European Best Practice Guidelines for the Evaluation of CO 2 Capture - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
european best practice guidelines for the evaluation of
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

European Best Practice Guidelines for the Evaluation of CO 2 Capture - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Aug 25, 2023 238 likes •501 views

European Best Practice Guidelines for the Evaluation of CO 2 Capture Technologies Trondheim 16/06/2011 Authors : Rahul Anantharaman , Olav Bolland, Nick Booth, Eva van Dorst, Clas Ekstrom, Eva Sanchez Fernandez, Ennio Macchi, Giampaolo

slide-1
SLIDE 1

1

European Best Practice Guidelines for the Evaluation

  • f CO2 Capture Technologies

Trondheim – 16/06/2011

Authors: Rahul Anantharaman, Olav Bolland, Nick Booth, Eva van Dorst, Clas Ekstrom, Eva Sanchez Fernandez, Ennio Macchi, Giampaolo Manzolini, Djordje Nikolic, Mark Prins, Sina Rezvani, Laurence Robinson

slide-2
SLIDE 2

2

 The European Benchmarking Task Force  Results achieved

 The Common Framework Definition Document (CFDD)  Test Cases for reference  Economic assessment

 Summary

Outline

slide-3
SLIDE 3

3

 Consistent and transparent comparison of CO2 capture technologies is important and difficult  A team was created with representatives from three FP7 projects – CAESAR, CESAR and DECARBit to

 Elaborate a Common Framework Definition Document (CFDD)  Define and analyse set of test cases

 The results of the work were to be made public and easily accessible to the CCS community

The European Benchmarking Task Force

slide-4
SLIDE 4

4

  • 1. The Common Framework

Definition Document

 The purpose is NOT to recommend any values as the best or the right ones for future power plants  The purpose IS to define a set of parameters to ensure that technical and economic comparison of novel cycles involving novel technologies is done in a consistent and fair way  The choice of parameters is justified and the source acknowledged, for example IEA, DOE, EU, specialized publications, other projects, expert opinion and others are identified

slide-5
SLIDE 5

5

  • 1. The Common Framework DD

New air separation technologies New CO2 separation technologies Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle n

  • Ambient conditions
  • Unit systems
  • Fuel characteristics

Operating & cost parameters of standard components Operating & cost parameters of components based

  • n novel technologies

Consistent comparison

  • f new technologies and cycles
slide-6
SLIDE 6

6

 Three cases without and with CO2 capture

 Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle  Natural Gas Combined Cycle  Ultra Super Critical Pulverized Coal

 The purpose is NOT to compare power generation technologies  The purpose IS to propose references for comparisons of novel cycles within the same power generation technology – PF, IGCC, NGCC  Contents of the report, for each case

 Cycle description in detail  Heat and mass balance analysis  Operational characteristics  Operational performance  Comparison of results independently produced by two of the three projects

  • 2. The test cases
slide-7
SLIDE 7

7

  • 2. The test cases

 General assumptions

 Plants operating at nominal base load  ‘New and clean’ conditions

 Assessment of the Specific Primary Energy Consumption for CO2 Avoided – SPECCA:

 HR = heat rate of the plants  E = CO2 emission rate of the plants  REF = reference plant without CO2 capture E E E E HR HR SPECCA

REF REF REF REF

−         − ⋅ = − − = η η 1 1 3600

slide-8
SLIDE 8

8

  • 2. The test cases

 Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle with capture

DECARBit and CAESAR

slide-9
SLIDE 9

9

  • 2. The test cases

 Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle with capture

DECARBit and CAESAR

Comparison of some characteristics and performance DECARBit CAESAR MWe MWe GT output 282.87 304.97 ST output 168.46 175.95 Gross elec. power output 457.17 491.09 Total aux. power consumption 104.43 107.61 Net electric power out. 352.74 383.48 Efficiency 36.66 36.40 Specific emissions kg/MWh 85.28 97.54 SPECCA 3.30 3.67

slide-10
SLIDE 10

10

  • 2. The test cases

 Natural Gas Combined Cycle with capture

CAESAR and CESAR

CO2 compression 19 Gas turbine Heat Recovery Steam Generator Steam turbine 4 1 6 15 7 CO2 separation by MEA 17

