Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Vishnu Digant 9th September 2011 Supervised by: Dr. Nick Florin and Dr. Paul Fennell
A thesis presented to Imperial College London in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Sustainable Energy Futures and for the Diploma of Imperial College.
Acknowledgements
I would like to first and foremost thank my supervisors Dr. Nick Florin and Dr. Paul Fennell for their constant guidance, support and mentorship over the course of this thesis. Whenever I was bereft of ideas, their valuable insight and ideas helped me get back on the right track. I would like to thank Hamender Jain and Prashant Pathak for their valuable help in the modeling of the project. Their suggestions and feedback helped me understand layout design concepts and explore the project from a wider perspective. I acknowledge Danlu Tong for providing experimental results that have been used in the model. My classmates of SEF also deserve recognition for their valuable insights and support extended to me during the project. My special thanks goes to Santosh Kumar from whom I learnt great deal from our lengthy discussion. Finally, I would like to thank my parents for their unwavering support and encouragement to pursue a graduate degree.
Abstract
The Climate Change Act (2008) legally binds the UK to reduce its CO2 emissions by 80% compared to 1990 levels by 2050. Currently around 75% of UK electricity needs are met by fossil fuels, which are the major source of CO2 emissions. To meet the targets of 80 % reduction in CO2, CCS is being proposed to decarbonize the fossil based power generation sector. Under section 36 of Electricity Act 1989, all combustion plants with electrical capacity 300 MW are required to demonstrate Carbon Capture Readiness (CCR). CCR is an assessment to demonstrate that no known barriers, to accommodate Carbon Capture Plant (CCP) at a future date exists and the plant will be able to accommodate CCP when it becomes economically viable. The minimum area footprint required for demonstrating CCR has been provided by DECC in their guidance notes. The area provided in the guidance notes for demonstrating CCR for natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) post combustion technology is contentious. Several reports suggest that a reduction of more than 60% in the area provided by DECC for CCR is feasible. However these reports consider different assumptions and layouts, therefore a standardized comparison is difficult. The UK government is interested in area requirements as roughly 4.6 GW of NGCC are currently in the planning stage. An assessment of the minimum area requirements was carried out by Dr. Nick Florin and Dr. Paul Fennell of Imperial College London. However, this assessment was based on review of academic literature and data available in public domain. The report recommended that a 50 % reduction in area appeared to be feasible; however such a recommendation can only be justified on the basis of detailed design. This thesis looks into the details of area requirements of individual equipments of the CCP by undertaking a detailed design analysis. Three different CCP models of 500 MW, 400 MW and 250 MW were created and equipments were sized for capture efficiency of 90 %, 85 %, 75 % and 70 %. Models of absorber and stripper were developed to calculate their area requirement while knock-out pot and cooling tower area requirement were calculated using engineering software. Other equipment dimensions were obtained through either manufacturers catalog or simple correlations. Thereafter the equipments were plotted using CAD software to calculate area requirements of the plant for different capacity and capture efficiency. The area footprint requirement would also be affected in the future by the development in amine technology and with flue gas recirculation. This thesis also looks into the reduction in area footprint that could possibly result from these technological advancements. Finally, an equation to calculate land area footprints as a function of the plant capacity, capture efficiency, reduction in amine regeneration energy requirement and flue gas recirculation rate was developed. It was found that the land area footprint sensitivity with capture efficiency, reduction in amine regeneration energy requirement and flue gas recirculation is not very high. Therefore a massive reduction in area requirement with advancement in amine technology and flue gas recirculation cannot be expected in the future (max. possible reduction of 10-15 % seems feasible). Further, it was also found that reduction in number of absorber trains has a significant impact on reducing the total area footprint. Finally, the thesis recommends that a 66 % reduction in minimum land area requirement as prescribed in the Guidance notes is feasible based on the CCP model.
Engineering Design of a Generic NGCC CO2 capture plant retrofit Table of Contents
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................................. 5 List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... 7 List of symbols and Abbreviations ................................................................................................................ 8 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 11
1.1 Motivation for the project ......................................................................................................................... 11
6. Results................................................................................................................................................... 69 7. Conclusion and scope for future work .................................................................................................... 76 Bibliography .............................................................................................................................................. 79 Appendices................................................................................................................................................ 84
Appendix 1: Design of Absorber ........................................................................................................................... 84 Appendix 2: Design of Stripper ............................................................................................................................. 86 Appendix 3 A: Layout Design of the CCP for 500 MW NGCC at 90 % Capture efficiency ........................................... 88 Appendix 3 B: Layout Design of the CCP for 250 MW NGCC at 90 % Capture efficiency ........................................... 89 Appendix 4 : Clearances / Space allocation for the model layout. .......................................................................... 90
List of Figures
Figure 1 :Sectoral distribution of sources of CO2 .......................................................................................... 11 Figure 2: The efficiency of fossil fuel based plants before and after implementation of CCS plants.... 13 Figure 3: Combined cycle plants available from Alstom and ...................................................................... 19 Figure 4: Block flow diagram of model carbon capture plant (CCP) (single train) ................................... 21 Figure 5: Process flow diagram of NGCC CCP model ( based on Fluor EFG+ technology ) ............... 23 Figure 6: Process flow diagram of NGCC CCP model ( based on Fluor EFG+ technology ). ............. 24 Figure 7:Random (Dumped) packings ( HYPAK (top left), IMTP (top right), Cascade mini ring (bottom left) and Flexi-ring (bottom right)) .................................................................................................................... 29 Figure 8: Structured packings ( Flexipack (left), Flexipack HC (top right), Intalox (bottom right).......... 30 Figure 9: Simple model of absorber for material balance ............................................................................ 31 Figure 10: Solubility of CO2 in 30 wt % MEA solution .................................................................................. 32 Figure 11: Generalized Pressure Drop Correlation (GDPC) for packed towers ...................................... 33 Figure 12: Impact of packing material on column diameter calculated for 90 % capture efficiency (from absorber model) ................................................................................................................................................. 35 Figure 13: Absorber column diameter sensitivity with capture efficiency. ................................................ 36 Figure 14: Impact of packing material on stripper column diameter calculated for 90 % capture efficiency (from stripper model)........................................................................................................................ 40 Figure 15: Stripper diameter sensitivity with capture efficiency. ................................................................. 40 Figure 16: Impact of decrease in amine regeneration energy requirement for a 500 MW NGCC stripper. ................................................................................................................................................................ 41 Figure 17: Single flow fan with coupling and motor ...................................................................................... 44 Figure 18: Single inlet fan and double inlet fan ............................................................................................. 45 Figure 19: A tube type flue gas heater installed on a 1000 MW coal based plant FGD ......................... 47 Figure 20: A rotary gas- gas heater ................................................................................................................ 