Oxy-fuel technology for CCS: The course and oxy-fuel

pf/CFB overview The Fourth Oxy-fuel Capacity Building Course

Tokyo Institute of Technology September 2/3, 2012

Professor Terry Wall University of Newcastle, Australia

The fourth course

ReferencesB.J.P. Buhre, L.K. Elliott, C.D. Sheng, R.P. Gupta, and T.F. Wall, Oxy-Fuel Combustion

Technology For Coal-Fired Power Generation, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 31, 283-307, 2005.

T. F. Wall, Combustion processes for carbon capture, Invited plenary lecture and review, 31st International Symposium on Combustion, University of Heidelberg, Proceedings of The Combustion Institute, 31, 31-47, 2007.

Terry Wall, Yinghui Liu, Chris Spero, Liza Elliott, Sameer Khare, Renu Rathnam, Farida Zeenathal, Behdad Moghtaderi, Bart Buhre, Changdong Scheng, Raj Gupta, Toshihiko Yamada, Keiji Makino, Jianglong Yu, An overview on oxyfuel coal combustion—state of the art research and technology development, Chemical Engineering Research and Design (ChERD), Volume 87, Issue 8, Pages 1003-1016, 2009.

Terry Wall and Rohan Stanger, Chapter on “Industrial scale oxy-fuel technology demonstration”, Oxy-fuel combustion for power generation and carbon dioxide (CO2) capture , Edited by L Zheng, CanmetENERGY Ottawa Research Centre, Natural Resources Canada, Canada, Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy No. 17, ISBN: 978 1 84569 671 9, pp 54-76, February 2011

Terry Wall, Rohan Stanger and Dennis McDonald, Oxyfuel technology for power generation with carbon capture and storage, Chapter in "Oxygen-Enhanced Combustion”, Editor, Charles E. Baukal, Jr., CRC Press, Boca Raton, USA, 2012

… and web links on OFWG site http://www.newcastle.edu.au/project/oxy-fuel-working-group/links.html

TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW

TECHNOLOGY Oxy-fuel technology for carbon capture and storage (CCS) - overview

Substitutes air with oxygen in a standard PF power station (front-end), requiring an ASU, recycled flue gas with gas processing and compression (back-end) to provide a CO2 product for storage

Boiler or Gas Turbine

Ash removal / cooler /

condenser / FGD

Steam Turbine

Purification / compression

Steam

Oxygen

Fuel

Power

CO2 (SO2)

CO2 –rich Flue Gas

Air Separation unit (ASU)

Air

Recycled Flue Gas (RFG)

Nitrogen

Conc. Stream of CO2

Vent

Front-end Back-end

What recycled CO2?

Recycling of CO2 gas, why and effects

Reason…

To avoid N2 in flue gas, so CO2 is not “captured”

To establish similar heat transfer in boiler and convection pass

To establish gas flow through system

Requires about 27% O2 through burners, equivalent to recycling of 2/3 of CO2

But…

Concentrates impurities in furnace gases – NOx, SOx, Hg

And recycled NOx is reburnt as it passes through flame

And flue gas contains XSO2, air (O2 +4N2) from leakage, and Ar from ASU

A simple balance shows that the volume of flue gas reduces, so impurities (eg, SOx, NOx, Hg) will increase in concentration compared to air firing

Coal + O2

CO2

– 1 volume

Coal + air (O2+ 4N2) CO2 +4N2

– 5 volumes

Oxy- firing

Air firing

The Callide Oxyfuel Project (COP) flowsheet: Australian retrofit for a low S coal, Yamada, OFWG China course, 2010

Notes:

No S removal

Slip stream for partial CO2 recovery

Primary gas has cooler/condenser to dry gas, which removes some SOx

Hg removed in fabric filter?

