Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS
11/7/2014
Introduction
(Process Flow Diagram of the Integrated Process)
Steam Cycle
Boiler
CO2 Capture
Flue Gas CO2
pre-treatment Compression
11/7/2014 2
Introduction
(Key Features of the Power Plant)
Supercritical once through boiler with a SCR between the economiser and air-heater
2 ppmv NH3 slip in the SCR
Single reheat steam conditions: 241 bar/593 oC/593 oC (3500 psig/1100 oF/1100 oF)
Cold reheat pressure: 45.2 bar
Steam Cycle Condenser pressure: 0.07 bar
Saturation temperature is ~ 38 oC
Dedicated turbine (BFWPs) is used to drive the boiler feed water pumps
Steam extracted from the IP-LP crossover is used to run BFWPs turbine
BFWPs turbine isentropic efficiency is 80%
Steam Turbines Efficiencies
HP turbine isentropic efficiency is 83.72%
IP turbine isentropic efficiency is 88.76%
LP turbine isentropic efficiency is 92.56%
Generator Efficiency is 98.5%
11/7/2014 3
Aim and Objectives
2. To quantifying the impacts of using different types of coal on the overall performance of
the integrated process based on simulations.
High volatile bituminous coal (Illinois No. 6)
Sub-bituminous coal (Montana Rosebud)
Lignite coal (North Dakota)
3. To quantify the impacts of important operating parameters of the CO2 capture plant on
the overall performance of the integrated process.
Lean MEA solution CO2 loading and liquid/gas mass ratio
Lean MEA solution temperature (absorber inlet)
Flue gas temperature (absorber inlet)
CO2 capture level
4
An Overview of the Methodology
The complete integrated process was modelled with Aspen Plus, V8.4, and dedicated
hierarchy blocks were used for sub-processes.
Coal-fired boiler, which includes a simple Model for SCR.
Steam turbine cycle.
a simple model for FGD .
CO2 capture.
CO2 Compression.
The CO2 capture plant was optimally designed based on rate-based calculations.
Electrolyte-NRTL model adopted for the liquid phase of the VLE.
PC-SAFT equation of state adopted for the gas phase of the VLE.
HETPs calculated based on mass transfer theory.
The column diameter and height of the absorbers and stripper arrived at
systematically using innovative method.
11/7/2014 6
Coal Properties
11/7/2014 Agbonghae E. O. 8
Process Modelling Approach
Fig 2: Approaches for modelling reactive absorption processes (Kenig et al., 2001)
Reference: Kenig, E. Y.; Schneider, R.; Gorak, A. Reactive absorption: Optimal process design via optimal
modelling. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2001, 56, 343-350.
Aspen Plus Model
(Key features)
Rate-based approach
Reaction kinetics
Reactions in Bulk liquid
Reactions in Liquid Film
No concentration gradient in bulk phases
Film discretization
Electrolyte present only in the liquid phase
Charge balance (electrolytes)
Equilibrium at V/L Interphase
Rigorous VLE Model (Electrolyte-NRTL)
Model Validation
(Specific Reboiler duty vs L/G)
Exp (A.1)
12 Model (A.1)
Exp (A..2)
11 Model (A.2) Pilot plant data from
Exp (A.3) Notz et al. (2012).
10 Model (A.3)
Sp. Reb Duty (MJ/kg CO2)
Exp (A.4)
9 Model (A.4) Experiment sets A.1,
A.2 and A.3
8
correspond to gas-
7 fired condition.
3
1 2 3 4 5
L/G (kg/kg)
Reference: Notz, R.; Mangalapally, H. P.; Hasse, H. Post combustion CO2 capture by reactive absorption: Pilot plant
description and results of systematic studies with MEA. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 2012, 6, 84-112.