47 Figure 21: Diameter of flue gas heater at different flue gas flow rates ...................................................... 48 Figure 22: Flue gas flow rate vs diameter of the flue gas heater with temperature difference between inlet hot flue gas and outlet hot flue gas ......................................................................................................... 48 Figure 23: A typical Alfa laval heat exchanger .............................................................................................. 51 Figure 24: A typical vertical knock out pot and Vertical knock-out pot engineering calculator ............. 53 Figure 25: Kettle Reboiler (left) and thermo-syphon reboiler (right) .......................................................... 54 Figure 26: A typical TEG dehydration unit ..................................................................................................... 57 Figure 27: CO2 flow through the TEG and the required area footprint. ..................................................... 57 Figure 28: A typical reclaimer used for MEA / DEA ...................................................................................... 58 Figure 29: A chemical dosing skid ................................................................................................................... 61 Figure 30: Area requirement by the 500 MW NGCC plant at 90% capture efficiency ............................ 64 Figure 31 : Break-up of cooling tower heat load ........................................................................................... 65 Figure 32: Area required by a 90 % carbon capture plant at different NGCC capacity. ......................... 69 Figure 33: Area required per MW for CCP at different NGCC plant capacity (90% CC efficiency) ...... 70 Figure 34: Equipment area sensitivity with capture efficiency .................................................................... 71 Figure 35: Equipment area per MW at different capture efficiency. ........................................................... 72
5
List of Tables
(Table 1:) Main design aspects of amine based post-combustion NGCC retrofit / CCR study. ............ 15 (Table 2:) CCP area reuirements for NGCC plants ...................................................................................... 17 (Table 3:) Flue gas composition ...................................................................................................................... 25 (Table 4:) List of equipments for a single absorber train based 500 MW NGCC CCP at 90% capture efficiency. ............................................................................................................................................................. 26 (Table 5 :) Packing factor for random packing elements. ............................................................................ 34 (Table 6:) Absorber column diameter as determined by model and by Fluor Daniel formula for different plant capacity and at different capture efficiency. ......................................................................... 37 (Table 7:) Stripper column diameter as determined by the model and by Fluor Daniel formula for different plant capacity and at different capture efficiency. ......................................................................... 39 (Table 8:) Stripper diameter at different amine regeneration energy requirement for a 500 MW stripper. ................................................................................................................................................................ 41 (Table 9:) Specification of TLT Turbo installed at Yenikoy power plant , Turkey. ................................... 45 (Table 10:) The calculated area footprint and diameter of fan for different flow capacity. ..................... 46 (Table 11:) Comparison of design parameters for ref. gas heater and the heater required for this project. ................................................................................................................................................................. 49 (Table 12:) Alfa - Laval plate heat exchangers specifications .................................................................... 50 (Table 13:) Product specification sheet of RG compressors ....................................................................... 55 (Table 14:) The knock-out pot diameter for 6170 ton / day Tjeldbergodden plant .................................. 56 (Table 15:) Pump size for a 500 MW NGCC plant with 90 % capture efficiency ..................................... 59 (Table 16:) Temperature and specific heats used in CCP model calculation .......................................... 63 (Table 17:) The heat energy (in MW) to be dissipated by the cooling tower at different capture efficiency .............................................................................................................................................................. 65 (Table 18:) Area required by the CCP per MW ............................................................................................. 70 (Table 19:) Area required by CCP plant equipments that are affected by steam flow rate (CCP for 500 MW NGCC with 90 % capture efficiency). ..................................................................................................... 73 (Table 20:) Reduction in land area footprint with amine regeneration energy requirement for a 500 MW NGCC CCP at 90 % capture efficiency. ................................................................................................. 73 Table 21: Value of the constants for model Equation 1 ............................................................................... 77 Table 22 Value of the constants for model Equation 2 ................................................................................ 77
Abbreviations:
CCGT Combined Cycle Gas Turbine CCP Carbon Capture Plant CCR Carbon Capture Readiness DCC Direct Contact Coolers DECC Department of Energy and Climate Change EFG+ Econoamine FG Plus EU CCS European Union Carbon Capture and Storage FGD Flue Gas Desulphurization FRP Fibreglass Reinforced Plastic GCCSI Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute GDPC Generalized Pressure Drop Correlation GHG Green House Gas HETP Height of Equivalent Theoretical Plate HRSG Heat Recovery Steam Generators IEA International Energy Agency
9
10
1. Introduction
An increasing body of evidence confirms that anthropogenic emissions are contributing to global climate change and there is almost no doubt that humans are altering earths natural climate (Anderson et. al., 2003). IPCC Fourth assessment report concludes that the global warming observed in last 50 years is very likely due to increase in anthropogenic green house gas (GHG) emissions(Metz et. al., 2007). The main GHG is carbon dioxide (CO2) accounting for 77 % of the total GHG emissions to the atmosphere (Metz et. al., 2007). Electricity & heat generation is one of the major contributors to GHG emissions and accounted for 12.1 GtCO2, or approximately 41% (Fig 1) of global GHG emissions in 2008 (IEA, 2010). Considering the huge impact of power generation sector on economy and global emissions, the development of environment friendly and cost effective means of power generation is necessary for a sustainable society (Hongtao et. al., 2006).
Figure 1 :Sectoral distribution of sources of CO2. (CCS, 2011) By 2030, world energy outlook (WEO, 2009) reference scenario predicts that the worldwide demand for electricity would reach nearly twice the current demand, driven by increasing income and population growth in developing countries (IEA, 2010). So on one side there is increasing electricity demands while on other side there are increasing climate change concerns because of emissions associated with electricity production. Therefore there is a need for switching to low carbon intensive electricity production to avoid emissions reaching dangerous levels and affecting terrestrial eco-systems and human societies. In such context natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) plants can be a good option because of their lower emissions and competitive electricity generation prices (Hongtao et. al., 2006). 1.1 Motivation for the project
IPCC in its report has identified carbon capture and storage (CCS) as one of the potential technologies for GHG mitigation, which have great potential for large point source emitters (IPCC, 2005). CCS involves capturing of CO2 from large point source emitters like power generating stations, liquefying the captured CO 2 and transporting it to geological formations or saline aquifers for permanent storage (Herzog et. al., 2004; IPCC, 2005). In European Union CCS regulatory requirement was imposed by EU CCS directive (EC, 2009).
11
1. There is sufficient space available on or near the site for accommodating carbon capture plant when required by law, 2. The chosen carbon capture technology for retrofit is feasible, 3. A suitable off shore geological storage site exists for storing the captured CO 2 from the proposed plant, 4. Transportation of CO2 from the plant to storage site is technically feasible and a proper transport corridor has been identified and 5. It would be economically feasible to integrate the carbon capture plant with the main plant (DECC, 2009; GCCSI, 2010). CCR concept has been proposed to prevent the carbon lock in problems, a solution to avoid situation where we would have large amount of electricity coming from fossil fired plants, which will not be able to accommodate carbon capture plant when policy requires CCS implementation (Markusson et. al, 2009).