FutureGen 2.0 flowsheet: repowering for a high S coal, McDonald, Clearwater, 2011

Units:

PJFF – pressure jet FF

WFGD – wet FGD

DCCPS – direct contact cooler/ polishing scrubber

… has sorbent for SO3 removal

… For >1%S in coal, gives similar SO2 in furnace gases as 3% S coal fired in air

200C

Notes:

Secondary gas recycle at 200C before DCCPS

Cool primary gas recycle after DCCPS, after partial drying and SOx removal

Air Liquide CO2 Compression and Purification, Tranier, OCC1, 2009

Filter

HP scrubber

HP dryers

LP scrubber

Notes:Similar to Callide Uncertain condensate (HNO3, Hg(NO3)2) from HP scrubber

mercury removal removed

Uncertain NO2 from NO2/CO2 distillation

Oxy-circulating fluidised bed – CFB - technology

Suited to low-grade or high sulfur fuels

Potentially less expensive than pf

Reduction of flue gas recycling, thereby reducing the size of the boiler island, and some of the auxiliaries consumption. This may potentially allow more compact and less expensive CFB boilers

Direct sulfation of limestone will occur due the high partial pressure of CO2

CFBC’s are operated at slightly over atmospheric pressure, and the possibility of air-in-leakage is reduced.

The CUIDEN facility in Spain

Direct and indirect sulfation

Calcium conversion under direct sulfation is usually higher than that under calcination/sulfation due

to the better porosity of product layer as suggested by several studies.

CFB technology development

Drivers

Contribution of industry technology segments to reduce CO2 emissions

GHG global reductions in the power sector in 2030 – CCS significance

Why power generation? Why coal? Why CCS?

• Power generation, the main source of emissions

• Coal, the main fuel for power generation

• Saline aquifers, the largest potential store

• Coal emits more CO2 per energy than other fuels, but is a relatively secure energy source

• CCS R&D emphasis on coal technology

Global CO2 storage capacity

Capacity

• In highly prospective and prospective areas, suitable saline aquifer formations, oil or gas fields, or coal beds, at least

• 2,000 GtCO2 ~ 150 years of worldwide CO2 from large stationary sources

Matching CO2 sources and storage sinks

• 30-60% of CO2 emissions from electricity generation and 30- 40% of those from industry would be suitable for capture in the future

• IPCC study uses 1-8 US$/tCO2 for 250 km transport

Status: Examples of operating plants, www.co2captureandstorage.info

Technology Location Coal Power Capture Storage

PCC Warrier Run*, Chiba*, Bellingham

X* X X

IGCC 4 power plants- USA, EU

Many refineries

X

X

X

X XOxyf Kimberlina X X

Storage Weyburn*, Sleipner, In Salah X* X X

Status: Some demonstrations of coal-fired integrated plantsPCC RWE (Germany) Post - 2009

IGCC-CCS Futuregen (USA), 275 MWe

RWE (Germany), 400-450 MWe

Stanwell (Australia), 200 MWe

2012

2014

2012 Oxyf Vattenfall (Germany), 30 MWt

Callide (Australia), 30 MWe

2008

2011

CCS options, with desirable characteristics indicated X

Option For retrofit

Can be applied to

slip- stream

No O2supply

No CO2capture

Gives H2

PCC X X X

IGCC- CCS

X

Oxyf X X

Zero emission technology (ZET) targets and CO2 release

Emissions, from IEA (2005)

SO2 – 98-99 % removalNOx – 25-50 mg/m3Particulates – 1-10 mg/m3

CO2 release, g/kWh, from IEA technology reports (2003-2005)

Pf+FGD, without capture 710-910PCC 117IGCC-CCS, dry 142IGCC-CCS, slurry 152Oxyfuel 92

Efficiency comparisons with and without capture, neglecting transport and storage

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

PCC IGCC-CCSslurry

IGCC-CCSdry

Oxyf

Technology

Effic

ienc

y, %

LH

V

With CCS

PCC IGCC IGCC Oxyf

-slurry -dry

LCOE for different technologies with CCS in different locations

Ref: Global CCS Institute , Strategic Analysis of the Global Status of Carbon Capture and Storage, Report 5: Synthesis Report, 2009, http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/

CO2 values for breakpoints … for new plant, including capture, transport and storage, probably for US data

Ref: Global CCS Institute , Strategic Analysis of the Global Status of Carbon Capture and Storage, Report 5: Synthesis Report, 2009, http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/