Steam Water Air Nitrogen Oxygen Flue gas Fuel CO2 Gas mixtures Other

11 18

slide-11
SLIDE 11

11

  • 2. The test cases

 Natural Gas Combined Cycle with capture

CAESAR and CESAR

Comparison of some characteristics and performance CAESAR CESAR Number of Gas Turbines 2 1 GT power output MWe 272.10 289.20 ST power output MWe 215.70 99.10 Gross elec. power output MWe 754.90 388.30 Total aux. power cons. MWe 45.20 31.50 Net electric power out. MWe 709.70 356.80 Efficiency 49.90 49.30 Specific emissions kg/MWh 36.20 41.90 SPECCA MJ/kgCO2 3.30 3.61

slide-12
SLIDE 12

12

  • 2. The test cases

 Ultra Supercritical Pulverized Coal with capture

CESAR and CAESAR

slide-13
SLIDE 13

13

  • 2. The test cases

 Ultra Supercritical Pulverized Coal with capture

CESAR and CAESAR

Comparison of some characteristics and performance calculated by two projects CESAR CAESAR MWe MWe ST gross power output 684.20 686.90 Total aux. power consumption 135.00 124.50 Net electric power output 549.20 562.40 Efficiency with capture 33.40 33.50 CO2 emitted kg/MWh 104.70 104.00 SPECCA MJ/kgCO2 4.35 4.16

slide-14
SLIDE 14
  • 3. Economic assessment
  • Parameters and assumptions -

 Long term future economic developments are hard to predict, so 2008 was chosen as the reference year (start of the three projects)  Average Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI) of 576% is assumed for 2008 (100% for 1958)  Power plant economic lifetime = 25 years

 40 years also considered for coal power plants, as in ENCAP, CASTOR and CESAR  15 years also considered for natural gas power plants

 Construction time

 4 years for coal and lignite  3 years for natural gas

14

slide-15
SLIDE 15
  • 3. Economic assessment
  • Method -

 Estimations are made of  Capital costs  Fixed and variable operation and maintenance costs  Fuel costs  Capital investment cost is calculated with  Bottom-up approach – using parameters derived from the heat and mass balance calculations  Top-down approach – based on equipment supplier estimates of entire Engineering, Procurement and Construction Costs

15

slide-16
SLIDE 16
  • 3. Economic assessment
  • Evaluation criteria -

 Economic viability measured through

 CO2 avoidance cost  Breakeven Electricity Selling Price (BESP)

  • capital investment costs
  • fixed O&M costs (e.g. Labour)
  • variable O&M costs (consumables)
  • fuel costs

 A sensitivity analysis is made with respect to main assumptions (e.g. specific investment costs, fuels, etc.)

16

slide-17
SLIDE 17
  • 3. Economic assessment
  • Test cases -

 Advanced super-critical pulverized coal

 Top down approach

  • Engineering, Procurement and Construction costs quote requested

to power plant and turbine suppliers for the entire power plant in 2008, with uncertainty of + - 30%

  • Suppliers also requested to estimate fixed and variable operating

costs

  • For the CO2 capture plant, quotes for the main equipment were

requested from several vendors, for calculated equipment sizes

  • Installation costs estimated as percentages of the equipment costs

17

slide-18
SLIDE 18
  • 3. Economic assessment
  • Advanced super-critical pulverized coal -

18

60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 1700 2100 2500 2900 3300 SI Euro/kWe Euro/MWh DCF 4% DCF 8% DCF 12% 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Fuel Price in Euro/GJ Euro/MWh DCF 4% DCF 8% DCF 12% 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 40 50 60 70 80 90 Capacity factor % Euro/MWh DCF 4% DCF 8% DCF 12%

BESP versus specific investment BESP versus fuel price BESP versus capacity factor

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Min Default Max EPC (30% variation) Euro/t 4% DCF 8%DCF 12%DCF

CO2 avoidance cost versus Specific investment variation

slide-19
SLIDE 19
  • 3. Economic assessment
  • Test cases -

 Integrated gasification combined cycle

 Bottom up approach - equipment and installation costs estimated for:

19

Coal handling Gasifier Gas turbine Steam turbine Heat recovery steam generator Low temperature heat recovery Cooling Air separation unit Ash handling Acid gas removal Gas cleaning Water treatment Water gas shift reactor Claus burner Selexol plant CO2 compression unit

slide-20
SLIDE 20
  • 3. Economic assessment
  • Integrated gasification combined cycle -

20

BESP versus specific investment BESP versus fuel price BESP versus capacity factor CO2 avoidance cost versus Specific investment variation

slide-21
SLIDE 21
  • 3. Economic assessment
  • Test cases -

 Natural gas combined cycle

 Bottom up approach - equipment and installation costs estimated for:

21

Gas turbine GT generator and auxiliaries Steam turbine ST generator and auxiliaries Feedwater and miscellaneous BOP systems MEA CO2 separation system CO2 compression unit

slide-22
SLIDE 22
  • 3. Economic assessment
  • Natural gas combined cycle -

22

BESP versus specific investment BESP versus fuel price BESP versus capacity factor CO2 avoidance cost versus Specific investment variation

slide-23
SLIDE 23

23

Summary

 What was achieved

 Common Framework Definition Document

Standard parameters and assumptions to be adopted for consistent techno-economic evaluations of Carbon Capture technologies

 Test cases and preliminary benchmarking results from the three projects – technical part  Test cases and preliminary benchmarking results from the three projects – economic part

 Possible future developments with new EU projects but also with North America and Australia, where a similar interest exists at this moment.

slide-24
SLIDE 24

24

European Benchmarking Task Force