division of Energy Technology, Chalmers University of Technology and Maria Sundqvist, research engineer at the department of process integration at Swerea MEFOS.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Cutting Cost of CO2 Capture in Process Industry (CO2stCap) Project overview & first results for partial CO2 capture at integrated steelworks
Similar to Cutting Cost of CO2 Capture in Process Industry (CO2stCap) Project overview & first results for partial CO2 capture at integrated steelworks (20)
More from Global CCS Institute
More from Global CCS Institute (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Cutting Cost of CO2 Capture in Process Industry (CO2stCap) Project overview & first results for partial CO2 capture at integrated steelworks
- 1. Cutting Cost of CO2 Capture in Process Industry (CO2stCap) Project overview & first results for partial CO2 capture at integrated steelworks Webinar – Thursday, 23 November 2017 Cover image: Overlooking the Quest Capture facility located at Shell - Scotford, near Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta. Image provided by Shell.
- 2. Ragnhild Skagestad Senior researcher - Tel-Tek Ragnhild Skagestad is a senior researcher at Tel-Tek in Porsgrunn, Norway. She is the Project Manager of the CO2stCap project, and is also a part of the cost estimation expertise in the project. In Tel-Tek she focus her work within CO2 capture and transport, energy optimization in industry and early phase cost estimation. Ragnhild holds a Master in Mechanical Engineering from NTNU, Norway.
- 3. Maria Sundqvist Research engineer - Swerea MEFOS Maria Sundqvist has a background in chemical engineering from Faculty of Engineering (LTH) at Lund University and has since 2014 been working as a research engineer at the department of process integration at Swerea MEFOS. She works mainly with projects aiming to investigate the system effects from implementation of CO2 capture in steel industry. Since autumn 2016 she is also enrolled as an external PhD at Luleå University of Technology.
- 4. Maximilian Biermann PhD - Chalmers Technical University Maximilian Biermann is a graduate in chemical engineering from Technical University of Munich (TUM). He has been enrolled as PhD student at Chalmers Technical University, Gothenburg, since 2016 and works with CO2 emission reduction in carbon-intensive process industry - predominantly iron & steel - at the Division of Energy Technology. He applies process simulation tools to study cost-efficient designs for CO2 absorption processes in order to facilitate (partial) carbon capture and storage.
- 5. Questions We will collect questions during the presentation. Your MC will pose these question to the presenter after the presentation. Please submit your questions directly into the GoToWebinar control panel.
- 6. Cutting Cost of CO2 Capture in Process Industry Short name: CO2stCap Part I: Overall picture and methods Presenter: Ragnhild Skagestad, Tel-Tek GCCSI Webinar 23.11.2017 CO2stCap Project funded by Climit, Swedish Energy agency, Aga Gas AB, Elkem ASA, Norcem, Brevik AS, SSAB and the research partners
- 7. Research partners Tel-Tek USN Chalmers RISE Swerea MEFOS Participants Industry partners SSAB Norcem Brevik AS Elkem AS Aga Gas AB Other partners CLIMIT The Swedish Energy Agency IEAGHG Global CCS Institute Four year project Total budget: 2,7 MEUR Start up : August 2015 Planned final event: June 2019 3 PhD candidates 13 companiesTel-Tek, USN, Norcem Brevik AS Swerea Mefos, SSAB RISE; AGA gas AB, Elkem AS Chalmers www.wikipedia.com
- 8. To significantly reduce the cost of CO2 capture in industry. Suggest a cost effective carbon capture strategy for the future considering – utilization of waste heat and intermittent power supply – variation of operation time – a more efficient use of biomass resources – different capture technologies and optimization – changes in market conditions (eg. electricity price, ETS, value of district heating) Motivation
- 9. The project will investigate where and how partial CO2 capture may be applied cost efficiently to industry. • Partial capture solutions with focus on these 4 industry cases: • Cement • Pulp and paper • Steel • Silicon (two plants) • Further development and implementation of modelling tools to calculate costs and optimize CO2 capture. Project goals
- 10. Continuous capture – the capture plant follows the operational time of the base plant • The size of capture plant is adjusted to the available amount of waste heat • The size of capture plant is adjusted to the base or average production scenario instead of peak production • Capture from some of the stack/sources Discontinuous capture – the capture plant operates when the conditions are favourable, • Day/night and summer/winter variations • Steam supply • Electricity price What is partial capture? Partial capture is here defined as capture rate below 90 % of the site emission.
