1 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION MITIGATION THROUGH AMINE BASED CARBON DIOXIDE CAPTURE IN COAL FIRED ELECTRICITY GENERATION PLANTS Tanuja Bhattacharjee st Fos- Energy Prof. Sivanappan Kumar (Chairperson) Dr. Animesh Dutta (Co-chairperson) Dr. Brahmanand Mohanty Dr. Mithulananthan Nadarajah

2 Outline Outline of the presentation IntroductionIntroduction –Over view of CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) and its role in emission mitigation –Target of GHG stabilization - when to take action for mitigation? –Emission mitigation- where the actions need to take place? Study descriptionStudy description –Research gap and specific objective –Methodology Results of the studyResults of the study HighlightsHighlights highlights This presentation highlights the need to deploy CCS (Carbon capture and storage) for GHG emission mitigation in developing countries the scope of utilizing MEA (mono ethanolamine) technology for coal fired power plants

3 for GHG emission mitigation CCS- for GHG emission mitigation Long term emission mitigation Changes source of energy process of transformation Source: IPCC, 2005 Why CCS ? Compatibility Maturity Capacity Courtesy: CO2CRC

4 Source: GTSP, 2007 CO 2 remains in the atmosphere for 80 to 200 years Today / Tomorrow ?? Allowable increase 2 0 C=> 450 ppm CO 2 conc. Source: IPCC, 2005 target and time of action GHG emission mitigation – target and time of action Time of action- Source: GTSP, 2007

5 Coal is largest source (40%) of emission from fossil fuel and attractive option for CCS 60% of world’s coal production is in Asia (IEA, 2006)- China 1 st, India 3rd Growth of coal production by 2.2% per year to 2020-main contribution by developing countries of Asia World CO 2 emission, source: EIA, 2007 Global distribution of large stationary sources of CO 2 Source: IEA GHG, 2002 needs to shift the research paradigm CCS- needs to shift the research paradigm

6 Research gap Lack of information - regional emission inventory and mitigation potential-sector wise Performance – most of the works consider highest limit of CO 2 removal and ignore suitable integration strategy Lack of extensive research on existing plants 1.To estimate the CO 2 emission reduction potential using MEA system for coal fired power plants in Thailand, Vietnam, India and Bangladesh.Thailand, Vietnam, India and Bangladesh. 2.To study net emission reduction benefit of MEA based CO 2 capture system. 3.Identify cost effective level of CO 2 capture using MEA system for two coal power plants Focus of this presentatio n Objectives

7 Result 1: CO 2 emission in 2008 Result 2: CO 2 emission in 2020 Result 3: CO 2 emission mitigation potential in 2020 Results 4: cost performance of different group of power plant Methodology (Objective 1)

8 Result 1 –CO 2 Emission in 2008 Present installed capacity (GW) and share of fuel Emission from coal fired power plants, 2008

9 Country Growth of electricity generation capacity (%) TOTAL Growth of electricity generation capacity (%) COAL India 66 Thailand 56 Vietnam 1117 Bangladesh 825 Coa l choice of Coa l is driven by fuel availability and price Coa l Power development plan- influence of Coa l CO 2 Emission from coal power plants, 2020 Result 2 –CO 2 Emission in 2020

10 Observations Obs. 2: Cumulative emission, Obs. 1: Trend of emission, Obs. 4: Comparative Growth of installed capacity, India and others GtCO 2/ yr by 2020 Obs. 3: Emissions Coal fired power: Other large point sources 3:2 2ppm CO 2 in atm

11 Result 3- Emission mitigation potential using MEA technology Emission mitigation potential PC technology, age/ year of operation, Size Total coal fired capacity Compatible capacity to be integrated with amine system

12 Results 4- cost performance of different groups of power plants 1.Identify plant size, coal type, technology, coal price 2.Differentiate in retrofit and capture ready option 3.10 cases formed to compared the performance; India 4 cases, Thailand 3 cases, Vietnam 2 cases, Bangladesh 1 case10 cases COE almost double COE is not equally affected COE not fully governed by Efficiency

13 Range of capture cost due to the uncertainties imposed to model, size, plant capacity factor etc uncertainties Emission mitigation potential 600 MtCO 2 /yr 65% of total emission from the same sector in 2020 Results 4- contd.

