5th International Freiberg Conference on IGCC & XtL...

Claudia Bassano 21 – 24 May 2012, Leipzig, Germany

5th International Freiberg Conference

on IGCC & XtL Technologies

21 – 24 May 2012, Leipzig, Germany

MODELING AND ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF CCS TECHNOLOGIES

INTEGRATED INTO COAL TO LIQUIDS PLANTS

Claudia Bassano, Paolo Deiana, Giuseppe Girardi

ENEA Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy

And Sustainable Economic Development

Casaccia Research Center - Rome

Claudia Bassano CCT 2011, 8-12 May Claudia Bassano 21 – 24 May 2012, Leipzig, Germany

Agenda

• Introduction

• Process description

System modelling

Mass and energy balance

Efficiency

• Economic evaluation

Assumptions

Results

Sensitivity analysis

• Conclusions


ENEA is the Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (Law n. 99 of July 23rd, 2009)

ENEA activities are targeted to research, innovation technology and advanced services in the fields of energy.

ENEA performs research activities and provides agency services in support to public administrations, public and private enterprises, and citizens.

12 Research centres

18 Controlled Companies

11 Consortia

What is ENEA?


Introduction

Configuration plant has been chosen by integration of various process block (improve the thermal efficiency) using Aspen Plus

Evaluate the technical and economic feasibility of a CTL plant and its implementation with Carbon Capture and Storage Technologies

Economic study: CTL plant configurations are compared in order to assess the economic impact of the addition of CCS (ROI, NPV, payback period)

Legal framework European Directives: geological storage of carbon dioxide (Directive 2009/31/EC) revised emission trading Directive (Directive 2009/29/EC


Sulcis

Basin

Mine mouth plant

Sulcis Coal Mine

South-West Sardinia Italy

Plant size plant location

Coal mine availability 1 Mtons/y

Site to test CCS

Throught

ECBM

acquifers tecniques

Technical and economic feasibility of CTL polygeneration plant

Introduction


System modeling

The simulations were carried out using a commercial software ApenPlus

Two different plant configurations have been developed:

1.Base case

2. CCS case


AS U

G S F AG R P OW

air

c oal ra wg as

s weetg as

tailg as

po wer

oxyg en

liqu id fue lss ulfur

c o2

as h

s team

c oal

AX B

c o2

c o2

F T S

AS U

G S F AG R P OW

air

c oal ra wg as

s weetg as

tailg as

po wer

oxyg en


c o2

as h

s team

c oal

AX B

c o2

c o2

F T S

Process description: base case


Process description: ccs case

1

AS U

G S F AG R P OW

air

c oal ra wg as

s weetg as

tailg as

po wer

oxyg en


c o2

as h

s team

C MP

for c c s only

c oal

AX B

c o2

to s torag e

c o2

F T S


System modeling: assumptions

Gasifier Fixed Bed Dry Bottom

O2:coal= 0.5 kg/kg (daf); Steam: coal 2.5 kg/kg (daf);

conversion = 90.18%; Heat loss = 1% Pressure = 30 bar

ASU section: 175 kWhe/tO2 O2 purity of 94.3%

Auxiliary boiler

AGR section Dual stage Selexol

p design 30 bar

Gas clean H2S= 1 ppm

CO2 capture 85 %

Lean solvent 1 ppm H2S

CO2 compression Three compressor stages-inter-coolers

CO2 liquid purity CO2 = 95 % H2S<200 ppm

FT section Reactor Ryeld: yield base on ASF

50 % recycle of unconverted gas to ATR before

Fischer-Tropsch synthesis reactor

Power section Gas turbine and Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG)

Steam turbine

vapore

syngas

FT prodotti

grezzi


System modelling: AGR section

MAKE-UP

AB2

AB1

ST1

H2S

CO2 HP

CO2 LP

CO2 MP

GAS

CLEAN

GAS IN

Semi lean

lean

Stage 1

H2S Absorber

CO2 rich

Stage

CO2 Absorber

Stripping

Q 4MJ/kg H2S

H2S =1ppm

CO2 =1.5 % vol.

H2/CO =2.2


System modeling: CO2 compression section

CO2 compression/liquefaction

Three compressor stages

4.3 bar-18.6 bar, 80 bar

inter-coolers T=28 °C

CO2 liquid 95 % in CO2, H2S<200 ppm, H2O< 300 ppm

( CO2 stream quality requirements transport)

CO2 HP

CO2 BP

CO2 MP

IMPURITIES

CO2 LIQUID

H2O

K-203 K-204 K-205 P-204


System modeling: FT section

R-201 Reacto Fischer Trospch RYELD

p=25 bar T=250 °C , yeld based on ASF distribution with double Alfa value

1= 0.85 C1-C12 carbon class and 2= 0.92 C12-C32.