- 11. Hot water delivery to district heating- yearly distribution This amount may be available at low price! Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
- 12. Cement • The main raw material for cement production is limestone (CaCO3) • In the process the limestone is reduced to calcium oxide (CaO) and CO2 • Approximately 60% of the CO2 emitted are from limestone, the remaining 40% is fuel
- 13. Cement Raw meal (limestone and additives) Cyclone pre-heater (multiple stages) Mill and drier Pre-calciner CaCO3 → CaO + CO2 Fuel Fuel Rotary kiln Clinker CoolerMill Exhaust gas Cement Additives Hot exhaust gas Key information about Brevik plant: • The plant emission is approx. 850 kt CO2 pr year, including a share of bio CO2. • Norcem’s own calculations of potential waste heat recovery show that 33 MW could be made available for use in CO2 capture by waste heat steam generators
- 14. Both MEA based capture plant and oxycombustion have been investigated The cement plant has 33 MW available, and that gives approx. 40 % of the reboiler duty needed for 90 % capture with MEA It is more cost efficient to reduce the flue gas stream, than reduce the capture rate if you capture the same amount of CO2 • The partial capture scenarios shows a reduction of 21% of the capture cost compared to 90% capture Oxycombustion in combination with post combustion technologies is under development Oxycombustion based capture requires modifications in the cement plant The effect of seasonal variations in electricity prices will be considered Cement case results
- 15. The modern Nordic kraft pulp mill Lime kiln: Combustion of biomass to transfer CaCO3 to CaO Recovery boiler: Combustion of black liquor to recover chemicals and generate process steam Power (bark) boiler: Combustion of by-products (bark) to generate additional process steam and power Utilizing residual energy and energy from low-cost wood by-products such as bark to fulfil the steam demand from the capture unit. Bark is used for district heating in the winter, but can be a problem to store during summer. Special focus is on the competition between using energy for CO2 capture or for generation of green electricity
- 16. • There is a potential for capture of biogenic CO2 in the pulp and paper industry to compensate for emissions in other sectors; – 1-2 mill ton from state of the art pulp mill sites at a couple of locations in Sweden and Finland – Non-integrated, stand alone pulp mills are the primary target as they have an excess of energy • The CO2 capture cases investigated for the pulp mill result in specific cost of CO2 capture in the range of 41-58 EUR/t CO2 captured – The lowest costs are obtained with max partial capture (about 65-70% of total emissions) utilizing excess energy otherwise used to generate electricity in a condensing turbine • The CO2 capture cost is low compared to other industrial sources, but there are few incentives for CO2 capture; requires new financial measures to stimulate investments Pulp and paper preliminary results
- 17. Silicon Elkem Kristiansand • The plant produced close to 10 kt Si in 2015 • Corresponding CO2 emission – 43 kt pr year from fossil energy sources – and 12 kt pr year from bio based sources @www.elkem.com
- 18. • The main challenge of the Elkem Kristiansand is the low concentration of CO2 in the flue gas and the low volumes of CO2 emitted. The concentration is reported to be 1 vol% after the filter • There is unexploited waste heat available Silicon
- 19. The Elkem Kristiansand case can be distinguished from the other cases as there is only one flue gas source with a low CO2 concentration (1 vol%) The low concentration of CO2 limits the CO2 capture technology, and therefore only MEA based capture has been considered. Elkem Kristiansand have sufficient waste heat available to capture 90 % of the CO2. However, the large flue gas volume relative to the CO2 amount results in a high capture cost. Silicon results
- 20. Steel Will be presented later in this webinar
- 21. Cost Estimation Method and tool
- 22. We needed a tool to compare different cases and get an overview of both CAPEX and OPEX Early phase cost estimation Detail factor estimation method – Gives installed cost for each equipment – Show cost drivers – Sensitivities show the effect of changes Cost estimation method
- 23. • CAPEX – Calculations are performed using a detail factor estimation method – The estimate normally has an uncertainty of +/- 35% (80% confidence interval) – The costs are calculated by using Aspen In-Plant Cost Estimator for equipment cost and Tel-Tek’s cost estimation tool to estimate installed cost. • OPEX – Is based on derived mass and energy flows – The annual costs are calculated based on a utility price list Overview Tel-Teks cost estimation tool
- 24. CO2stCap summary We are well on our way to achieve our goal to suggest a cost effective carbon capture strategy for future CCS systems considering utilization of waste heat and intermittent power generation, a more efficient use of biomass resources, different capture technologies and optimization, as well as changed market conditions.