14 Conclusion Total CO 2 emission (450 MtCO 2/ yr) from coal fired power generation (in India, Bangladesh, Thailand and Vietnam) would be double in 2020 (885 MtCO 2 ) In 2020, around 600 MtCO 2 /yr is possible to mitigate by MEA technology at a cost lower than $50/tCO 2 of which half is possible to mitigate at $/tCO 2 which is highly competitive Raghuvanshi, 2005 estimated CO2 emission for India results 675 MtCO2/yr in within 7.5% variation from current study GTSP, 2007 presents cost of CO2 capture $/tCO2- range of current study is within the range Results- comparison with others’ work

15 Case studies: Bangladesh and Thailand Varying CO 2 capture level observation of Investment and energy penalty CO 2 avoidance cost Using bypass option observation of the parameters Case a Case a Thailand 1800MW, Lignite coal Case b, Bangladesh 250 MW, Bituminous coal

16 Case ‘a’ can capture 903 tCO 2 /hr (75%) bypassing 15% flue gas with 20% power drop (wrt. gross plant size) and 1.7 times increase in COE Case ‘b’ can capture 184 tCO 2 / hr (80%) without bypass and with one third reduction in output with more than twice increase in COE Compared to case ‘a’, cost of CO 2 capture ($/tCO 2 ) is 30% more for case ‘b’, emission reduction potential is only one fifth, specific energy penalty in case ‘b’ is around kWh/tCO 2 higher than case ‘a’ Results- performance of two existing plant with CO 2 capture Comparison between case a and case b

17 Highlights Low rank coal would be in comparatively favorable position with CO 2 capture compared to high rank coal Coal fired power plants can play vital role in GHG mitigation utilizing the opportunity CO 2 capture in commercial manner One fifth on total CO 2 emission is possible to mitigate in these countries using MEA technology only in coal fired power generation sector

18 emission and mitigation are going as usual…….. consequence…. Today 28GtCO 2 Rest ???? Ocean GTCO 2 Forest- 5.5 GTCO 2 Rest ???? ( More than 5-10 GtCO 2 need to be mitigated ) CCS- present potential 2.5 GtCO 2 ……………… need to develop rapid deployment potential Option 1 Option 2

19 emission and mitigation are going as usual…….. consequence…. Today 28GtCO 2 Rest ???? Ocean GTCO 2 Forest- 5.5 GTCO 2 Rest ???? ( More than 5-10 GtCO 2 need to be mitigated ) CCS- present potential 2.5 GtCO 2 ……………… need to develop rapid deployment potential Option 1 Option 2 Q n A THANK YOU Is it acceptable ????

20

21

Sukla, 2004

23

24 process overview Power plant

25

26 ……maximum allowable range of change in temperature => 2 0 C

27

28 Acronyms CCS- Carbon Capture and Storage COE-Cost of Electricity DCC-Direct Contact Cooler EIA- Energy Information Administration ESP-Electrostatic Precipitator FGD-Flue Gas Desulphurization GHG-Greenhouse Gas GT- Gas Turbine GTSP-Global Energy Technology Strategy Program HHV-Higher Heating Value IEA-International Energy Agency IEA GHG- IEA Greenhouse Gas Research & Development Programme IECM-Integrated Environmental Control Model IGCC-Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle IPCC-Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change MEA-Monoethanolamine MTCO2- Million Ton of CO2 O&M-Operation and Maintenance PC-Pulverized Coal PM- Particulate Material SCHR- Steam Cycle Heat Rate

29 World wide CCS project distribution North Amer i ca Australia E urope South AmericaAfricaAsia Source: IEA GHG R&D Programme

30 research and present status CCS- research and present status CCS Projects – more than 100 projects classified into commercial and R&D CO 2 capture commercial scale, Geological and ocean storage projects in different scale. Capture projects include power plant and industrial plants Cost – capture all sector $/tCO 2, transport 1-8 $/tCO 2, storage $/tCO 2 Technology type - Pre combustion, post combustion- membrane, amine system, cryogenic, solid adsorption (CO 2 capture efficiency 60-95%) Storage- project are running since 1996, 3 large projects presently with injection capacity of tCO 2 /day Power plant- 320 MW capacity plant coal and NG fired

31 Introduction to IECM-cs Current Version: 5.22 (January 28, 2008),available at A tool for calculating the performance, emissions and cost of a fossil-fueled power plant P ulverized Coal, GT, IGCC performance with NOx, SOx,PM, Mercury and CO 2 removal Methodology Configure plant Set parameters Get results Model Overview

32