17 th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION ON 17 th - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
17 th international conference exhibition on
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

17 th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION ON 17 th - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Feb 03, 2023 41 likes •294 views

17 th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION ON 17 th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS (LNG 17) ON LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS (LNG 17) MINIMIZING THE CO 2 EMISSION FROM LIQUEFACTION PLANT <Title of Presentation>

slide-1
SLIDE 1

<Title of Presentation> By: <Author Name>, <Organization> <Date> <Title of Presentation> By: <Author Name>, <Organization> <Date>

17th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION ON LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS (LNG 17)

MINIMIZING THE CO2 EMISSION FROM LIQUEFACTION PLANT By: Yoshitsugi Kikkawa, Moritaka Nakamura, Chiyoda Corporation, Yokohama, Japan 17 April, 2013

17th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION ON LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS (LNG 17)

slide-2
SLIDE 2

1.Introduction

  • The 1st generation LNG power chain for Japan

started with gas supplies from Alaska Kenai LNG, Brunei LNG and ADGAS LNG, and resulted the planned air pollution reduction has been successfully achieved.

  • Reduction of CO2 emission to solve global

warming

  • After the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power

Station accident caused by the March 11, 2011 tsunami, LNG will be a solution for reduction of CO2 emission

2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Reduction of CO2 Emission from Liquefaction Plant

  • Acid gas removal and carbon capture and

storage (CCS)

  • Optimizing the liquefaction system.
  • Minimizing the flare load during train start-up

and shut down

  • Optimizing the prime mover system, including

e-drive

  • Carbon capture and storage (CCS) from the

flue gas of the plant

3

slide-4
SLIDE 4
  • 2. Study Basis (1/2)
  • Plant Location: Oceania
  • Feed Gas Composition:
  • Feed Gas Condition

– Pressure: 70bar – Temperature: 27deg.C – An air cooling system was used for the plant

Component Mol% CO2 1.0 N2 0.1 C1 86.5 C2 8.2 C3 3.4 C4 0.8 C5 0.0

4

slide-5
SLIDE 5
  • 2. Study Basis(2/2)
  • Feed Gas Price: 2/4/6 US$/mmbtu
  • Plant Capacity: 9-10MTA by 2 trains
  • Liquefaction Process: C3-MR Process
  • Delivery Pressure of CCS: 150bar
  • CO2 Price for EOR: 40 US$/tCO2
  • Carbon Tax for CO2 Emission: 16-154 US$/tCO2

5

slide-6
SLIDE 6
  • Fig. 2.1 Typical C3-MR Process Flow Diagram

6

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Country ry Currenc ncy Carbon n Tax, Currenc ncy/ y/tCO CO2 Currenc ncy/ y/ US$ S$ Carbon n Tax US$ S$/tCO2 Finland nd euro 20 1.318 26.4 Sw Sweden SEK 1,010 0.153 154.2 Norway NOK 371 0.179 66.3 Denmark DKK 90 0.177 15.9 Austra ralia lia A$ 23 1.037 23.8

Table 2.1 Carbon Tax Example

7

slide-8
SLIDE 8
  • 3. Study Result

3.1 Acid Gas Removal (AGR) and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) 3.2 Optimizing the liquefaction system 3.3 Minimizing the Flare Load 3.4 Driver Option 3.5 Comparison of Fuel CO2 Emission 3.6 CCS Costs Estimation for Fuel CO2

8

slide-9
SLIDE 9

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 Qatargas RasGas Atlantic LNG Nigeria LNG Oman LNG tCO2/tLNG AGR CO2 tCO2/tLNG Fuel CO2

  • Fig. 3.1 tCO2 Emission /tLNG from Operating LNG Plant

9

slide-10
SLIDE 10

3.1 Acid Gas Removal (AGR) and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)

  • 4 Stage Compression
  • Dehydration at the 4th Stage Inlet
  • CCS Cost

– Additional Equipment Costs – Additional Fuel Cost

10

slide-11
SLIDE 11

20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 CO2 US$/tCO2 Fuel Cost US$/mmbtu 1mol % 2mol % 5mol%

Fig.3.2 AGR CO2 CCS Cost

11

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Fig.3.3 Cross section of Two-Phase Expander

3.2 Optimizing the liquefaction system – Turbo-Expander Application

12

Ref: Kikkawa et. al."Completing the Liquefaction Train by Using Two-Phase LNG Expanders" AIChE Spring Meeting, Tampa, Florida, USA, Apr.27-30 2009

