alysis of smr thermal an augmentation with chp turbine exhaust · smr model in aspen plus operating...
TRANSCRIPT
NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.
Analysis of SMR Thermal Augmentation with CHP Turbine Exhaust
Michael Penev
August 21, 2013
NREL/PR-5400-66836
2
Relevant Characteristics of Typical CHP Turbine
Sources: • “Technology Characterization: Gas Turbines”, Energy and Environmental Analysis, Prepared for: Environmental Protection Agency, 2008 • Solar turbines performance specifications: Taurus 60, 5.74 MW turbine • R. Pravi, G. Moore, “Gas Turbine Emissions and Control”, GE Power Systems, March, 2001, GER-4211
Air intake Exhaust: • Temperature: 510°C (950°F) • Mass flow: 171,690 lb/h • Back-pressure allowance:
sufficient for steam generator heat exchanger (inches water column)
• Oxygen content: 15 vol%
Solar Turbines • Taurus 60 • 5.74 MW
3
Typical SMR System Configuration
Sources: • R. Elshout, “Hydrogen Production By Steam Reforming”, Chemical Engineering www.che.com, May 2010 issue, page 34
4
Typical SMR System Configuration
Sources: • R. Elshout, “Hydrogen Production By Steam Reforming”, Chemical Engineering www.che.com, May 2010 issue, page 34
Note: Internal pressure is sub-atmospheric.
5
Modeling of Typical SMR System
Process conditions source: Nexant Inc., “Equipment Design and Cost Estimation for Small Modular Biomass Systems, Synthesis Gas Cleanup, and Oxygen Separation Equipment”, May 2006
20
300
CH4-FEED
20
300
1
510
300
SMR-INTR
-480869.271
STM-HREQQ
510
0
CHP-HT01
38
1
AIR-2
38
1
OXIDANT
20
0
CH4-BURN
37
-0
RAFF-01
22
-0
BURN-IN
-503601.983SMR-HEAT
22
-0
BURN-IN2
560
-0
EXH2
815
300
REF-01
350
300
REF-02
215935.529STM-H02
412
300
REF-03
37
-0
REF-07
37
-0
REF-08
37
-0
COND-01
100
-0
REF-06
204
300
REF-04
92163.967
STM-H03
225
300
REF-05
37
-0H2
100
-0
EXHAUST
204459.200STM-H01
51185.530
STM-H04563744.225
STM-HTQ
20
15
H2O-FEED 0.304
PMP-AUXW
20
0
COMB-AIR5.648
AIR-AUXW
22
-0
3
1528
-0
4
STM-GEN
SELECTOR MANIFOLD
SMR-BRNR
SMR
SGEN02
HTSFLASH-01
CONDENSSGEN03 LTS
PSA
SGEN01
STM-HT
SGEN04
W-PUMP
AIR-BLWRF-TEMP
FLAMETST Temp eratu re (C)
Pressu re (psig)
Du ty (Watt)
Power(k W )
NREL replicated typical SMR model, using ASPEN Plus
Efficiency: 76.3% LHV (without utilities) Production scale: 1,000 kg/day Key observations: - high quality heat drives gas consumption for process heat - low quality heat exceeds steam generation demand - gas consumption reduction can be achieved by high quality heat > 880°C
6
Integration Concept
CHP Exhaust 15%O2 510°C
• SMR combustion air intake is manifolded to accept CHP exhaust • Fuel is combusted into CHP exhaust to increase heat quality
• adiabatic flame temperature ~1470°C • Hand-off pressure = ambient (consistent with SMR construction)
7 7
PraxAir Patent US 7043923 B2, May 16, 2006
8
20
300
CH4-FEED
20
300
1
510
300
SMR-INTR
-480869.271
STM-HREQQ
510
0
CHP-HT01
38
1
AIR-2
38
1
OXIDANT
20
0
CH4-BURN
37
-0
RAFF-01
22
-0
BURN-IN
-503601.983SMR-HEAT
22
-0
BURN-IN2
560
-0
EXH2
815
300
REF-01
350
300
REF-02
215935.529STM-H02
412
300
REF-03
37
-0
REF-07
37
-0
REF-08
37
-0
COND-01
100
-0
REF-06
204
300
REF-04
92163.967
STM-H03
225
300
REF-05
37
-0H2
100
-0
EXHAUST
204459.200STM-H01
51185.530
STM-H04563744.225
STM-HTQ
20
15
H2O-FEED 0.304
PMP-AUXW
20
0
COMB-AIR5.648
AIR-AUXW
22
-0
3
1528
-0
4
STM-GEN
SELECTOR MANIFOLD
SMR-BRNR
SMR
SGEN02
HTSFLASH-01
CONDENSSGEN03 LTS
PSA
SGEN01
STM-HT
SGEN04
W-PUMP
AIR-BLWRF-TEMP
FLAMETST Temp eratu re (C)
Pressu re (psig)
Du ty (Watt)
Power(k W )
Combustion oxidant can be either fresh air or CHP exhaust
SMR Model in ASPEN Plus
Operating conditions examined: • Reactor outlet temperature 815°C, 880°C • PSA hydrogen recovery extent: 90%, 97%
Performance metrics: • Natural gas consumption (process & combustor) • Low quality heat impact • Hydrogen production impact
9 9
SMR Configuration Units BaselineCHP+SMRConfig. A
CHP+SMRConfig. B
CHP+SMRConfig. C
CHP+SMRConfig. D
SMR-out temperature °C 815 815 880 815 880PSA H2 recovery % mol/mol 90% 90% 90% 97% 97%High quality heat requirement kW-thermal 563,744 616,786 673,342 585,414 678,731Steam generation heat required kW-thermal 480,869 480,869 480,869 480,869 480,869Low quality heat available (steam generation) kW-thermal 503,602 503,602 606,113 503,602 606,113Methane used in production stream mmBTU HHV/kgH2 0.156 0.156 0.133 0.144 0.123Rafinate used in combustion stream mmBTU HHV/kgH2 0.054 0.054 0.032 0.041 0.020Fresh methane used in combustion stream mmBTU HHV/kgH2 0.010 0.001 0.022 0.008 0.030Total methane use mmBTU HHV/kgH2 0.165 0.156 0.155 0.152 0.153
