Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byAlbert Bishop Modified over 9 years ago
1
Institute of Energy Systems Prof. Dr.-Ing. A. Kather Dipl.-Ing. Sören Ehlers Jan Mletzko, M.Sc. Comparison of natural gas combined cycle power plants with post combustion and oxyfuel technology at different CO 2 capture rates The 8th Trondheim Conference on Capture, Transport and Storage, Trondheim, 16 th -18 th June 2015
2
TCCS-8 Trondheim, 16 th -18 th June 2015 Institute of Energy Systems GuD-POXY project NGCC (GuD) power plants with Post combustion and OXYfuel Hamburg University of Technology – Institute of Energy Systems ▸ Overall process simulation for post-combustion and oxyfuel University of the Federal Armed Forces Hamburg (Helmut-Schmidt- University) – Laboratory of Turbomachinery ▸ Investigation of turbomachinery ▸ Combustion experiments 2 Project partners
3
TCCS-8 Trondheim, 16 th -18 th June 2015 Institute of Energy Systems Motivation NGCC power plants have the lowest specific CO 2 emissions of fossil fuelled power plants ▸ ~ 340 g CO 2 / kWh el (60 % net efficiency) ▸ Further reduction to << 100 g CO 2 / kWh el with CCS technologies Studies of different capture processes assume different capture rates ▸ 90 % for post combustion / 100 % for Oxyfuel ▸ Net efficiency does not provide a common basis for comparison Legislative framework could favour the focus on a CO 2 emission limit ▸ A limit of 100 g CO 2 / kWh el requires 90 % capture rate for coal but only 75 % for natural gas 3 Aim: Comparison of two NGCC options with post combustion and oxyfuel regarding the loss of electricity related to the amount of CO 2 captured!
4
TCCS-8 Trondheim, 16 th -18 th June 2015 Institute of Energy Systems Reference plant Conventional NGCC power plant is taken as the reference plant for all processes of the project 2x ALSTOM GT26 with HRSG 1x steam turbine ▸ Triple pressure reheat steam cycle ▸ Once-through evaporator for the HP level ▸ Net power: 876 MW ▸ Gross/net efficiency: 59.8 % / 59.2 % 4 G HPSH CPH IPE1 HPB IPSH LPB RH IPB IPE2 HPE1HPE2HPE3 Air EV SEV Pressure levels (HP/IP/LP): 159 bar / 40 bar / 4.2 bar Live steam/reheat temperature: 585 °C
5
TCCS-8 Trondheim, 16 th -18 th June 2015 Institute of Energy Systems Post combustion capture for NGCC Basic 30 wt.-% MEA capture unit (15 m absorber height) ▸ Steam extracted from crossover between the IP and LP steam turbine ▸ 90% capture rate in the base case ▸ CO 2 compression to 110 bar Base case net efficiency 52.1 % (-7.1 %-pts.) ▸ Steam extraction 4.6 %-pts. ▸ CO 2 compression 1.6 %-pts. ▸ Additional auxiliary duty 0.9 %-pts. 5
6
TCCS-8 Trondheim, 16 th -18 th June 2015 Institute of Energy Systems Influence of the capture rate on the PCC unit Specific heat duty increases sharply at capture rates above 85 % ▸ Efficiency penalty varies between 4.8 and 9.4 %-pts. Same tendency for improved capture processes ▸ flue gas recycle shifts the sharp increase of the specific heat duty to higher capture rates (~ 90 %) 6 L/G adjusted to the lowest specific heat duty for each capture rate
7
TCCS-8 Trondheim, 16 th -18 th June 2015 Institute of Energy Systems NGCC with Oxyfuel Semi-closed oxyfuel combustion combined cycle (SCOC-CC) ▸ Pressure ratio of 60 due to sequential combustion ▸ O 2 purity 95 vol.-% (0.202 kWh/kg O 2 ), 3 vol.-% O 2 (dry) in the flue gas ▸ 100 % CO 2 capture Compression of the flue gas to 110 bar ▸ CO 2 purity of 86.5 vol.-% (dry) Base case net efficiency 50.3 % (-8.9 %-pts.) ▸ O 2 production 5.9 %-pts. ▸ CO 2 compression 2.3 %-pts. ▸ Additional auxiliary duty 0.3 %-pts. ▸ Thermodynamics of the process 0.4 %-pts. 7
8
TCCS-8 Trondheim, 16 th -18 th June 2015 Institute of Energy Systems Influence of the capture rate on the SCOC-CC Assumed CO 2 purity for transport and storage 96 vol.-% (dry) ▸ CO 2 purification (partial condensation) Reduced capture rate ▸ Two condensation stages at -25 °C and -30 – -50 °C ▸ Only small effects ASU loss independent of the capture rate Alternative: High purity O 2, 1 vol.-% O 2 (dry) in flue gas ▸ Energy demand for the ASU (99.5 vol.-% O 2 ): 0.241 kWh/ kg O 2 ▸ 100 % Capture rate Additional penalty 0.8 %-pts. 8
9
TCCS-8 Trondheim, 16 th -18 th June 2015 Institute of Energy Systems Specific electric loss Post combustion capture for natural gas has a significantly lower loss for a wide range of capture ratios Minimum at ~ 80 % SCOC-CC only advantageous if full capture is required ▸ If purity is restricted high purity oxygen is necessary 9 SCOC-CC Base case Purity not sufficient Coal-fired plants (90% CR) 0.26 – 0.36 kWh/kg CO 2
10
TCCS-8 Trondheim, 16 th -18 th June 2015 Institute of Energy Systems Conclusion 10 Post combustion capture for NGCC allows an adjustment of the capture rate to a required CO 2 emission limit for a wide range of capture rates ▸ Specific electric loss is approx. constant from 60 to 90 % at 0.38 kWh/kg CO 2 ▸ Sharp increase of the specific electric loss for higher capture rates ▸ Minimum specific loss at 80 % capture rate The SCOC-CC leads to a higher specific electric loss of > 0.45 kWh/kg CO 2 ▸ Specific loss increases for lower capture rates because the ASU is independent of the capture rate ▸ Only at full capture case advantageous compared to post-combustion capture ▸ 96 vol.-% CO 2 purity at full capture is only achievable with high purity oxygen Compared to coal-fired plants the specific electric loss due to CCS technologies is higher for NGCC plants
11
TCCS-8 Trondheim, 16 th -18 th June 2015 Institute of Energy Systems 11 Thank you for your attention! Questions?
Similar presentations
© 2024 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.