Efforts to reduce CO2 emissions from power stations have lead to a "dash for gas" which has increased the share of NGCC plants in the UK and across the globe. The use of gas turbines for power generation has been growing worldwide since the last decade and is expected to grow in future because of low capital cost, short construction time, lower CO2 emissions per unit of electricity and competitive price of electricity (Hailong et. al., 2010; Alstom, 2011; GE 2011). In coming few years about 4.6 GW of NGCC plants are expected to be built in UK (DECC, 2011) and it is essential to have these plants capture ready so that they will be able to
12
Figure 2: The efficiency of fossil fuel based plants before and after implementation of CCS plants (Kanniche et. al., 2010). The major CCR demonstration criterion for NGCC is eventually the minimum land requirements set in the DECC guidelines. The guideline sets a minimum area requirement of 37,500 m2 for a 500 MWe NGCC postcombustion CCR plant, 26,250 m2 for a NGCC pre-combustion CCR plant and 9,600 m2 for an NGCC oxy-fuel CCR plant (DECC, 2009). However, the area requirement for a NGCC post-combustion plant is contentious and many reports suggest that the actual area required can be reduced by as much as 50 % (URS, 2009; SKM, 2009). The UK government is interested in the space requirements of NGCC plant bearing in mind the requirement of future CCS plants on the currently planned 4.6 GW of NGCC capacity. An assessment of validity of "appropriate minimum land area footprints for certain type of CO 2 capture plant" as prescribed in DECC CCR guidelines was carried out by Dr Nick Florin and Dr Paul Fennell (Florin N, 2009). This assessment was based on an up-to-date review of literature and data available in public domain; however a detailed design analysis was not carried out. The assessment report recommended that for the NGCC CCP based on post combustion technology 50 % reduction in land area footprint is feasible considering the advances in technology and layout optimization, however such reduction can only be justified based on detailed engineering design (Florin N, 2009). Therefore this research project was undertaken in further continuation to this report. This project would look into the details of area requirements of each individual equipment of the CCP by undertaking a detailed design analysis. This will help remove ambiguity in determining the area requirement by a NGCC CCP. Further with development in amine technology and EGR
13
1. How much land area would be required by the CCP for a NGCC of a given capacity? 2. How sensitive is the land area footprint with carbon capture efficiency? 3. How sensitive is the land area footprint with reduction in amine regeneration energy requirement? 4. How sensitive is the land foot print requirement with flue gas recirculation? 5. How much saving in land area footprints can be achieved by using a single absorber train in place of two absorber train?
The answer to the above questions will not only help to remove the uncertainty in the area requirement proposed by DECC for CCR criterion demonstration but will also help NGCC developers in resolving some of the dilemma related to how effective would be the technological development of amines and EGR in reducing the land area requirement of the CCP. This project also identifies the major equipments that have high share in the overall footprint of the CCP, therefore these equipment should be targeted first for optimizing area utilization, if significant reduction in area footprint of the CCP is to be achieved.
14
(Table 1:) Main design aspects of amine based post-combustion NGCC retrofit / CCR study. Plant Generic postcombustion NGCC, Netherlands (1) Generic postcombustion NGCC, Netherlands (2) Generic postcombustion NGCC, SKM (3) Cokenzie, Scotland (4) Tjeldbergodden, Norway (5)
Studied by
Fluor for IEA, Jacobs 2004 Consultancy for IEA, 2005 800 MWe 800 MWe
URS, 2009
Statoil, 2005
1000 MWe + 800 MWe (77 MWe + 148 MWt ) 2x500 MWe (GT+ST) 2 GT + 1 ST
Configuration
Configuration details
15
MEA 8
MEA 2 + 1 (one train for CHP) 2 + 1 (one train for CHP) 2 + 1 (one train for CHP) Yes No Not specified
Number of strippers
Number of DCC
SCR considered SOX treatment Efficiency before capture (LHV) Efficiency after capture (LHV) Efficiency penalty
No No 55.6 %
No No 55.9 %
Yes No Not specified Not specified Not specified 90 % Not specified Not specified
No No Not specified
47.4 %
44.6 %
Not specified
Not specified
8.2 %
11.3 %
Expected be high 90 %
to Not specified
85% Yes
Not specified Not specified 103 kg/cm2 (a) or 100 bar (g)
Not specified
70 bar (g)
Area required
Not specified
185 m x 185 Not specified m (Worst case) 133 m x 113 m (with vertical Integration)
16
37,500 m2
37,500 m2
500 MWe 75
800 MWe 47
1500 MWe 16
1225 MWe 13
1225 MWe 28
Table 2 shows the area requirement as assessed in the studies and it is clear that there is a huge variation in area required per MW. IEA prescribed area requirement per MW is high because the study was conducted 6 years ago and there has been lot of technological advancement in post combustion carbon capture technology since then. The minimum area requirement by the DECC for CCR needs to be reduced by 36 % because it is based on the estimated area requirement for a 800 MW NGCC CCP. A further reduction of 50 % in area requirement by the DECC can be expected based on the studies of URS and SKM (URS, 2009; SKM, 2009). A detailed design analysis of CCP area requirement will help address this uncertainty.
17
18
Efficiency
KA-11N2-1
13-E2-1
KA -24-1
Plant net output
KA 26-1
KA 26-1
62% 60% 58% 56% 54% 52% 50% 217 MW SA206 FA 218 MW S106 FA
Efficiency
262.6 MW SA107 FA
280 MW
390 MW
787 MW S209 FA
400 MW SA10 7H
480 MW S109H
Figure 3: Combined cycle plants available from Alstom and GE (EPRI, 2003) Fig 3 shows the combined cycle plants designed by two of the leading combined cycle manufacturers. It can be seen from the Fig 2 and Fig 3 that most of the NGCC plants are in range of 200-250 MW and 400-500 MW. Therefore in this project three NGCC of 250 MW capacity, 400 MW capacity and 500 MW capacity were selected. A comparison of the area footprint of the 250 MW plant and 500 MW plant was made to understand the % saving in footprint when two absorber train is replaced by a single absorber train. The efficiencies of the proposed plants were selected based on the published design ratings of Alstom and GE. The efficiencies of 250 MW, 400 MW and 500 MW NGCC plant model were selected as 54 %, 57% and 59 % respectively. To calculate the amount of CO2 generated in the model for different NGCC plant capacities, the calorific value of natural gas used was assumed to be 11000 kcal/kg (a conservative figure because the range is 11000 12000 kcal/kg) and the natural gas fuel was assumed to comprise of 100% methane. The above values and the combined cycle efficiency were used to calculate the amount of CO2 produced by each plant on an hourly
19
The pressurized flue gas from the fan is routed to the bottom of the absorber where ascending flue gas comes in contact with counter current flowing MEA solution. To facilitate better contact, random packing materials are used in the absorber column. The lean 30 wt % MEA solution enters the top of the absorber column and reacts chemically with the CO2 in the flue gas while descending down the absorber. The CO2 gets absorbed in the MEA solvent and at the bottom of the absorber, the MEA solvent is "rich in CO 2". Rich solvent pumps then transport this CO2 rich amine solution to the stripper through lean-rich amine heat exchanger. Since some of the MEA solvent gets carried along with the flue gas to the top of the absorber, there are 3 - 4 trays for washing the flue gas to minimize the MEA solvent loss and also to meet the environmental regulations. Because of washing, the flue gas at the exit of the absorber is saturated with water. Therefore when outside temperature is low, the flue gas would give visible plumes. To avoid plume visibility, the flue gas from the absorber is passed through a flue gas heater where the treated flue gas from the absorber exchanges heat with the hot flue gas from the exit of the HRSG. The flue gas heater has not been proposed in most of the studies; however for this project flue gas heater has been chosen considering that it may be needed in future based on public opposition to visible plumes from CCP. Flue gas heaters are routinely used in US and UK after the FGD units in coal based plants.