Pay CO2 tax Invest in CCS

With CCS

Without CCS

TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS

CCS projects worldwide, from GCCSi

Commercial scale and integrated projects

• projects storing or proposing to store 1 Mtpa or greater of CO2 and integrated, that is, combines CC with S•oxyfuel has 14 active or planned projects• expected failure rate on active or planned projects ~ 80%

Carb on capture technology comparisons,

…. Ref: GCCSi, The global status of CCS – 2011, http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/

Technology readiness

…. Ref: GCCSi, The global status of CCS – 2011,

http://www.globalccsinstitute.com /

Historical progression of oxyfuel technology, with projects without electricity generation scaled to MWe/3

Pearl Plant 22

ANL/BHP 0.2

ANL/EERC 1.0

IHI 0.5

IFRF 1.0

International Comb 11.7

CANMET 0.1

B&W/AL 0.4

JSIM/NEDO(Oil) 4.0

IVD-Stuttgart 0.2

PowerGen 0.3

Jupiter 6.7

0.2 RWE-NPOWER

ENEL 1.0

B&W 10

Callide A 30Schwarze Pumpe 10

Lacq (NG) 10

Oxy-coal UK 13.3

CIUDEN PC 6.7CIUDEN CFB 10

Jamestown CFB 50

Jänschwalde 250

Youngdong 100Project Viking (Oil) 150

Demonstration with CCS

Industrial scale without CCS

Pilot scale

Compostilla CFB 320

Holland CFB 78Black Hills CFB 100

ENEL Oxy-high pressure 16

Demonstration (yet to proceed)

FutureGen 2.0 200

0

1

10

100

1000

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030Year

MW

e (o

r MW

t/3)

Sequence to commercialization, proposed by S Santos, at the IEA Oxyfuel Conference, Cottbus, 2009

Recent developments

The US oxy-fuel projects (B&W’s Black Hills, Praxair’s Holland (78MW CFB) and New York State’s Jamestown (50MW CFB) projects) did not receive funding from the third funding round of the US DOE Clean Coal Power Initiative.

FUTUREGEN 2.0 has been changed from an IGCC plant to an oxy-fuel repowering plant

In Europe, Vattenfall’s 250MW pulverised coal Jaenschwalde project and Endesa’s 300MW CFB Compostilla project are being progressed

Total’s oxy-natural gas pilot plant at Lacq was inaugurated in January 2010 with monitoring of the injection site to proceed for three years after the two year injection period.

In Australia, the Callide Oxyfuel Demonstration is operating

Deployment

0

50

100

150

0 0.5 1

Cost/tonne CO2

Demonstration Phase

Mature Commercial Phase2030+

Early CommercialPhase2020+

Estimated CCS cost

Carbon Price

Deployment phases

Demonstration Early commercial Mature commercial

Cost barrier

Cost barrier covered by:

Government

Industry – Generators/ utility, coal INDUSTRY

Technology vendors

Issues in deployment of technology, with significance categories ***most significant, **significant, * less significant

Category Barrier Significance Block Cost Energy

penalty CO2

recovery O2 production ASU *** *** *

Fuel preparation, lignite drying * Lignite * *

Oxy combustion ** ** **

Flue gas recycle and O2 mixing ** ** * Steam cycle * * *

Oxy power plant

Flue gas treatment and cooling *** * *

CO2 purification

O2, N2, Ar removal ** ** ***

Technology blocks

CO2 compression

** ** *

Capability of vendors *

Government and vendor support of demonstrations *** Carbon credits for demonstrations ***

Market

Uncertain future cost of carbon *** Oxyfuel flowsheet, and need for gas cleaning unit operations

**

Validated comparisons of costs **

Economic Technology maturity **

Public knowledge of CCS *** Public acceptability Education programs **

Access for pipeline or storage site assessment *** Legal Regulations on CO2 quality ***

Simplified roadmap to deployment of first-generation oxyfuel technology, suggested by Wall, Stanger and McDonald (2012)

Oxy-CFB roadmap

Final comments

Oxy-fuel technology developing through RD&D, with

– a pathway of technical development– but with deployment issues common to other CCS

technologies

The 3rd APP OFWG course will cover

– the principles of the technology– current demonstrations and deployment prospects

We are fortunate to have a lecturing team with the leading proponents, vendors and researchers, and we trust you will benefit from the course