Feasibility Report of Integrating NGCC Power Plant to the Turkish Power System
Evaluation of emissions of substances other than CO2 from … · 2013. 7. 25. · NGCC Natural Gas...
Transcript of Evaluation of emissions of substances other than CO2 from … · 2013. 7. 25. · NGCC Natural Gas...
Evaluation of emissions of substances other than CO2 from power plants with
Post Combustion CaptureEva Sanchez Fernandez, Toon van Harmelen, Arjan van Horsen,
Magdalena Jozwicka, Earl Goetheer, Mohammad Abu-Zahra
TNO Gas TreatmentDelft, the Netherlands
IEAGHG
TNO Gas Treatment Group17/05/20111
Content
Impact of PCC on emissions. Importance and challenges.
Methodology: two ways approach Harmonization and Modelling
Model construction
Cases: USC and NGCC
Sensitivity analysis
Conclusions and future work
TNO Gas Treatment Group17/05/20112
Evaluation of emissions. Importance & challenges
Uncertainties in the impact of CCS to the environment
Scarcity in environmental data in relation to CCS
Standardization and reliability in the existing data
Broader study: among the technologies analyzed the focus here is on Post
Combustion Capture (PCC)
Goal:
Development of systematic and clear methodology for waste and emissions
evaluation
Quantify the effects of PCC technology on emissions of other substances
than CO2
TNO Gas Treatment Group17/05/20113
Two way approach for evaluation of emissions
Harmonization: statistical analysis of
the emissions database created by
reviewing the open literature.
Corrections are applied to bring into
line all cases in the database
Modelling: Commercial software
package (Aspen Plus®) used to
evaluate plant performance and
basic emissions. Emission factors
used for trace components.
Two different methods are used and compared
HARMONIZATION MODELLING
Emissions Database Reference cases
Step 1: Process Simulation ToolsPower and capture plant design
Step 2: Source specific emission factorsEvaluation of trace components
Evaluation of emissions for the given cases
Correction FactorsFuel use and sulphur content
Harmonized emission factors
Evaluation of emissions for the given cases
Comparison and analysis
PROJECT ACTIVITIES
TNO Gas Treatment Group17/05/20114
Evaluation framework (1)Case 1A 1B 4A 4B
Type USC USC NGCC NGCC
Steam Cycle bar(a)/ºC/ºC
290 / 600 / 620
290 / 600 / 620
124/561/234
124 /561/ 234
Gas turbine NA NAAdvanced F class
Advanced F class
Boiler typeSupercritical PC
Supercritical PC NA NA
NOx ControlsLow NOx Burners & OFA & SCR Low NOx Burners & SCR
PM Controls ESP ESP
H2S controls NA NA NA NA
SOx /Sulphur control
FGD (Wet Scrubber, Limestone) NA NA
CO2separation NA MEA NA MEA
Fuel Type Australian Bituminous coal Gas
Case 1A: USC PC without PCC
Case 1B: USC PC with PCC
Case 4A: NGCC without PCC
Case 4B: NGCC with PCCUSC ultra supercritical
NGCC Natural Gas Combined Cycle
OFA: Overfire Air
SCR: Selective Catalytic Reduction
EBTF. European Benchmarking Task Force. Common framework definition document and Test cases 2010IEAGHG Criteria for technical and economic assessment of plants with low CO2 emissions. Technical review: 2009/TR3
TNO Gas Treatment Group17/05/20115
Evaluation framework (2)
Technical criteriaUnits Technical
criteria
Range found in emissions database
Coal type[-]
Bituminous Eastern Australia
Different coal types
Sulphur content in coal%wt
dry 0.95 0.95 – 1.5
CO2 Capture Removal [%] 90% 80% - 100%
CO2 product conditions
Temperature ºC <30 25 - 30
Pressure bar 110 80 - > 156
Standard MEA capture process was used as reference for capture
Emissions generated from solvent degradation are excluded from this study
TNO Gas Treatment Group17/05/20116
Harmonization: Treatment of the database
2. HARMONIZATION1. LITERATURE REVIEW Reference cases
Technical criteria
Correction factors
Fuel use
Capture efficiency
Coal sulphur content
3. EVALUATION OF EMISSIONS
Emissions database Harmonized Emissions database