20
Stripper
Reclaimer
Absorber
Compressor
Figure 4: Block flow diagram of model carbon capture plant (CCP) (single train)
21
The CO2 leaves the stripper at the top and is passed through a condenser, to condense the amine and water solution that escapes from the stripper top. The condensed amine and water reflux is returned back to the stripper through the reflux pumps. The CO2 after the condenser is passed through the knock out pot to further reduce the moisture content in the CO2. After the knock out pot, the CO2 is sent to the multi-stage compressors for compression. The CO2 at an inter-stage pressure of 35 40 bar is sent to glycol dehydration unit (TEG) to reduce the moisture content to below 50 ppm on mass basis. The CO2 is compressed to the required pressure (220 bar) for transportation to storage site.
22
Figure 5: Process flow diagram of NGCC CCP model ( based on Fluor EFG+ technology )
23
Figure 6: Process flow diagram of NGCC CCP model ( based on Fluor EFG+ technology ).
24
25
(Table 4:) List of equipments for a single absorber train based 500 MW NGCC CCP at 90% capture efficiency.
Equipment
Flue gas Heater DCC Fan Stripper Absorber CO2 condenser Knock out pot Reboiler Reboiler Condensate tank Reclaimer Reclaimer waste vessel Reclaimer condensate tank CO2 compressor CO2 compressor intercooler CO2 knockout pots CO2 knockout pots CO2 knockout pots CO2 knockout pots CO2 dehydration package Filter - DCC wash water filter Filter - wash water Filter - lean solvent Filter - solvent sump Soda ash injection system MEA solvent storage tank Solvent sump
% of total equipment area footprint 11.024 12.071 2.986 1.950 12.071 0.150 0.593 0.718 0.339 1.525 0.341 0.040 0.604 0.604 0.216 0.157 0.108 0.075 2.761 0.037 0.037 0.746 0.037 0.299 0.339 0.504
% of total CCP area footprint 2.686 2.941 0.727 0.475 2.941 0.0365 0.145 0.175 0.082 0.372 0.083 0.010 0.147 0.147 0.053 0.038 0.026 0.018 0.673 0.009 0.009 0.182 0.009 0.073 0.0827 0.123
26
27
1. Physical solution :- The process in which the gas being absorbed is more soluble in the liquid adsorbent compared to other components of the "carrier gas". The absorbed gas does not react chemically with the liquid absorbent and its equilibrium concentration in the liquid phase is strongly dependent on its partial pressure in gas phase. Di-methyl ether of Polyethylene glycol, used for absorbing CO2 and H2S from the synthesis gas in the Selexol process is an example of physical solution (Kohl & Nielsen, 1997).
2. Reversible reaction :- This process involves reaction between the gaseous absorbate and liquid absorbent. The reaction product is loosely bound and has finite vapor pressure that increases with temperature. Reaction between MEA and CO2 is an example of reversible reaction (Kohl & Nielsen, 1997). 3. Irreversible reaction :- In this process, the gaseous absorbate reacts with liquid absorbent to form a stable compound that cannot be readily decomposed to liberate the absorbate (Kohl & Nielsen, 1997).
The absorption may be purely physical or may involve a chemical reaction such as that between CO2 and MEA and the solvent is chosen primarily on the content of CO2 in the flue gas. In a carbon capture plant for a NGCC, the flue gas is first cooled in DCC and then pressurized through blower / fan. The pressurized gas from the blower / fan is then transferred to the absorber where CO2 is removed from flue gas, when flue gas while ascending up the absorber makes contact with the counter flowing amine solvent. An important aspect of gas absorption system is the design of the liquid - gas phase contacting system. The main purpose of the contacting system is to provide an extensive liquid surface area for contact with the gas phase to promote efficient mass transfer of the absorbate. A packed tower filled with either structured packing material or a random packing material, a tray column (also known as plate column) containing a number of sieve plates or bubble caps, an empty tower with liquid spraying system or a continuously stirred or sparged vessel may be used to facilitate better contact between liquid and gas phases. However the packed towers are increasingly gaining popularity for a plethora of applications because of development of packings that offer superior
28
The most commonly used packing elements are randomly packed because of lower cost, however random packing causes more pressure drop than structured packings, which have higher costs. Structured packings were originally developed for small applications where separation was difficult but they have now been developed for large commercial applications and may be considered for applications where high mass transfer efficiency and low pressure drop are of importance (Kohl & Nielsen, 1997). The absorber design for the NGCC plant in most of studies includes randomly packed towers with MEA and water flowing counter-current to promote efficient mass-transfer.
Figure 7:Random (Dumped) packings ( HYPAK (top left), IMTP (top right), Cascade mini ring (bottom left) and Flexi-ring (bottom right)) (Koch Glitsch, 2011)
29
Figure 8: Structured packings ( Flexipack (left), Flexipack HC (top right), Intalox (bottom right)) (Koch Glitsch, 2011) The amine solvent is consumed in the CCS process because of amine evaporation / loss during absorption and desorption process as well as because of degradation of amines in the process. The high temperatures in the reboiler and the oxidants and other impurities present in the flue gas cause irreversible degradation of amine. Therefore the amine is treated in the reclaimer periodically to remove the contaminants like heat stable salts formed during the capture process. The fresh MEA-water solvent from the storage tank is injected periodically in the amine circuit to make up for the amine losses and also to keep the CO 2 absorption capacity of the lean amine solution as high as possible. Besides flooding and amine degradation, corrosion is the major problem in the absorbers. Corrosion products also cause foaming in the absorber therefore filters are used to separate out corrosion products from the MEA-water solvent.
30
Engineering Design of a Generic NGCC CO2 capture plant retrofit 4.1.2 Material balance inside the absorber:
In the design of packed column absorbers the most important task is to evaluate the flow rates and concentration of both liquid and gas stream entering the absorber. The packed column design is a subtle blend of art and science and judicious economical decisions are to be made for an efficient and economical design of an absorber. For dilute streams (with absorbate molar concentration less than 10%), the absorber design can be based on constant mass transfer model. The operating line is constructed in terms of simple mass balance equation for CO2 given by the equation :-
Figure 9: Simple model of absorber for material balance The solubility data for the gaseous absorbate in liquid absorbent as function of partial pressure of absorbate in the carrier gas is required to calculate the minimum solvent flow rate required for the capture. The known parameters in this absorber design system are inlet liquid CO2 loading, inlet flue gas flow rate, inlet molar concentration of CO2 in flue gas and outlet molar concentration of CO2 in flue gas. From the equilibrium data shown in the Figure 10, the solubility of CO2 in 30 wt % MEA at 3 kPa partial pressure of CO2 in flue gas is 0.52 mol of CO2 /mol of MEA.