Model Validation
(Profile Results, Experiment set A.4)
120
70
Absorber Stripper
Exp (L/G = 2.0 )
65 Model (L/G = 2.0)
115 Exp (L/G = 2.6)
Model (L/G = 2.6)
Temperature (oC)
Temperature (oC)
60 Exp (L/G = 2.8)
Model (L/G = 2.8)
Exp (L/G = 3.3)
55 110 Model (L/G = 3.3)
Exp (L/G = 3.6)
Model (L/G = 3.6)
50 Exp (L/G = 3.9
Model (L/G = 3.9)
105 Exp (L/G = 4.5)
45 Model (L/G = 4.5)
40
100
0 2 4 0 2 4
Packing height (m) Packing height (m)
Optimal Design of the CO2 Capture plant
11/7/2014 Agbonghae E. O. 15
Optimum Lean CO2 Loading
L/G (kg/kg)
640
29.0
630
3.20
620 28.5
610 3.00
28.0
600
2.80
590 27.5
580 2.60
27.0 with CO2 Capture & Compression (Illinois No. 6)
570 with CO2 Capture & Compression (Montana Rosebud)
2.40 26.5
560 with CO2 Capture & Compression (North Dakota)
0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26
Lean CO2 Loading (mol/mol) Lean CO2 Loading (mol/mol)
11/7/2014 16
Optimum Lean CO2 Loading
(Continuation)
1.20x105
550
650
500
1.15x105
450
600
400 1.10x105
350
550
Exchanger Area (Illinois No. 6) 1.05x105
300 Exchanger Area (Montana Rosebud)
Exchanger Area (North Dakota)
250 500 1.00x105
0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26
Lean CO2 Loading (mol/mol) Lean CO2 Loading (mol/mol)
11/7/2014 17
Impact of Flue Gas Temperature
on Performance
Sp. Reb Duty (Illinois No. 6) 750 CO2 Capture Efficiency (Illinois No. 6)
3.82 Sp. Reb Duty (Montana Rosebud) 91.0 CO2 Capture Efficiency (Montana Rosebud)
Sp. Reb Duty (North Dakota) CO2 Capture Efficiency (North Dakota)
Reboiler Duty (Illinois No. 6) 700
3.80 90.5
Reboiler Duty (Montana Rosebud)
Reboiler Duty (North Dakota)
3.78 90.0
650
600
3.74 89.0
3.70 88.0
500
3.68 87.5
450
3.66 87.0
Inlet Temperature of Flue Gas (oC) Inlet Temperature of Flue Gas (oC)
11/7/2014 18
Impact of Lean Amine Temperature
on Performance
Sp. Reb Duty (Illinois No. 6) CO2 Capture Efficiency (Illinois No. 6)
3.6870 Sp. Reb Duty (Montana Rosebud) CO2 Capture Efficiency (Montana Rosebud)
Sp. Reb Duty (North Dakota) 90.12 CO2 Capture Efficiency (North Dakota)
3.6865
3.6860
3.6855 90.10
3.6850
90.08
3.6845
3.6840
90.06
3.6835
3.6830
90.04
3.6825
3.6820 90.02
3.6815
3.6810 90.00
3.6805
3.6800 89.98
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Inlet Temperature of Lean Amine (oC) Inlet Temperature of Lean Amine (oC)
11/7/2014 19
Impact of CO2 Capture Level
3.2 3.76
Sp. Reb Duty (Illinois No. 6)
L/G (Illinois No. 6)
Sp. Reb Duty (Montana Rosebud)
L/G (Montana Rosebud)
3.74 Sp. Reb Duty (North Dakota)
L/G (North Dakota)
3.0
3.72
3.68
2.6
3.66
2.4
3.64
3.62
2.2
3.60
70 75 80 85 90 95 100 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
CO2 Capture Level (%) CO2 Capture Level (%)
11/7/2014 20
Summary: Overall Energy Performance
Montana North
Illinois No. 6 Rosebud Dakota
Fuel heat input, HHV (MWth) 1932.94 1932.94 1932.94
Steam turbine thermal input, (MWth) 1704.75 1704.75 1704.75
Steam turbine power, without steam extraction (MWe) 811.80 811.80 811.80
Steam turbine power, with steam extraction (MWe) 662.94 654.24 649.09
Power plant auxiliary loads (MWe) 11.44 12.12 12.57
Other auxiliary loads (MWe), estimated based on a US DOE report‡ 30.00 30.00 30.00
CO2 capture plant auxiliary loads (MWe) 19.72 20.15 20.42
CO2 Compression loads (MWe) 45.70 48.05 49.46
Power output without CO2 capture and compression (MWe) 767.36 767.36 767.36
Power output with CO2 capture only (MWe) 601.17 591.97 586.72
Power output with CO2 capture and compression (MWe) 555.48 543.92 536.64
Efficiency without CO2 capture and compression (%), HHV 39.70 39.70 39.70
Efficiency with CO2 capture only (%), HHV 31.10 30.60 30.30
Efficiency with CO2 capture and compression (%), HHV 28.73 28.12 27.74
‡US DOE "Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants. Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to
Electricity," US Department of Energy, Revision 2, November 2010.
11/7/2014 22
Conclusions
The design of the CO2 capture plant can easily handle different coal types without
operational issues. Fractional approach to flooding velocity was fairly constant. No flooding!
The Optimum lean CO2 loading lies between 0.18 and 0.22 for all the coal types investigated.
A lean CO2 loading of 0.18 was adopted. 0.20 gave about the same performance!
The temperature of the lean MEA solution at the absorber inlet has minimal effect on the
overall performance. There is no need to over-cool!
The flue gas temperature up to 45 oC has a very slight effect on the overall performance.
However, its effect becomes slightly more pronounced above 45 oC. Do not over-cool!
Specific reboiler duty increases slightly with capture level up to about 90% and it increases
sharply above 90%. The same L/G per CO2 capture level can be used for 75% to 90% CO2
capture level with minimal loss of performance. This is a plus for power plant flexibility!
11/7/2014 23
Energy Technology and Innovation Initiative (ETII)
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS
11/7/2014 24