hipercap project: assessment of co2 capture technologies · –task 4.3 - assessment of capture...
TRANSCRIPT
DNV GL © 2014 26.03.2015 SAFER, SMARTER, GREENER DNV GL © 2014
26.03.2015
Jock Brown
HiPerCap Project: Assessment of CO2 Capture Technologies
1
Melbourne Workshop
DNV GL © 2014 26.03.2015
Global reach – local competence
2
400 offices
100 countries
16,000 employees
150 years
DNV GL © 2014 26.03.2015
DNV GL Oil and Gas
5,500 exceptional
people who care about
making the industry
safer, smarter and
greener
Combining industry and
domain knowledge with
project and operational
expertise
A global network of
experts, working
together to solve local
customer challenges.
4
Service line hubs
39 Oil & Gas countries
DNV GL © 2014 26.03.2015
HiPerCap Objectives
1. To develop high-potential novel and environmentally benign technologies and
processes for post-combustion CO2 capture leading to real breakthroughs.
2. To achieve 25% reduction in efficiency penalty compared to a demonstrated
state-of-the-art capture process
3. Deliver proof of concept for technologies
4. Develop a fair methodology for comparing capture technologies
5. Develop technology roadmaps for the two most promising technologies
6
DNV GL © 2014 26.03.2015
HiPerCap Project
7
DNV GL © 2014 26.03.2015
WP4 Overview
Activities:
– Task 4.1 – Establishment of Methodology (DNV GL, SINTEF, EDF, EON, AEE,
GNF)
– Task 4.2 - Data collection of capture technologies studied in WP1-3 (SINTEF,
DNV GL, EON)
– Task 4.3 - Assessment of capture technologies studied in WP1-3 (DNV GL,
SINTEF, EDF, EON, AEE, GNF) – Not started
– Task 4.4 - Guidelines for selection and benchmarking of two breakthrough
technologies to be studied in WP5 (EDF, DNV, SINTEF, TNO, EON, AEE, GNF) –
Not started
8
DNV GL © 2014 26.03.2015
Assessment Methodology
9
DNV GL © 2014 26.03.2015
The Final Assessment
Ultimately the impact of CCS on the COST of the product produced will be how
future CCS investment decisions are made
10
DNV GL © 2014 26.03.2015
Scope of the assessment
11
Capture Process
ConditioningPre-
treatmentCompression
ReferencePower Plant(modified)
Scope 5
flue gas
Treatedflue gas
Coal
Power(kWe)
Capture technology
treatedflue gas
ReferencePower Plant
Reference Coal fired power plant
flue gasCoal
Power (kWe)
Cooling Water
steam
condensate
CoolingWater
CapturedCO2
Overall comparison
On level of key indicators
the following performance
can be determined:
Indicator Energy
Indicator Environmental
Indicator Cost
DNV GL © 2014 26.03.2015
WP4 Approach and Workflow
12
Capture Process
Scope 1
T ConditioningPre-
treatmentCompression
ReferencePower Plant(modified)
Scope 4
Scope 5
flue gas
Treatedflue gas
CapturedCO2Coal
Power(kWe)
Scope 2
Capture technology
Scope 0
Scope 3 Scope 3
treatedflue gas
steam
condensate
CoolingWater
DNV GL © 2014 26.03.2015
WP4 Approach and Workflow
14
DNV GL © 2014 26.03.2015
WP4 Approach and Workflow
15
DNV GL © 2014 26.03.2015
Reference Coal Fired Power Plant and State of the Art Capture
16
DNV GL © 2014 26.03.2015
Reference Coal fired Power Plant
Updated EBTF Case
820MW Advanced supercritical (ASC) pulverised coal (approx. 600 °C/280 bar)
17
DNV GL © 2014 26.03.2015
State of the Art Capture Technology
Criteria
– Technology needs to be installed on coal power plant
– Full set of data and details need to be publicly available
– The largest available reference should be used
– CESAR 1 case
18
DNV GL © 2014 26.03.2015
Environmental
19
DNV GL © 2014 26.03.2015
Approach
Objective: To show that given the best available information, the capture
technology is environmentally benign.
Pass or Fail assessment
Traffic Light Assessment for each polluting component:
20
DNV GL © 2014 26.03.2015
Categories
Air Pollution and Other Emissions
– Eg. SOx, NOx, PM, metals, acid and organic chemicals
Water
– Eg. Water consumed and produced, nutrients and organic pollutants in water
Materials of construction and consumed by process
– Eg. Metals for construction, sorbent materials, minerals, membranes, solvents
Wastes
– Eg. Soild and liquid waste such as reclaimer waste
21
DNV GL © 2014 26.03.2015
Energy KPI
22
DNV GL © 2014 26.03.2015
Background
Objective:
– Show that capture processes have reached goal of a reduction in energy
penalty by 25% compared to current state of the art technology.
Boundary conditions
– Minimal capture rate 85%
What to benchmark
– Impact of capture processes on the reference power plant output
23
DNV GL © 2014 26.03.2015
Preferred energy KPI
Specific energy penalty of avoided CO2 (SEPAC) [MJe/kg CO2]
𝑺𝑬𝑷𝑨𝑪 =𝑷𝒓𝒆𝒇−𝑷
𝝓𝑪𝑶𝟐,𝒓𝒆𝒇− 𝝓𝑪𝑶𝟐
– P = net electric output of the power plant in MWe
– φCO2 = the emitted flow of CO2 in 𝑘𝑔𝐶𝑂2/𝑠
24
DNV GL © 2014 26.03.2015
Cost
25
DNV GL © 2014 26.03.2015
Approach
Objective: To show new technology is cost competitive with existing technologies
and costs have not been sacrificed in pursuit of a reduction in energy
consumption.
Pass or Fail assessment
Estimate CAPEX and OPEX (excluding Energy)
26
DNV GL © 2014 26.03.2015
Uncertainty and Data Quality
27
DNV GL © 2014 26.03.2015
Uncertainty
Two types of uncertainty:
Parameter Uncertainty
– Uncertainty in experimental measurements made
Model Uncertainty
– Uncertainty related to assumptions in model and physics behind the models
– Want to understand which assumptions the model is most sensitive to
– Aim to reduce the influence of assumptions made
28
DNV GL © 2014 26.03.2015
Summary of Uncertainty Drivers
29
Strength-of-
knowledge
Belief in
deviations from
assumptions
Sensitivity with
respect to
assumptions
Uncertainty
description
DNV GL © 2014 26.03.2015
Uncertainty – A double edged sword
30
Target
Concept Design Prototype manufacturing
Qualification phases
Serv
ice L
ife
Compliance
with target
Upper limitLifetime Probability
Density Distribution
Acceptance
Percentile
Lower limit
Testing Pilot
Perf
orm
ance
DNV GL © 2014 26.03.2015
Seeing the Potential of Novel Technologies
31
DNV GL © 2014 26.03.2015
SAFER, SMARTER, GREENER
www.dnvgl.com
Thanks very much
32
Jock Brown
+47 907 35453
www.dnvgl.com/ccus