31
Figure 10: Solubility of CO2 in 30 wt % MEA solution (Kohl & Nielsen, 1997).
In this absorber design CO2 outlet loading of 0.53 mol of CO2 /mol of MEA is used (experimental data obtained by Tong, 2011). From the material balance equation, the minimum liquid flow rate required to achieve the required amount of CO2 capture from flue gas is calculated. The minimum liquid flow of solvent would require infinite number of trays to achieve required separation therefore the actual solvent flow rate should be higher than the calculated minimum. The actual solvent flow rate is about 1.2 to 1.5 times the calculated minimum based on economic considerations (Perry's, 1984). The actual solvent flow rate used in this absorber model is 1.45 times the minimum solvent flow rate required.
(2)
32
Since the liquid & gas flow rates and liquid & gas densities are known, the flow capacity factor from the graph can be read out corresponding to the relative flow capacity. Once the packing material has been selected, the corresponding packing factor can be substituted in the flow capacity factor to calculate gas mass velocity (G* ). Since this velocity is in lb/ft2.sec, therefore it should be converted to kg /m2.sec. Thereafter the diameter of the column can be calculated using the equation
where, D = diameter of the column (m) and G* = gas mass velocity kg/m2.sec
Figure 11: Generalized Pressure Drop Correlation (GDPC) for packed towers (Chemsof, 2011).
33
(Table 5 :) Packing factor for random packing elements (Kohl & Nielsen, 1997). Packing
Super Intalox saddle Super Intalox saddle Intalox saddle Intalox saddle Rashig rings Rashig rings 1/32 Rashig rings 1/16 Berl Saddles Pall rings Pall rings Telleretes Maspac IMPT Packing Intalox Snowflake Hy-pak Packing Jaeger Tri-packs Jaeger VSP
Material
C P C P C M M C P M P P M P M P M
1/4
3/8
1/2
5/8
3/4
1
60 42
11/4
11/2
2
30 28
31/2
18 22 16 37
725
330
200
145
92 33
52
40 21
1600 700
100 390
125
93 65
65 45 57 45 26 27 24
110
83 65 40 40
32
900
240 95 81
17 18 17 21
51
24
18
12
12
26
18 16 21
15
12
34
25
20 15 10 5 500 MW 400 MW 250 MW
0
Cermic Intalox 3" Super Intalox Intalox saddle 2" Pall Rings 1'' (52) Berl saddle 1.5" (22) saddle 1.5" (30) (40) (66) Random Packing material (Packing factor)
Figure 12: Impact of packing material on column diameter calculated for 90 % capture efficiency (from absorber model)
4.1.5 Determination of column height: Since the column height does not have much impact on the net area footprint required by the absorber system, a preliminary design method has been used in the model to estimate absorber column height. The HETP (height of equivalent theoretical plate) method works well for the preliminary estimation. For the absorber column approximately 20 theoretical stages are required (AceChemPack, 2011; Aspen, 2011). The HETP value for absorber column has been estimated to be equal to 6 feet or 1.83 m (AceChemPack, 2011). Further the absorber also requires 34 stages for washing of the flue gas to minimize amine loss therefore the height of absorber column is estimated to be around 40 m. The height calculated for a 400 MW absorber system with 19 m diameter was about 37 m in the previous study (Svendsen, 2010).
35
250 MW
400 MW 500 MW
Figure 13: Absorber column diameter sensitivity with capture efficiency. Fig 13 shows the absorber column diameter as the function of capture efficiency and indicates that the column diameter is not very sensitive to capture efficiency. The main reason for the difference being that the absorber column is designed based on gas flooding velocity. Although the gas flooding velocity is function of both flue gas flow rate and solvent flow rate, the impact of flue gas flow rate is more than the solvent flow rate. The capture efficiency directly impacts the solvent flow rate through the absorber. Since the capture efficiency does not lead to any reduction in flue gas flow rate, therefore there is not much sensitivity of absorber column diameter with capture efficiency. An important result that can be interpreted from the above Figure is that even reduction in 15 % capture efficiency will lead only to approximately 6% reduction in absorber column diameter. This is much less compared to reduction in absorber column diameter that could be achieved through selection of proper packing material; therefore selecting a packing material with low packing factor is important for reducing the footprint of absorber column. 4.1.7 Alternate method for determination of column diameter The diameter of the absorber column with reference to Fluor Econoamine FG capture process required for the carbon capture plant can also be calculated through the formula published by Fluor Daniel (Fluor,1999). The required area footprint of absorber column is determined by the amount of CO2 to be captured.
where, A= 0.56 at 3% CO2 to 0.62 for 13% CO2 te/d = tonne/day CO2 recovered
36
Rule of Thumb from the model for determination of absorber column diameter:
Where, Y= Diameter of absorber column in meter X= CO2 captured by the CCP (ton/h)
Table 6 shows that the there is a close agreement between the diameter calculated through the Fluor Daniel formula and the diameter calculated by the model used in this project. Using the alternative Fluor Daniel formula, the diameter of the absorber column required for 90 % capture efficiency for a 500 MW is calculated to be 20.3 m diameter while the model of the absorber used for this project predicts the diameter to be 20.17 m. It is important to note that in the study of 800 MW CCGT plant in Tjeldbergodden, Norway, the Fluor feasibility study includes three absorber trains for a two unit CCGT of 800 MW capacity. The prime reason for this assumption was that the maximum allowable diameter of the absorber column possible at that time was considered to be 15 m (SKM, 2009). However, with advancement in tower fabrication technology, large column diameters are possible. Further this model assumes concrete structure for absorber columns and hence 1 absorber train can sufficiently handle flue gas from up to 500 MW capacity NGCC plant. The concrete structure would be rubber lined to prevent it from the corrosive nature of amine degradation products. This results in a considerably more space efficient design, and has been proposed by potential manufacturers of CCP, including Mitsui Heavy Industries (MHI) (SKM, 2009). (Table 6:) Absorber column diameter as determined by model and by Fluor Daniel formula for different plant capacity and at different capture efficiency.
Absorber diameter from Model (m) Absorber diameter from Fluor Daniel Formula (m) Absorber diameter from Model (m) Absorber diameter from Fluor Daniel Formula (m) Absorber diameter from Model (m) Absorber diameter from Fluor Daniel Formula (m)
Cap.
250 MW
250 MW
400 MW
400 MW
500 MW
500 MW
90 % 85 % 80% 75 %
37
4.2.1 Alternative method for determination of stripper column diameter: For comparison the stripper column diameter can alternately be calculated from the formula provided by Fluor (Fluor, 1999). The required area footprint of stripper column is determined by the amount of CO 2 to be captured.
38
where, te/d
Rule of Thumb from the model for determination of stripper column diameter:
where Y= Diameter of stripper column in meter X= CO2 captured by the CCP (ton/h) (Table 7:) Stripper column diameter as determined by the model and by Fluor Daniel formula for different plant capacity and at different capture efficiency.