- 25. 11/24/2017 Chalmers 25 CO2stCap – Cutting Cost of CO2 Capture in Process Industry Part II - First results for partial CO2 capture at integrated steelworks Maria Sundqvist (presenter) maria.sundqvist@swerea.se Maximilian Biermann (presenter) max.biermann@chalmers.se Hassan Ali hassan.ali@usn.no Ragnhild Skagestad ragnhild.skagestad@tel-tek.no CO2stCap Project funded by Gassnova (Climit), Energimyndigheten, Aga Linde, Elkem, Norcem, and SSAB GCCSI Webinar 23.11.2017
- 26. 11/24/2017 Chalmers 26 Agenda • Steel plant system & capture scenarios • Methods • Results on heat mapping and cost • Conclusions
- 27. 11/24/2017 Chalmers 27 • Reference plant: SSAB’s plant in Luleå, Sweden • Iron production from iron ore pellet • No rolling mill • Residual process gases from steel plant sent to CHP plant • Production permit 3,000 ktonne slabs/yr • Mean from last 7 years 1,883 ktonne/yr1 • Model ref based on 2,020 ktonne/yr (2006) • CO2 emissions • Mean from last 7 years 3,120 ktonne/yr (1.66 tonne/product)2 http://d-maps.com/m/europa/scandinavie/scandinavie09.gif CO2stCap - Steel: Reference 1 SSAB Financial reports 2010 - 2016 2 SSAB Luleå Enviromental report SSAB, 2016
- 28. Steel slabs Coke Plant CHP HS COG Hot Blast O2 COG Steel Plant COG A S U O2 COG COG BFG BFG BOFG BOFGDeS Raw material BF BOF BFG Lime Kiln 59% 3% 23% 1% 3% 1% 1% 7% 2% 11/24/2017 Chalmers 28 CO2stCap - Steel: Point sources at SSAB’s Luleå site Point Source HS BFG* CHP Scenario 1 2 3 CO2 [vol.%] 25.0 24.6 29.6 Flow [kNm3/h] 179 352 395 T [°C] 269 29 120 Pressure [bar(a)] 1.05 1.81 1.05 Note: numbers shown in bubbles refer to share of total site CO2 emissions Scenario 1: Hot Stoves Scenario 2: Blast furnace gas Scenario 3: CHP plant’s flue gas *(after cleaning)
- 29. 11/24/2017 Chalmers 29 CO2stCap - Steel: Capture scenarios BFG CAPTURE CO2 LEAN BFG STEAM GAS HOLDER COG BOFG CHP FLUE GAS EXCESS PROCESS Scenario 2) Blast Furnace Gas (BFG) 100 %CO2,stream capture from stream ≡ 44.5 % CO2,site CAPTURE CO2 HOT STOVES FLUE GAS LEAN FLUE GAS STEAM COG BFG Scenario 1) Hot Stoves’ flue gas 100 %CO2,stream capture from stream ≡ 23.0 %CO2,site CAPTURE CO2 GAS HOLDER COG BOFG CHP FLUE GASBFG LEAN FLUE GAS EXCESS PROCESS STEAM Scenario 3) CHP plant’s flue gas 100 %CO2,stream capture from stream ≡ 59.8% CO2,site HOT STOVES % CO2,site = share of total site CO2 emissions %CO2,stream = share of CO2 in gas stream at site
- 30. 11/24/2017 Chalmers 30 CO2stCap – Steel: Method
- 31. 11/24/2017 Chalmers 31 Methods: overview ABSORBER DESORBER CO2 RICH GAS HX REBOILER CO2 TO STORAGE C.W. Steel slabs Coke Plant CHP HS COG Hot Blast O2 COG Steel Plant COG A S U O2 COG COG BFG BFG BOFG BOFGDeS Raw material BF BOF BFG Lime Kiln 59% 3% 23% 1% 3% 1% 1% 7% 2% Aspen simulations of MEA capture Steel plant: Process simulations and excess heat mapping Individual detail factor method Cost estimations: Capture costs € (CAPEX + OPEX) dimensions; utility demand available heat Capture plant Connections