R-202 ATR

Recycle 50% tailgas

GIBBS reactor

steam/CH4=1.6 molar fraction

O2 p=25 bar, T=300°C

STEAM TO

ATR

GAS CLEAN

TAIL TO

POWER

H2O

LIQUID PRODUCT

Refining

R-301

R-302

STEAM TO

TURBINE

O2 IN ATR


System modeling: FT section

0

0,02

0,04

0,06

0,08

0,1

0,12

0,14

0,16

0,18%

wei

ght

SC5+=0.88


System modeling: main results

FT liquids

8530 bbl/d

Export Power

89 MWe

Coal

4447 t/d

Coal gasification

FT Liquids Production

Ash

388 t/d

CO2 out

7632 t/d

BASE CASE

FT liquids

8700 bbl/d

Export Power

60 MWe

Coal

4500 t/d

Coal gasification


Ash

388 t/d

CO2 out

7632 t/d

BASE CASE0,50h 0,52

FT liquids

8530 bbl/d

CO2 captured

5054 t/d

Export Power

74 MWe

Coal

4447 t/d

Coal gasification


Ash

388 t/d

CO2 out

2578 t/d

CCS CASE

FT liquids

8700 bbl/d

Export Power

60 MWe

Coal

4500 t/d

Coal gasification


Ash

388 t/d

CO2 out

7632 t/d

BASE CASE0,50h


System modeling: main results

Base case CCS

Auxiliary load MWe 55 39

Net Plant Power MWe 89 74

Electric production MWhe/y 669531 551574

Net Plant Power MWe 74 90

Electric production MWhe/y 669531 551574

Total Efficiency LHV basis - 0.5 0.52

FT Efficiency LHV basis - 0.44 0.44

CO2 capture % 66

Specific energy kWhe/tCO2 88


Economic analysis

comparison of two CTL plant configuration in order to assess the economic

impact of the CCS addition

Method: cash flow analysis

estimation BEC (Bare Erected Cost)

cost by factored method (CEPCI $2010)

data source by literature

estimation TOC (Total Overnight Capital)

Includes: other overnight costs, Engineering, Procurement and Construction

Cost, project and process contingencies.

estimation NPV (Net Present Value)


Economic analysis: assumptions

Parameter / Assumption Value

Construction Period 3 years

Incurred capital in: year 1 10%

year 2 60%

year 3 30%

Debt Equity Ratio 55:45

Capacity factor 85%

Plant lifetime 30 years

Interest rate 8%

Tax Rate 28%

Loan interest rate 8%

Annual O&M expenses 5.2 % TCP

Mix coal ratio Sulcis % 60%

Sulcis Coal Price $50/ton

Bituminous Coal Price $100/ton

CO2 storage cost $5 /ton

FT product price $123/bbl

Electricity price $115/MWh


Economic analysis: results

Base Scenario

ROI NPV, Payback time, Liquid production Cost $/bbl

Estimation of the minimum required Crude Oil price which yields a ROI of almost 20 %

Sensitivity analysis

To determine the influence of assumed parameters

price of a CO2 allowance 0-10-20-30 $/tCO2

crude oil price 20%


Base case CCS Case

Liquid product bbl/d 4447 4447

TOC, M$ 812 829

crude oil price (20%ROI), $/bbl 98 107

ROI (oil price 98/bbl), % 20 16,5

NPV, M$ 1024 715

pay back period, years 7 9.2

Capital cost per bbl/d $95214/bbl/d $97134/bbl/d

Mitigation cost - $7/tCO2

Economic analysis: results base Scenario


Economic analysis: results sensitivity analysis

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

cost

of l

iqu

id p

rod

uct

$/b

arre

l

CO2 allowance price $/tCO2

base case

CCS case

Oil price $98/bbl


8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

0 10 20 30

RO

I (%

)

CO2 allowance price $/tCO2

base case

CCS case

Oil price $98/bbl



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

80 90 100 110 120

RO

I (%

)

oil price $/bbl

base case

CCS case

CO2 allowance price= 0/tCO2

Liquid product selling price + 25 % oil price



%delta NPV=(NPV base case –NPV CCS case)/NPV base case

$30/tCO3

$20/tCO2$10/tCO2

$0/tCO2

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

$98/bbl$120/bbl

$130/bbl

% delta NPV

oil price $/bbl



Conclusions

The analysis evaluates different scenarios in order to underline CTL

potential benefits in Italian energy market.

1) System modeling

This analysis indicates a powerful synergism among polygeneration CTL

systems and CO2 capture systems. The introduction of CCS in

polygeneration plant shows a modest decrease in efficiency

2) Economic results

The CTL investment option results in good economic performance in the

case of growing crude oil prices

$98/bbl ROI base case 20%

$107/bbl ROI CCS case 20%


Conclusions

3) Sensitivity analysis

In the case ofCO2 allowances > 25$/ton CCS option become the most

competitive

CCS mine mouth plant installation best solution from the economic point

leads to reduction of CO2 transport cost and reduction of coal supply cost

Polygeneration of power and liquid can improve flexibility

Future work will expand technical and economic feasibility analysis by varying:

- the specific ratio of polygeneration capabilities of the plant

- plant size scaleup

- CO2 capture


Thank you for your attention!

[email protected]

http://www.enea.it

Acknowledgments

This work was developed into the RdS Research Program on Electrical Grid funded by

the Italian Ministry of Economic Sustainable Development.

5th International Freiberg Conference on IGCC & XtL...

Documents

Transcript of 5th International Freiberg Conference on IGCC & XtL...