Open literatureRelative emissions factors
Data Sources (37)
Existing operating power plants
Case studies, peer reviewed journals
Data base (176 cases)
Harmonization: Application of correction factors that bring into line the basis
of each case
TNO Gas Treatment Group17/05/20117
Harmonization procedure
Corrections were applied to:
Fuel use: Corrected for capture
efficiency and CO2
compression pressure
Capture efficiency for CO2
emissions
Sulfur content in the coal for
SOx emissions
TNO Gas Treatment Group17/05/20118
Modelling: Process simulation and emission factors
Process Input Power Plant
(Boiler island , steam turbine island and emission controls)
CO2 capture and compression
STEP 1 – Process modelling Tools and Engineering calculations
CO2 Depleted flue gasCO2. N2, O2, H2O
Energy required for solvent regenerationCooling Water consumptionElectricity consumption (ID fan and pumps)
Flue gas after FGD basic components:CO2N2O2H2O
Bottom ash / Fly ashUnburned coalEffluent Gypsum
Steam OutputElectricity outputCooling water and process water
Fuel flow and compositionAir flowAmmoniaLimestone
Liquid wasteHeat stable salts
NaSO4
Solid wasteActivated carbon impurities
Calculation of solvent loss due to:Oxidation Polymerisation Reaction with acid gases
Trace metals in coal:As, Hg, Se, Be, Pb, etc
Caustic consumption in reclaimerActivated carbon requirement
Solvent make-up
SO2, SO3NO, NO2PM, PM-10Trace metals in Flue gas outAs, Hg, Se, Be, Pb, etc
SO2, SO3NO, NO2PM , PM-10Trace metals in Flue gas As, Hg, Se, Be, Pb, etc
STEP 2 – Estimation of emission factors based on the given technology
TechnicalDescription
Waste inventory
Flue gas outCO2N2O2H2OSO2, SO3NO, NO2PM, PM-10Trace metals: As, Hg, Se, Be, Pb, etc
Liquid wasteHeat stable salts: NaSO4, Na3PO4Effluent
Solid wasteActivated carbon impuritiesBottom ash / Fly ashUnburned coalGypsum
CO2 ProductCO2H2OSO2NOx
TNO Gas Treatment Group17/05/20119
Interaction of flue gas impurities with solvent
1. Fix specific degradation rate due to oxidation
2. Concentration of salts in the inlet stream: 1% wt.
3. Fraction of the lean stream reclaimed : fixed to match the HSS formation rate
4. Bottoms: slurry containing 40%wt water
5. Concentration of free amine in the system: 60 mol MEA / mol HSS
6. Concentration of free amine at the bottoms: 0.6 -1 mol MEA/mol HSS
1.Degradation 0.23 – 0.73 kg/tonCO2 @5%O2
6.MPR Services Inc.
TNO Gas Treatment Group17/05/201110
USC PC case
Unit 100Coal handling
Unit 200Boiler Island
FGD and Handling plant
Steam turbine Island
ESPRemoval
Particulate matter
Unit 400DeNOx plant
Air
Effluent
Gypsum
Limestone
Process water
Flying ash
Coal
Cooling water out
Cooling water system
Cooling water sypply
Ammonia
Bottom Ash
Flue Gas1
2
8
16
7
1718
5
6
16 17
9
10
20
12
11Emission factors & removal efficiencies applied for these units as a block
Emission factors & removal efficiencies applied for this unit15
19
Sea water
Sea water
1314
CO2 removal Compression
Flue Gas
Reclaimer waste 11
CO2 stream
Emission factors & removal efficiencies applied for these units as a block
Condensate steam return
CO2 reboiler Steam extraction
Condensate
Condensate return
Stream numbers inline with the reference study [5]
TNO Gas Treatment Group17/05/201111
NGCC case
Gas Turbine(Equipped with
LNB)
Heat Recovery Steam Generator
Steam Turbine
Process water
Gas
Cooling water system
Waste water
Cooling water supply
2a
CO2 Removal
CO2 Compression
&Drying
Waste water-1
CO2
Flue gas to stack
1
4
8
13
6
12
16
18
16
15 Reclaimer waste
39
10 11
14
Air5
G
Cooling water make up
17
Waste water-219
7
Solvent Make-up20
Caustic21
SCR(possible but not
required)
2b
Emission factors & removal efficiencies applied for these units as a block
Emission factors & removal efficiencies applied for these units as a block
TNO Gas Treatment Group17/05/201112
Output from Harmonization
The Harmonization model was implemented in excel. Results include:
Fuel usage
Average emissions (CO2, SOx, NOx, PM-10, Ammonia) and standard deviation
Different capture technologies (focus on PCC)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Pre (R:17,H:17)
no-capture (R:12,H:12)
Oxyfuel (R:2,H:2)
Post (R:17,H:13)
no-capture (R:10,H:10)
Oxyfuel (R:12,H:11)
Post (R:16,H:15)
no-capture (R:27,H:27)
IGC
CN
GC
CP
C
Fuel use (MJ/kWh)
Reference case Harmonised Raw
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Pre (R:17,H:2)
no-capture (R:12,H:12)
Oxyfuel (R:2,H:1)
Post (R:10,H:2)
no-capture (R:9,H:9)
Oxyfuel (R:11,H:3)
Post (R:15,H:1)
no-capture (R:26,H:26)
IGC
CN
GC
CP
C
CO2 emission factor (g/kWh)
Raw Harmonised
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
Pre (R:11,H:11)
no-capture (R:11,H:11)
no-capture (R:5,H:5)
Oxyfuel (R:12,H:11)
Post (R:10,H:7)
no-capture (R:21,H:21)
IGC
CN
GC
CP
C
SOx emissionfactor (g/kWh)
Raw Harmonised
TNO Gas Treatment Group17/05/201113
Overall waste assesment
TNO Gas Treatment Group17/05/201114
Parameter Units 1A 1B 4A 4B
Coal or Gas Flow rate (air dry) t/h 239.8 266.3 56.1 56.1
Fuel LHV kJ/kg 25870 25870 46502 46502
Gross Electricity Out put (D) MWe 831 827 430.3 430.3
Power plant Auxiliaries (E) MWe 73.3 78.3 7.7 7.7
Capture plant additional consumption (F) MWe 83.1 66
Net Electric Output (C=D-E-F) MWe 757.7 665.6 422.6 356.6
Net electrical efficiency (C/A*100) % [LHV] 44.0 34.8 58.3 49.2
Specific fuel consumption MWt / MWe 2.07 2.88 1.71 2.03
Specific CO2 emissions kg/MWh 743 117 354 41.9
Cooling water consumption t/MWh 138.6 240.5 45.6 82.7
Basic Performance of Power plants
Cases 1A and 1B USC PC without and with PCC
Cases 4A and 4B NGCC cases without and with PCC
TNO Gas Treatment Group17/05/201115
Main gaseous emissions
Basic components Units
Modelling
Database
Modelling
Database
Harmonization Harmonization
1A 1B 1A 1B 4A 4B 4A 4B
CO2 kg/MWhnet 739 93 735 97 354 42 366 43
SO2 kg/MWhnet 0.26 6.5E-04 0.30 0 1,0E-02 5,9E-05
NOx kg/MWhnet 0.08 0.104 0.36 0.50 0,03 0,03 0.12 0.13
Acid gases
CO kg/MWhnet 0.07 0.09 NA NA 0,09 0,10
HCl kg/MWhnet 0.009 5.4E-04 NA NA
HF kg/MWhnet 0.001 6.8E-05 NA NA
Particulates
PM-10 kg/MWhnet 0.01 0.006 0.04 0.062 9,7E-05 5,7E-05
Ammonia kg/MWhnet 0.107 0.004 0.08 0,04
NOx emissions estimated from the modelling study are much lower than the estimates from the harmonization study
PM shows a different trend between modelling and harmonization
SOx emissions estimated from the modelling study and harmonization study are in good agreement
TNO Gas Treatment Group17/05/201116
Main gaseous emissions. Analysis
NOx emissions
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
NOx NO2 NO
Em
issi
on
s [m
g/N
m3 ]
Case 1A USC wo capture 85% NOx removal
Case 1A USC wo capture 95% NOx removal
Case 1B USC w capture 85% NOx removal
Case 1B USC w capture 95% NOx removal
Relative NOx emissions
0,00
0,05
0,10
0,15
0,20
0,25
0,30
0,35
NOx NO2 NO
Em
issi
on
s [k
g/M
Wh
net
]
Case 1A USC wo capture
Case 1B USC w capture
LNB & OFA & SCR combination available but not widely demonstrated
Removal efficiency vary in operation from 85% to 95%
Emission target for the present project was 100 mg/Nm3
These controls are capable to reduce the levels to 13ppmv
TNO Gas Treatment Group17/05/201117
Trace components in gaseous emissions
Trace metals Units 1A 1B
Arsenic kg/MWhnet 5.20E-05 5.20E-05
Cadmium kg/MWhnet 1.70E-06 1.70E-06
Chromium kg/MWhnet 4.00E-07 4.00E-07
Cobalt kg/MWhnet 1.20E-07 1.20E-07
Lead kg/MWhnet 5.20E-06 5.20E-06
Manganese kg/MWhnet 4.00E-07 4.00E-07
Nickel kg/MWhnet 6.40E-05 8.10E-05
Selenium kg/MWhnet 5.30E-04 6.70E-04
Zn kg/MWhnet 1.50E-02 1.90E-02
Copper kg/MWhnet 1.10E-04 1.40E-04
Total mercury kg/MWhnet 5.70E-06 5.30E-06
Hg0 kg/MWhnet 4.20E-06 4.90E-06
Hg2+ kg/MWhnet 1.50E-06 4.50E-07
Hgp kg/MWhnet 4.00E-08 2.60E-08
Classification of metals1:
Class 1: Little particle enrichment
(manganese, beryllium, cobalt, and
chromium).