- 32. 11/24/2017 Chalmers 32 Method: Steel system modeling & heat mapping • In-house steel system model, see work by Hooey et al. [1] • Connected mass and energy balances for different process unit models (BF, coking plant, lime kiln, BOF, desulfurization, etc.) • Mapping of heat recovery sources: • Required steam output specification: 2.7 bar 130 °C • Annual average assumed; constant load in heat supply • Heat sources selected and pre-ranked according to accessibility (i.e., investment cost, technology readiness/feasibility) [1] Hooey et al., ISIJ Int. 50, pp. 924–930, 2010
- 33. 11/24/2017 Chalmers 33 Method: Aspen simulations of partial capture • Aspen Plus Model based on Garđarsdóttir et al. [1] • 30 wt.% MEA as benchmark solvent • Partial capture design: CO2 capture from entire gas flow instead of split; variation of L/G at fixed heat input to maximize captured CO2 • Intercooling and rich split configurations applied Example: partial capture from CO2 rich gas: 20 vol% @ 200 kg/s [1] Garđarsdóttir et al., Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 681–690, 2015 capture from entire flow capture from split flow full capture 90 %
- 34. TANK-1 ABS-1 STR-1 WASH-1 RICH PUMP FAN-1 CLEAN GAS LEAN PUMP OP-2 OP-1 LEAN COOLER TANK-2 TANK-3 OP-3 OP-4 CO2-RICH GAS MAKE-UP WATER MAKE-UP MEA C-TRAIN INTER-COOLER COMP-1HEX-1COMP-2HEX-2 COMP-3 HEX-3 COMP-4 HEX-4 CO2 PUMP CO2 110 bar OP-5 C.W. C.W. LP STEAM 30 °C C.W. C.W. C.W. C.W. REFLUX PUMP REFLUX DRUM C.W. COOL WATER PUMPWATER TREATMENT COOLING WATER (C.W.) VALVE DCC PUMP DCC COOLER DCC DCC PURGE C.W. WASH PURGE CONDENSOR REBOILER HX 11/24/2017 Chalmers 34 Method: Estimating capture cost assumptions Plant life time [yr] 25 Construction [yr] 2 Rate [%] 7.5 Maintenance [% inst.cost/a] 4 Operation hours [h/a] 8,322 Electricity [€/kWh] 0.030 Cooling [€/m3] 0.022 MEA [€/m3] 1,867 Steam [€/t] * Battery limit: capture unit equipment (w/o reclaimer) *Calculated individually for each case and available heat sources
- 35. 11/24/2017 Chalmers 35 Method: Cost for heat recovery connections and equipment • Steam cost: • Steam pipelines to capture site 1, 2 or 3 according to respective scenario • Additional equipment for certain heat sources included: e.g. new steam system for flue gas heat recovery; CDQ boiler etc • Cost for connecting point sources with capture site: • Flue/process gas to capture site 1, 2 or 3 according to respective scenario Blast furnace CHP plant Hot Stoves 3 2 1 Flue gas Steam pipeline to be installed Coke Oven BOF Flaring Process gas New dry slag granulation unit Blast furnace CHP plant Hot Stoves 3 2 1 Flue gas Backpressure Steam pipeline to be installed Gas flaring Coke Oven BOF Flaring Process gas Flue gas heat recovery Coke dry quenching Dry slag granulation New dry slag granulation unit Example: pipeline installation for capture site 3 Aspen In-Plant Cost estimator: Considers varying distances, basic fittings and insulation included
- 36. 11/24/2017 Chalmers 36 CO2stCap – Steel: First Results