Column diameter from Stripper Model (m) 250 MW Column diameter from Fluor Daniel Formula (m) 250 MW Column diameter from Stripper Model (m) 400 MW Column diameter from Fluor Daniel Formula (m) 400 MW Column diameter from Stripper Model (m) 500 MW Column diameter from Fluor Daniel Formula (m) 500 MW
Cap.
90 % 85 % 80% 75 %
From the table 7, it is evident that the model diameter calculation is consistent with the formula provided by Fluor Daniel. Fig 14 shows the impact of packing factor on the stripper column diameter. The packing factor has a strong influence on the stripper column diameter and approximately there is 30 % increase in column diameter when the value of packing factor is increased by a factor of 3. Therefore, for the stripper column design, appropriate attention should be paid to the selection of packing material. As discussed previously ceramic intalox saddles are best suited for corrosive liquids that have a foaming tendency. For the stripper model, the ceramic intalox saddles with packing factor of 22 feet-1 have been selected to optimize space utilisation. However when space is not the major constraint, ideally the most economical packing material that is suitable for operation in the given liquid environment must be selected.
39
250 MW
Figure 14: Impact of packing material on stripper column diameter calculated for 90 % capture efficiency (from stripper model)
Figure 15: Stripper diameter sensitivity with capture efficiency. Fig 15 shows the sensitivity of stripper column diameter with capture efficiency and can be seen that with decreasing capture efficiency, the diameter of the stripper column required decreases linearly. Approximately, the stripper diameter decreases by 0.6 % with each 1 % decrease in capture efficiency. Since the steam generated is dependent upon the CO2 desorption energy requirements, the stripper diameter would decrease as the desorption energy requirement decreases in future with advanced solvents.
40
Figure 16: Impact of decrease in amine regeneration energy requirement for a 500 MW NGCC stripper.
(Table 8:) Stripper diameter at different amine regeneration energy requirement for a 500 MW stripper.
Actual amine regeneration energy requirement Cap. 500 MW 10 % decrease in amine regeneration energy requirement 500 MW 20 % decrease in amine regeneration energy requirement 500 MW 30 % decrease in amine regeneration energy requirement 500 MW 40 % decrease in amine regeneration energy requirement 500 MW
90 % 85 % 80% 75 %
42
Figure 17: Single flow fan with coupling and motor (TLT Turbo, 2011) The arrangement of the fan could be either single inlet or double inlet. Fig 18 shows the single and double inlet arrangements Double inlet fans are suitable when high volumetric flow is required. Therefore for a 500 MW NGCC CCP, double inlet fan has been selected because the flow rate through the fan exceeds the general flow specification provided by the fan manufacturer's data sheet. Howden manufactures centrifugal fans with double inlet flow for capacities upto 1000 m3/sec and pressure rise upto 60 kPa (Howden, 2011).
44
Figure 18: Single inlet fan and double inlet fan (Howden, 2011) The fan affinity laws can be used to find out the diameter of the fan. The biggest single inlet fan supplied by TLT turbo is installed at Yenikoy power plant , Turkey (TLT Turbo, 2011). The specifications of this fan are given in the Table 9. This fan will be suitable for a 400 MW NGCC CCP with flue gas flow rate of 694 m3/sec. (Table 9:) Specification of TLT Turbo installed at Yenikoy power plant , Turkey (TLT Turbo, 2011). Fan Type Flow Pressure increase Efficiency Diameter Fan affinity law: Centrifugal 756 m3/sec 3370 Pa 88% 4.2 m
where, Q1 and Q2 are flow rates through fan 1 and fan 2, D1 and D2 are diameter of fan 1 and fan 2 and N1 and N2 are speed of fan 1 and fan 2 Assuming N1 = N2 (the RPM of both the fan are constant); the diameter of fan can be calculated for different flue gas flow rates. From observation of various fan layout drawing it is assumed that diameter to length ratio for centrifugal fans used in power station is in between 3 3.5 times. Therefore the area required by the fan can be calculated as 1.12 x D2 x 3.5 for single inlet fans. For double inlet fan, the diameter to length ratio can be assumed to be 6 to be on conservative side.
45
46
Figure 19: A tube type flue gas heater installed on a 1000 MW coal based plant FGD (Babcock-Hitachi, 2011) The advantages of tube type heaters include zero flue gas leakage (from treated flue gas stream to hot flue gas stream), zero auxiliary power consumption and very low maintenance cost. The tube type heaters are static assembly and therefore the need for supervision and maintenance of heater is minimal. Further the fabrication and construction of tube type heaters is easy and convenient. The rotary air heaters require regular maintenance in form of adjustment to seals, motor maintenance, bearing maintenance. However the most significant benefit of rotary heater is the compactness of the system and simplified duct layout. Since the rotary heater heating elements / corrugated sheets come in form of modular packages (shop fabricated assemblies), therefore the time required for construction of rotary heaters at site is significantly reduced saving project cost and time. For this project, to simplify duct layout and to optimize space utilization rotary heaters have been chosen to heat the treated flue gas coming from the absorber.
Figure 20: A rotary gas- gas heater (BWE, 2011) Burmeister and Wain Energy A/S (BWE) manufactures gas-gas heaters for FGD plants across globe and has supplied in excess of 60 gas-gas heaters of different capacities. If the flue gas leaks from high- pressure side to low pressure side, it reduces the separation efficiency by diluting the incoming flue gas. There are two types
47
12.83
10.5
14.66
12.7
13.97
16.11
283
292
342
355
400
578
Figure 21: Diameter of flue gas heater at different flue gas flow rates (BWE, 2011).
Temperature Difference Diameter Power (Diameter) 300 400 500 600 700
Flow (m3/sec)
Figure 22: Flue gas flow rate vs diameter of the flue gas heater with temperature difference between inlet hot flue gas and outlet hot flue gas (BWE, 2011).
48
This correlation is simply based on relationship between diameter of a cylindrical vessel and the volume flow rate through it. The data for 578 m3/sec flow rate has been taken as reference because the design parameters for this heater are quite similar to that required in this project. The obtained diameter values are considered conservative estimates because the flue gas heater required in this project would be operating with gas inlet temperature of 7090 C and a temperature drop of about 30 C.
