Post on 10-Mar-2018
The IECM:
A Plant-Level Simulation Model
for Evaluating CO2 Capture Options
Edward S. RubinDepartment of Engineering and Public Policy
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Presentation to the
UK-US CCS R&D Workshop
Pittsburgh, PA
May 10, 2010
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Outline
• Brief overview of the IECM
• Highlights of new model capabilities
• Illustrative applications
• Planned future enhancements
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
The IECM: Integrated Environmental Control Model
• A desktop/laptop computer model
developed for DOE/NETL; free and
available at: www.iecm-online.com
• Provides systematic estimates of
performance, emissions, costs and
uncertainties using user-specified
designs and parameter values for:
PC, IGCC and NGCC plants
All flue/fuel gas treatment systems
CO2 capture and storage options (pre- and post-combustion, oxy-combustion; transport, storage)
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Modeling Approach
• Systems Analysis Approach
• Process Performance Models
• Engineering Economic Models
• Advanced Software Capabilities
Probabilistic analysis capability
User-friendly graphical interface
Built-in graphs/charts capability
Easy to add or update models
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
IECM Software Package
Power
Plant
Models
Graphical
User
Interface
Plant and
Fuel
Databases
Fuel Properties- Heating Value
- Composition
- Delivered Cost
Plant Design- Conversion Process
- Emission Controls
- Solid Waste Mgmt
- Chemical Inputs
Cost Factors- O&M Costs
- Capital Costs
- Financial Factors
Plant & ProcessPerformance
- Efficiency
- Resource use
EnvironmentalEmissions
- Air, water, land
Plant & ProcessCosts - Capital
- O&M- COE
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
IECM Technologies for PC Plants(excluding CO2 capture, transport and sequestration)
Particulate Removal• Cold-side ESP• Fabric filter
- Reverse Air- Pulse Jet
SO2 Removal• Wet limestone
- Conventional- Forced oxidation- Additives
• Wet lime• Lime spray dryer• Combined SO2/NOx systems
Solids Management• Ash pond• Landfill• Stacking• Co-mixing• Byproducts
Boiler Types• Subcritical• Supercritical• Ultra-supercritical
Furnace Firing Types• Tangential• Wall• Cyclone
Furnace NOx Controls• LNB• SNCR• SNCR + LNB• Gas reburn
NOx Removal• Hot-side SCR• Combined SO2/NOx systems
Mercury Removal• Carbon/sorbent injection
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
IECM Technologies for CCS
• CO2 Capture Options
PC Plants: - Amine systems (post-combustion) (w/optional aux. NG boiler)
- Oxyfuel combustion w/ flue gas recycle
NGCC Plants: - Amine systems (post-combustion)
IGCC Plants: - Water gas shift + CO2 capture (pre-combustion)
• CO2 Transport Options
Pipelines (six U.S. regions)
Other (user-specified)
• CO2 Sequestration Options
Geological: Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)
Geological: Deep Saline Formation
Others (user-specified): ECBM; Ocean
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Models Account forMulti-Pollutant Interactions
Criteria
Air
Pollutants
PM
SO2
NOx
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
Hg
HCl
H2SO4
CO2
CH4
Greenhouse
Gas
Emissions
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Profile of Recent IECM Users
Type of Organization
Geographic Region
Utility
28%
Company
44%
Education
17%
Government
11%
Asia
4%
South America
<1% Australia
2%
North America
71%
Europe
23%
~ 500 organizations
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Model Applications
• Process design
• Technology
evaluation
• Cost estimation
• R&D management
• Risk analysis
• Environmental
compliance
• Marketing studies
• Strategic planning
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
New IECM Release(Version 6.2.4, May 2010)
• New Technology Options Advanced amine system for CO2 capture
Improved steam cycle models (subC-, SC-, USC-PC)
Dry feed gasifier and sulfur capture system (Shell)
Added gas turbine option for IGCC plants (GE 7FB)
Wet tower, dry tower and once-thru cooling water systems
Wastewater treatment systems for PC plants
• Updated Capital and O&M Cost Models Aligned to NETL 2007 baseline studies
New default values for a number of model parameters
• New Software Capabilities Additional user-friendly screens for data entry
Advanced graphing and uncertainty analysis capabilities
Performance Model for Amine Capture Systems
Flue Gas In:
G, Tfg, yin
MEA makeup
Absorber
Captured CO2
(99.8% pure)
Regenerated Solvent
CO2 CO2
Regenerator
L, Tsolv, C, lean
max
Qreg
lean
CO2 = f(L/G, C, yin, lean, Tfg, Tsolv, H, D)
Flue
Gas
Out
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
IECM Gasifier Model
Fuel%C, H, S, O, N, Cl
%Ash
WaterH2O
OxidantO2
Raw Gas
% CO
% H2
% CH4
% CO2
% H2S
% COS
% NH3
Slag
New performance models for a
Shell (dry feed) gasifier (based
on NETL studies and Aspen-
Plus simulations)Cost models based on
NETL Baseline Study
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Wet Tower Performance Model
Cooling water quantity:
Makeup water quantity:
2000
)1(1000)3413(
w
auxsc
T
MWgHrm
blowdowndriftevapmakeup mmmm
drift
evap
blowdown mCC
mm
1
cdrift mm %001.0
)( 12 WWmm aevap
where:= auxiliary cooling load
= steam cycle heat rate
= plant gross output
= water temp. change= air flow rate= inlet air humidity = outlet air humidity= cycle of concentration
sHr
aux
wT
gMW
am
1W
2W
CC
IECM User Interface
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
ACC Performance Model
• Configuration: A-frame force-drafted ACC with double-
row tubes. Each ACC cell consists of multiple bundles
serviced by a fan
• Key input parameters:
Air dry bulb temperature
Turbine backpressure
Inlet steam temperature
Fan efficiency
Auxiliary cooling load
• Key output parameters:
Footprint area
Number of ACC cells
Fan power required
IECM User Interface
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Model Allows a Range of Water Treatment System Options
Once-Through
Cooling with Basic
Waste Water
Treatment
Evaporative
Cooling with Zero
Discharge
Water & Waste
Water Systems
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
IECM Pipeline Transport Model
Cost Model Inputs
Performance Inputs
Results
Results
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Saline Formation Storage Model
Performance
Inputs
Cost
Model
Inputs
Results
Results
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
New Graphing Options
• Can easily and
quickly plot any
model variable as
a function of any
other variable
• Can display results
from up to six
different runs on
same graph
• All graphs and data
easily exported for
display or further
processing
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Effect of Advanced Solvent on COE
40
80
120
160
0 20 40 60 80 100
Co
st of
Ele
ctr
icity (
$/M
Wh)
CO2 Tax ($/tonne)
SC PC, Illinois #6 Coal (650 MWg, 75% CF, 90% CO2 Removal)
30% MEA, Regen. Heat 1510 Btu/lb
40% MEA, Regen. Heat 800 Btu/lb
CURRENT SOLVENT
ADVANCED SOLVENT
Hypothetical
Advanced Solvent
Properties:
-Higher concentration
-Lower regen heat
-Lower losses
-Lower quality steam
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Future Work
Work in Progress
• Ammonia-based capture system
• Chemical looping combustion
Planned Future Work
• Capabilities for advanced solvents
• Capabilities for solid sorbents
• Capabilities for membrane systems
• More detailed models of selected technologies