- 37. 11/24/2017 Chalmers 37 Results: Identified levels of available heat Rating1 heat recover y level Heat source Recovery method Recovery efficiency2 Quantity3 (GJ/ h ) Accumulative quantity4 (GJ/h) 1 HL1 CHP plant Back pressure operation 90% 228.1 228.1 2 HL2 + Gas flaring Steam boiler 93% 152.8 380.9 3 HL3 + Hot stoves’ flue gas Heat recovery boiler 91% 32.9 413.8 4 HL4 + Hot coke Coke dry quenching + heat recovery boiler 67% 41.5 455.4 5 HL5 + Hot slag Dry slag granulation + moving bed heat exchanger + heat recovery boiler 65% 94.2 549.5 1 Rating according to accessibility (i.e., investment cost, technology readiness) of the excess energy 2 Potential to convert the excess energy into steam 3 Accessible energy from specific source at the investigated plant site (reference case: no capture) 4Acumulated accessible energy at the given heat level at the investigated plant site (reference case: no capture)
- 38. 11/24/2017 Chalmers 38 Results: Capture scenarios 2 & 3 Presented @ TCCS-9 paper submitted into Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control
- 39. 11/24/2017 Chalmers 39 Results: Capture scenario 1 Heat level 1* (261 GJ/h) can capture 87 % of CO2 from hot stoves flue gas 20% of total site emissions captured supplied by heat from back pressure operation + flue gas WHRB Capture unit Steam Network Hot Stoves flue gas 269° C Hot Stoves flue gas 143 °C WHRB sat. Steam 130 °C (2.7 bar) sat. condensate 130 °C (2.7 bar) * Heat level 1 modified! Waste heat recovery boiler (WHRB) implemented to cool flue gases/ avoid large direct contact cooler 9 MW additional heat to reboiler
- 40. 11/24/2017 Chalmers 40 Cost results: Cost of steam for HL1 - 4 • Low steam cost < 2€/t for HL1-3, i.e. back-pressure operation, gas flaring and flue gas waste heat recovery • Marginal cost for adding coke dry quenching (CDQ) above 60 €/t Investment of additional fossil fired boiler with higher capacity likely cheaper Right : Marginal cost of steam for each extra heat recovery level; CHP scenario ← Left: average cost of steam depending on recovered heat
- 41. 11/24/2017 Chalmers 41 Cost results: summary Specific heat MJ/t CO2 3.40 2.80 2.89 2.93 3.00 3.08 3.10 3.10 3.11 Capture from stream % 87.4 46.2 79.2 84.9 91.1 32.2 53.6 58.0 63.7 Specific cost €/t CO2 captured 32.6 28.0 26.7 26.5 33.4 36.2 32.6 32.3 39.7 Sc. 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
- 42. 11/24/2017 Chalmers 42 Key findings so far • Capture from the blast furnace at heat level 1 has the lowest absolute cost (CAPEX + OPEX): 18 M€/a; ~ 20% of total site emissions. • Capture from the blast furnace at heat level 3 has the lowest specific costs: 26.5 €/t CO2; ~ 37% of total site emissions • Implementation of all 5 heat recovery levels may power the capture of 43 % of total site emissions • Capture from BFG outperforms capture from flue gases (HS/CHP) in capture cost • OPEX dominates over CAPEX for all scenarios, especially for higher capture rates due to • economy of scale, and • increasing steam price
- 43. 11/24/2017 Chalmers 43 Concluding remarks • ”Low-hanging fruit”: Partial capture of CO2 from steel industry is relatively low cost and considerable emission reductions can be achieved! • Fast deployment of partial capture has potential to help incentivise large scale CCS Full capture CCS sites (≥ 90 % capture) carbon-free/new technology sites partial capture sites (CCS) potential increased capture on site level electrification hydrogen as fuel (electrification) new production pathways Biomass energy efficiency fuel change CO2emissionreductionpotential 100 % Initial deployment in time • Partial capture can be applied in combination with other mitigation options, e.g. biomass and fuel change Decarbonizing process industry