Class 2: Enriched in fly ash relative
to bottom ash (arsenic, cadmium,
lead, and antimony)
Class 3: Emitted in the gas phase
(primarily mercury and, in some
cases, selenium).
1 AP-42 ((accesed 2009)). "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emision factors." Us Environmental protection Agency1 Korre, A., Z. Nie, et al. (2010). "Life cycle modelling of fossil fuel power generation with post-combustion CO2 capture." International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 4(2): 289-300.
TNO Gas Treatment Group17/05/201118
Generated waste. Liquid and solid emissions
Generated waste Units 1A 1B 4A 4B
Particules in ESP kg/MWhnet 19 24 NA NA
Gypsum kg/MWhnet 15 21 NA NA
Furnace bottom ash kg/MWhnet 9.6 12 NA NA
Fly ash kg/MWhnet 29.0 37 NA NA
Mill rejects kg/MWhnet 0.7 0.8 NA NA
Reclaimer waste kg/MWhnet NA 3.291 NA 1.17
Activated carbon kg/MWhnet NA 0.063 NA 0.025
Raw Materials
Cooling water consumption t/MWh 138.6 240.5 45.6 82.7
Specific water consumption t/MWh 0.104 0.410 1.01 1.21
MEA make up kg/tonCO2 1.765 1.79
Activated carbon make up kg/tonCO2 0.075 0.075
TNO Gas Treatment Group17/05/201119
Sensitivity analysis. MEA degradation at higher oxygen concentrations
MEA degradation. Case 4B
0,000
0,002
0,004
0,006
0,008
0,010
0,012
0% 5% 10% 15%
Oxygen concentration [%vol]
Was
te [m
3/to
n CO
2]
Reclaimer waste
MEA degradation. Case 4B
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0% 5% 10% 15%
Oxygen concentration [%vol]
MEA
deg
rada
tion
[kg/
ton
CO2]
Oxidative degradation
Total MEA loss
( ) [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]( )78.22
42.32
33.02
91.1/453000 OSOCOMEAekr RT
MEA +⋅⋅⋅=− −
Degradation rate studies from Uyanga, I.J., Idem, O Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 46: 2558-2566.
TNO Gas Treatment Group17/05/201120
Sensitivity analysis. Waste generation at higher sulphur content
CASE 1B Generated flows with an desulphurisation efficiency of 95% & 98%
CASE 1B Emissions of SOx for different desulphurisation efficiencies
Relative SOx emissions
0.0E+00
5.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.5E-03
2.0E-03
2.5E-03
3.0E-03
0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60
Sulphur content (%wt dry)
SO
x [k
g/M
Wh
]
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
SO
x [m
g/N
m3]
FGD efficiency at 95%
FGD efficiency at 98%
Generated waste
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Sulphur content [%wt]
Was
te f
low
s [k
g/s
]
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.1
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.1
ME
A lo
ss [
kg/t
on
CO
2]
Gypsum FGD 98%
Gypsum FGD 95%
MEA loss FGD 98%
MEA loss FGD 95%
TNO Gas Treatment Group17/05/201121
Conclusions and future workOverall waste assessment of PCC applied to two different power plants has
been performed by different methods:
Harmonization : useful tool for estimating relative emissions in those cases
were technology is well established and much information regarding
emissions is reported.
Modelling: possibility to cover the uncertainties on the emissions of novel
technology.
Uncertainties on degradation rates, rates of HSS formation need to be further
investigated.
USC PC has higher emissions of pollutants than NGCC. However, the higher
oxygen concentration in the NGCC case might lead to more generated waste
in the reclaimer.
Possibilities of waste reduction need to be further investigated
TNO Gas Treatment Group17/05/201122
Extra slides (1)
Composition of CO2 stream (Case 1B)
CO2 >99.9%
SO2 34ppmw
SO3 <21ppmw
NO2 <7ppmw
HCl <2ppmw
Hg2+ <2ppbw
Assumption is that 75% of the sulphur capture in the CO2 unit is
recovered as HSS