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Table 3.1 Expected Cycle Efficiency Improvement

Expander Location Liquid Expander Two-Phase Expander LNG 2.5% 3.0% Light MR 0.5% 0.7% Heavy MR 2.2% 2.8%

13

slide-14
SLIDE 14
  • Fig. 3.4 WSAC Flow Diagram

Wet Surface Air Cooler (WSAC) Application

14

Ref: Kuo, J. C. et. al., "49e. New Cooling Application: Total Heat Removal from Base Load LNG Plant", AIChE Spring Meeting, Chicago, IL, Mar. 13-17, 2011

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Fig.3.5 Wet Bulb Temperature vs. Relative Humidity @ 27 deg.C

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Wet Bulb Temp. C Relative Humidity %

15

90% 92% 94% 96% 98% 100% 102% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

  • Ref. Power

Relative Humidity

Fig.3.6 Ref. Power vs. Relative Humidity of Air for WSAC Application

98.0% 98.5% 99.0% 99.5% 100.0% 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Heat Rate Relative Humidity, %

Fig.3.7 Heat Rate vs. Relative Humidity of Air for GE Frame 7

slide-16
SLIDE 16

3.3 Minimizing the Flare Load

(a) Start-up and Scheduled Shut Down (b)Flare Load from Relieving Device

16

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Table 3.2 Performance of Gas Turbine by GE

Name GE Model Type ISO Power (MW) Thermal Efficiency GT ST LM2500 LM2500+G4 Aero 31

  • 40.4%

LMS100 LMS100 Aero 100

  • 43.7%

Frame 6 Frame6B Heavy Duty 42

  • 32.1%

Frame7 Frame7EA Heavy Duty 86

  • 32.7%

Frame9 Frame9E Heavy Duty 130

  • 33.1%

S106B S106B Combined Cycle 38 22 49.0% S106FA S106FA Combined Cycle 67 42 52.9% S109E* S109E Combined Cycle 123 70 53.0%

3.4 Driver Option

17

*Note: The Option 3 configuration is based on this type.

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Table 3.3 Driver Configuration for Driver Options

Case C3 Compressor Driver MR Compressor Driver CCS Option 1 Frame 7 (C3+HP MR) Frame 7 (LP +MP MR) No Option 2 LMS100 (C3+HP MR) LMS100 (LP +MP MR) No Option 3 Steam Turbine Frame 9 No Option 4 Motor Motor No Option 5 Motor Motor Yes

18

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Fig.3.8 Option-1 Configuration

19

Fig.3.9 Option-2 Configuration

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Fig.3.10 Option-3 Configuration

20

Fig.3.11 Option-4 Configuration

slide-21
SLIDE 21
  • Fig. 3.12 Process Configuration for Fuel CO2 CCS

21

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Table 3.4 Power Plant Configurations for Driver Options

Case Operation Stand-by Remarks Option-1 Frame 6 x3 Frame 6 x1 Option-2 LM2500+ x 4 LM2500+ x1 Option-3 S106B x2 +Frame 6 Frame 6 x1 Option-4 S106FA x4 S106FA x1 Option-5 S106FA x5 S106FA x1

22

slide-23
SLIDE 23
  • Fig. 3.13 Fuel CO2 per ton LNG

0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 Option-1 Option-2 Option-3 Option-4 tCO2/tLNG Option

tCO2/tLNG

3.5 Comparison of Fuel CO2 Emission

23

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Fig.3.14 CO2 CCS Cost for Fuel CO2

140.0 150.0 160.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 CCS Cost $/tCO2 Fuel Price $/mmbtu

CO2 CCS Cost for Fuel

3.6 CCS Costs Estimation for Fuel CO2

24

slide-25
SLIDE 25
  • 4. Conclusion and Future Consideration
  • Wide options to address the reduction of CO2 emissions from

the liquefaction plant towards zero.

  • The AGR CCS will be reasonably justified when EOR operation

is located near the LNG plant. Increasing the thermal efficiency of the driver system will be reasonably justified by reduction of the fuel requirement. However, the CCS of fuel CO2 will be difficult to justify even where EOR can be used at the location.

  • In Future, the CCS of fuel CO2 will be performed at the LNG

plant site if the social/government requests further reduction.

25