Feedstock use efficiency(excluding CHP heat & electricity) HHV 81.3% 86.0% 86.8% 88.4% 87.9%Feedstock use efficiency(excluding CHP heat & electricity) LHV 76.3% 80.7% 81.5% 83.0% 82.5%Total CH4 consumption reduction 0.0% 5.5% 6.3% 8.1% 7.5%
Performance Summary
Initial indication shows as much as 8% fuel consumption reduction. Integration ratio: 1 MW CHP can augment 14,000 kg/day SMR
10
10
Supply Chain Models Examined Central Production
Forecourt Production
Semi-Central Production
H2 dispensing Delivery trucks
Central SMR
H2 dispensing Distributed SMR
H2 dispensing Semi-Central SMR H2 dispensing H2 dispensing
Distribution pipe (~2 miles/station, 0.7 inch ID)
11 11
H2A Analysis, Current Technology, Central SMR Basis
• H2A Production Model values are used for production and CSD costs (N’th plant assumption in effect) • ANL input was used for truck delivery costs • H2A Components Model values were used for pipeline costs (2 miles, 0.7 inch ID pipeline per station)
CaseCentralSMR
CentralCHP+SMR
ForecourtSMR
ForecourtCHP+SMR
Semi-CentralSMR
Semi-CentralCHP+SMR
Production Capacity (kg/day) 379,387 379,387 1,500 1,500 4,500 4,500 Per-Station Dispensing Capacity (kg/day) 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500
Production Costs ($/kg)Capital Costs 0.32$ 0.32$ 0.58$ 0.57$ 0.42$ 0.42$ Fixed O&M 0.06$ 0.06$ 0.19$ 0.19$ 0.13$ 0.13$ Feedstock Costs 1.23$ 1.13$ 1.14$ 1.05$ 1.14$ 1.05$ Other Variable Costs (including utilities) 0.07$ 0.07$ 0.11$ 0.11$ 0.11$ 0.11$ Total 1.70$ 1.59$ 2.03$ 1.93$ 1.81$ 1.72$
Delivery Costs ($/kg)Delivery Cost to Station 2.50$ 2.50$ -$ -$ 0.08$ 0.08$
Dispensing Costs ($/kg)Compression Storage & Dispensing 2.46$ 2.46$ 2.46$ 2.46$ 2.46$ 2.46$
Total Cost 6.66$ 6.56$ 4.49$ 4.40$ 4.35$ 4.26$
12 12
H2A Analysis, Current Technology, Central SMR Basis
$6.66 $6.56
$4.49 $4.40 $4.35 $4.26
$-
$1
$2
$3
$4
$5
$6
$7
$8
CentralSMR
CentralCHP+SMR
ForecourtSMR
ForecourtCHP+SMR
Semi-CentralSMR
Semi-CentralCHP+SMR
Cost of Hydrogen by ScenarioProduction Capital Costs
Production Fixed O&M
Production FeedstockCosts
Production Other RawMaterial Costs
Delivery Cost to Station
Compression Storage &Dispensing Cost
Cost
of d
ispe
nsed
hyd
roge
n $/
kg
• H2A Production Model values are used for production and CSD costs (N’th plant assumption in effect) • ANL input was used for truck delivery costs • H2A Components Model values were used for pipeline costs (2 miles, 0.7 inch ID pipeline per station)
13 13
H2A Analysis: Benefit of Semi-Central SMR Architecture (Preliminary Results without CHP augmentation)
• Economies of scale benefits to SMR > cost of pipeline • H2A Production Model values are used for production and CSD costs (N’th plant assumption in effect) • H2A Components Model values were used for pipeline costs (2 miles, 0.7 inch ID pipeline per station)
This image cannot currently be displayed.
14
Discussion 10¢/kg is not trivial – it is in the order of magnitude of investor rate of return 8% fuel reduction = 8% reduction in GHG emissions H2 can be distributed to nearby fueling stations (lowest cost delivery method) - Less delivery GHG emissions & trucks on the road - Semi-central SMR can get lower cost Natural Gas (industrial vs. commercial) Leverage of economies of scale - on-site technical support (no travel time and expense for service) - higher up-time due to on-site technician support - available infrastructure (natural gas, utilities, cooling) - industrial zoning may allow easier permitting Adiabatic flame temperature reduction = reduction in NOx emissions
- Power to Gas (P2G) can sell high-value H2 into network - MSW gasifiers can feed into network with lower distribution cost
15 15
Questions?
16 16
17 17
$-
$2.00
$4.00
$6.00
$8.00
$10.00
Leve
lized
H2
Deliv
ery
Cost
(200
7$/k
g)
Infrastructure StorageTube-TrailerLH2 TruckPipelineTerminalLiquefierRefueling Station
17
Levelized Hydrogen Delivery Cost Reduction Path (Input from Amgad Elgowainy, ANL)
5,000 FCVs 200 kg/day Station
100,000 FCVS 600 kg/day Station 1,000,000 FCVS, 1000 kg/day Station
18 18
Source: Parker, Nathan. "Using Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline Costs to Estimate Hydrogen Pipeline Costs," Technical Report No. UCD-ITS-RR-04-3, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, January 2005.
Pipeline Cost Distribution (Total Installed Cost)