(Table 11:) Comparison of design parameters for ref. gas heater and the heater required for this project. Parameters Flue gas inlet temp Flue gas outlet temp Temperature diff. Height Reference gas heater 130 C 84 C 46 C 1m Operating parameter 7090 C 40 60 C 30 C 1m
(Table 12:) Alfa - Laval plate heat exchangers specifications (Alfa Laval, 2011)
Type M10 M15 M30 MX25 T20 T45 T50 TL35 Area (m2) 1.1 2.2 6.0 4.7 3.0 9.1 10.9 7.3 Height 1.084 1.815 2.882 2.595 2.145 3.53 3.951 3.21 Width 0.47 0.61 1.15 0.92 0.78 1.43 1.55 1.154 Length 2.4 3.7 5.235 5.185 3.93 6.404 7.08 6.36 Flow (kg/sec) 50 80 500 250 225 1000 975 500
50
Figure 23: A typical Alfa laval heat exchanger (Alfa Laval, 2011)
4.7 CO2 stripping and compression system 4.7.1 CO2 condenser prior to knock-out pot:
The CO2 stream coming out from the stripper contains uncondensed steam and amine vapors. To reduce the moisture content in the CO2 and to prevent amine loss from the stripper, the CO2 stream needs to be cooled. The CO2, amine and uncondensed steam mixture from the top of the stripper is ducted to the condenser, which is a shell -tube type heat exchanger. It is a cylindrical vessel 8 m tall with cooling water flowing through tubes and CO2, amine and steam mixture flowing on shell side. The CO2 stream is cooled in the condenser before the knock-out pot with the help of cooling water being pumped by cooling water recirculation pump located in
51
Where, Carbon capture Capacity1 and Carbon capture Capacity2 are the required CO2 capacity that the CCP is designed to capture, Q1 and Q2 are the CO2, uncondensed steam and amine mixture flow rate through the condenser and D1 and D2 are the diameter of the condenser The Fluor study on the 800 MW NGCC with CO2 capture of 6170 ton/day plant requires 2 condensers 8 m long with 2 m diameter while the SKM 1500 MW study with CO2 capture of 11868 ton/day requires 2 condensers 8 m long with 2.6 m diameter (SKM, 2009). From the above data, the diameter of condenser at different CO 2 capture rates can be estimated. Once the diameter required for the condenser for different capture efficiencies of CCP are calculated, the area footprint of the condenser can be evaluated. For this model CCP, only one condenser 8 m long has been selected.
Drum diameter in meter (D) = (4 A / 3.1416 )0.5 However for this CCP model an engineering calculator software is used to determine the size of the knock-out pot. The calculator besides the general Souders-Brown equation takes into account, the viscosity of liquid, the viscosity of gas, the minimum particle size required to be separated and accurately calculates the required diameter. Fig 24A shows a typical vertical knock-out pot while Fig 24B shows the calculator used to calculate the diameter of the vertical knock out pot. The L to D ratio has been assumed to be 2 in the calculator while the minimum liquid diameter to be separated has been chosen as 200 micron.
Fig 24 A : A typical vertical knock -out pot (CPE, 2005) Fig 24 B : The vertical knock-out pot engineering calculator ( Enggcyclopedia, 2011) Figure 24: A typical vertical knock out pot and Vertical knock-out pot engineering calculator 4.7.3 Reboiler: The rich amine from the stripper is heated in the reboiler to generate steam for stripping CO2 in the stripper column. The steam extracted from LP-IP crossover pipe is most suitable for supplying steam to the reboiler. In this CCP model one reboiler is used for the stripper, however in general if a single stripper is used for multiple absorber train, then number of reboilers is equal to the number of absorber trains. The re -boilers used for CCP could be either kettle-type horizontal reboiler or vertical thermo-syphon reboilers. The natural circulation
53
Figure 25: Kettle Reboiler (left) and thermo-syphon reboiler (right) (Loraine, 1999) The diameter of the reboiler depends upon the amount of steam required to be generated, which in turn depends upon the amount of CO2 being captured (provided the required CO2 desorption energy and temperature of incoming rich amine stream are constant). Therefore a simple correlation has been used to derive the diameter required to capture CO2 for different plant capacities.
where, Carbon capture Capacity1 and Carbon capture Capacity2 are the required CO2 capacity that the CCP is designed to capture, Q1 and Q2 are the amine and steam flow rate through the reboiler and D1 and D2 are the diameter of the condenser The diameter of the reboiler for capturing 3956 ton/day of CO 2 is approximately 5 m (SKM, 2005), which is considered to be a very conservative figure. Based on the CO2 capture required for different plant capacities at different capture efficiency, the diameter of individual reboilers can be estimated.
54
(Table 13:) Product specification sheet of RG compressors (Man Diesel and Turbo, 2011). Model Length Width Height Weight Flow Power Units mm mm mm ton Am3/h MW RG 25
2,700 3,600 2,000 15 10,000 4
RG 40
3,000 3,600 2,500 30 25,000 15
RG 45
3,400 3,600 3,000 40 30,000 18
RG 50
3,700 3,600 3,300 45 40,000 20
RG 56
4,000 3,600 3,500 50 50,000 20
RG 80
4,500 3600 4000 60 100,000 20
RG 100
5,500 3600 5000 > 60 200,000 35
RG 140
> 3600 7000 > 60 350,000 50
RG 160
> 7000 > 7000 > 130 500,000 60
55
Where, Carbon capture Cap1 and Carbon capture Cap2 are the required CO2 capacity that the CCP is designed to capture and D1 and D2 are the diameter of the knock-out pots (Table 14:) The knock-out pot diameter for 6170 ton / day Tjeldbergodden plant (Fluor, 2005)
CO2 Compressor KO pot 1 Diameter 3.4 CO2 Compressor KO pot 2 2.9 CO2 Compressor KO pot 3 2.4 CO2 Compressor KO pot 4 2.0
56
ALCO gas and oil production equipment limited and Escher produces TEG dehydrators that can be used for application in the CCP model (ALCO, 2011; Escher, 2011). Fig 27 shows the different TEG projects supplied by ALCO and Escher and have been plotted as a function of CO2 gas flow rate through dehydrators in MMSCFD against area. Therefore based on the CO2 flow rate through the TEG dehydration unit, the required area for the TEG unit can be calculated from the Fig 27. To convert the CO2 gas flow rate from ton/h to MMSCFD the conversion factor listed below can be used. 1 MMSCFD = 1116.3 NM3/h
CO2 Flowrate vs Area y = 3.4346x0.6669 R = 0.9901
100 80 60 40 20 0
0 20 40 60 CO2 Flow rate (MMSCFD) 80 100
Area (m2)
120
Figure 27: CO2 flow through the TEG and the required area footprint (ALCO, 2011; Escher, 2011).
4.8 Reclaimer:
A reclaimer is necessary to maintain the absorption capacity of lean amine to the highest possible extent. Because of oxidizing flue gas atmosphere and other impurities present in flue gas and also because of thermal degradation of amines at high temperature, the absorption capacity of amine is reduced. A reclaimer is used to remove the heat stable salts formed, which are products of degradation. Removal of heat stable salts from the amine restores the absorption capacity of amines to the highest possible limit. The reclaimer is operated periodically in a batch-wise process and is located close to the stripper to reduce the pipe lengths required.
57
Figure 28: A typical reclaimer used for MEA / DEA (Huntsman, 2011) The Fluor feasibility study on Tjeldbergodden 800 NGCC plant with 6170 tons/day of CO2 capture estimates the size of the reclaimer vessel to be as 6.6 m diameter and 8.6 m length while SKM for 1500 MW plant with with 11868 tons/day of CO2 capture estimates the size of the reclaimer vessel to be as 8.2 m diameter and 10.7 m length (Fluor, 2005; SKM, 2009). Based on the two data points, the size of the reclaimer can be roughly estimated by general correlation as given below.
where, Carbon capture Capacity1 and Carbon capture Capacity2 are the required CO2 capacity that the CCP is designed to capture and V1 and V2 are the volume of the reclaimer The length of the reclaimer for the model is selected as 7 m for 500 MW & 400 MW while 5m for 250 MW. Using the above correlation, the volume of the reclaimer required for the given capture capacity can be calculated. Once the volume is known, the diameter of the reclaimer can be obtained. It is clear that this is a very rough estimate.