- 44. 11/24/2017 Chalmers 44 Acknowledgements The presenters wish to thank the partners in the CO2stCap project: The University College of Southeast Norway, Tel-Tek, Chalmers University of Technology, RISE (Innventia), Swerea MEFOS, GCCSI, IEAGHG, The Swedish Energy Agency, Gassnova, SSAB, Elkem AS, Norcem Brevik AS and AGA Gas AB. Thank you for listening!
- 45. Questions / Discussion Please submit your questions in English, directly into the GoToWebinar control panel.
- 46. Please submit any feedback to: webinar@globalccsinstitute.com
Editor's Notes
- The project will, from a cost perspective, evaluate different capture efficiencies from industries previously identified as suitable for CCS. The project will contribute to substantial reduction in cost of CO2 capture by focusing on CO2 sources suitable for capture in industry sources.
- 85-95% capture rate of all emissions El cost from grid 8760 hours operation time 25 years of operation No use of waste heat
- Title, introduction and reason
- Target: 20 minutes
- This is a multi-stack facility -> one aspect of partial capture includes the selection of the most suitable stacks at a site. Here, this is CHP flue gas & HS flue gas due to high CO2 concentration (more cost effective); Also, the option of capturing from the pressurized CO2 rich blast furnace gas is evaluated. Mention: co2 concnetrations, -majority of gas to CHP is BFG (90%) - Low level vs high level integration (end of pipe vs process gas)
- -> message: Different scenarios in detail, have different capture potential
- Three models used; We see how they are connected or rather what information was transferred between the models
- -In house model by Swerea Mefos which solves mass and energy balances for process units in the steel process. -mapped possible heat recovery sources for partial capture: Specify steam to.
- In aspen plus we model partial capture, assuming 30% MEA solvent. What is different from other works: we do not aim for 90% capture rate;
- Hours: 95 % annual capacity. The blastfurnace runs at approx. 98%; CHP at 99 % Electricity: orients itself to average of Nordpool spotmarket prices for the years 2013-2016: ca. 29 €/MWh; underlying thought – any electricity demand for partial capture will be covered by CHP electricity -> loss in revenue from power generation.
- For all other equipments in steam netwrok for HL3, separate installation factors (which includes different % for indirect costs, civil & engg costs, contingency etc) are being used.
- What we see: average cost of steam in each heat level Reference value in project 17 €/t Cost for HL5: not estimated yet
- CAPEX: for capture unit CAPEX connection: for gas pipeline to capture unit
- Low hanging fruit: relative to full capture absolut cost, relative to other mitigation options for steel; for sweden: do partial capture with nearly 50 (45%) at 3 blast furnaces in the country, reduce national emissions by 5 %!! Ramp up may be potentially speeded up Combination with other mitigation options; biomass -> PCI;