The area footprint of reclaimer condensate tank would be diameter of the tank x length of the tank.
The area footprint of reclaimer waste tank would be diameter x length; however it would have no impact on the overall layout of the CCP as it would be accommodated in the footprint of the reclaimer vessel.
4.9 Pumps:
The CCP requires number of pumps for pumping DCC water, amine, reflux, wash water and condensate. The area footprint required by the pump can be calculated based on the flow-rate through the pumps. Table 15 shows the required flow rate through pumps for a 500 MW plant at 90% capture efficiency. Based on the flowrate required, the matching pump can be selected from the product catalog of the pump manufacturer. There are many pump manufacturers in low-pressure range that can be used for pumping amine and water. Goulds pumps are used widely for pumping amines (Goulds, 2011) and for amine pumping applications product catalog of Goulds pump have been used. For water pumping application, the catalog of Apex pump and Gould pumps have been used (Apex, 20011; Goulds, 2011) (Table 15:) Pump size for a 500 MW NGCC plant with 90 % capture efficiency (Fluor, 2005; SKM, 2009) Pump Number / Capacity Length (m) Width (m) Manufacturer Flow capacity (m3/h)
2 x 100 % 2 x 100 %
2.5 2.5
1.5 1.5
Goulds Goulds
2,860 2,860
59
The capacity of lean and rich amine pumps for different plant capacity and capture efficiency can be calculated from the absorber model. The capacity of DCC circulating water pump has been provided by Fluor in the feasibility study of Tjeldbergodden and Mongstad (Fluor, 2005) and based on the amount of CO2 required to be captured by the model, the water flow rate through DCC pump can be calculated. Reboiler condensate pump capacity can be calculated with the help of stripper model, which provides the amount of steam required to be generated by the stripper for stripping CO2 from amine. Reflux pump capacity has been calculated assuming 40 % steam leaves the stripper along with CO2 (Aspen, 2009; Arnold 1999). The capacity of wash water pump has been assumed to be same as of reflux pumps. Solvent charge pump and solvent sump pump are very small pumps and their capacity has been estimated based on SKM calculation (SKM, 2009).
4.10 Filters:
The CCP plant requires filters to separate out impurities from amine, DCC circulating water and amine wash water. The biggest of these filters is lean amine filter, which is a side stream filter with one-third of amine flowing through the filter element (Fluor, 2005; SKM, 2009). The DCC circulating water filter is also a side stream filter with 57 percent water being re-circulated back to the DCC bottom tank. The wash water filter and amine solvent sump filter are much smaller in diameter. Heat stable salts, corrosion products and other solid impurities build-up in closed loop amine system causing fouling of heat exchangers, reboilers, stripper and absorber column. They also attract hydrocarbons that cause foaming problems (Eaton, 2011). Clearamine filters provide an efficient means to remove harmful contaminants and maintain the effectiveness of the amine system (Eaton, 2011). Eaton 2 x 2 m2 back-wash filters can filter up to 680 m3 / hr of amine (Eaton, 2011); therefore based on the amine flow rate through the CCP model the area footprint required can be calculated. For the other filters, since the flow rates are very small therefore 1 m 2 area foot print for 500 MW CCP model, 0.8 m2 area foot print for 400 MW CCP model and 0.5 m2 area foot print for 250 MW CCP model has been assumed.
60
61
Where, D is the diameter of biggest cylindrical vessel in the DM plant. This correlation has been used because length of DM plant does not depend much on biggest vessel diameter while the width of DM plant is function of biggest vessel diameter. The relation between flow rate and cylindrical vessel diameter is given by the equation
(Table 16:) Temperature and specific heats used in CCP model calculation (Coskun, 2009) Temperature DCC inlet DCC outlet Steam at stripper outlet C 80 30 120 Specific heat Flue gas Water Steam KJ/kg.K 1.13 4.18 2.02
63
The inlet temperature of the cooling water system chosen for the CCP model is 27 C while the outlet temperature is 42 C. Based on the total heat that needs to be dissipated from the system, the flow rate of the cooling water system can be determined using the formula:
Based on the flow rate, the cooling tower area can be determined using the cooling tower calculator provided by GEA, the leading manufacturer of cooling tower technology (GEA, 2011). Figure 30 shows the area required for a cooling tower of 500 MW plant with thermal heat load of 209.5 MW.
Figure 30: Area requirement by the 500 MW NGCC plant at 90% capture efficiency (GEA, 2011)
64
(Table
17:) The heat energy (in MW) to be dissipated by the cooling tower at different capture efficiency Capacity 500 MW 400 MW 250 MW 90 % CC Efficiency
210 MW 173 MW 113 MW
85 % CC Efficiency
201 MW 166 MW 108.9 MW
80 % CC Efficiency
193 MW 159.6 MW 104.6 MW
75 % CC Efficiency
185 MW 152.9 MW 100.3 MW
Fig 31 shows the contribution of different equipments of CCP to total cooling tower heat load for a 500 MW plant at 90 % capture efficiency. It is clear from the Fig 31 that major part of heat load of cooling tower comes from lean amine cooler and DCC.
DCC Cooler CO2 condenser Lean amine cooler Absorber wash water cooler Pumps & Compressor
65
The layout chosen for the 500 MW CCP model has 10 m main access road running parallel to the plant so that each major equipments is accessible via hydraulic cranes (Appendix 3). A 5 m pipe-rack has been considered in this model to carry the steam piping from LP-IP cross over piping to reboiler and reclaimer and to carry condensate back to the feed water system. The velocity of flue gas in the duct is usually in the range of 1220 m/s (Engineeringtoolbox, 2011) therefore to carry the flue gas of 500 MW NGCC CCP a duct with width of 68 m would be required. In the CCP model, 10 m wide area is used to provide space for the duct to carry flue gas from the absorber back to the flue gas heater. The clean flue gas from absorber after getting heated in the flue gas heater is ducted back to the main chimney to be released to the atmosphere. The control room is located close to DM plant and other equipments so that in case of any failure, the equipments could be reached in shortest possible time. A secondary access road, 4 m wide near absorber column is designed to reach pumps, filters, heat exchangers and coolers, soda ash injection system and MEA storage tank. Since these equipments are small and not very heavy, small cranes can reach them using secondary access road. Appendix 3 shows the model layout used for 500 MW and 250 MW NGCC CCP.
68
6. Results
The objective of the project was to understand the empirical relationship between the land area requirements by the CCP for different NGCC plant capacity. The other important aspect of the project was to understand how land area requirement is affected by the carbon capture efficiency of the CCP. Impact of reduction in amine regeneration energy requirement on land area requirement was also studied to understand the possible reduction in land area that could be achieved through reduction in amine regeneration energy. Finally the impact of flue gas recirculation on land area requirements by the CCP was studied. To study the impact, three different CCP models of 500 MW, 400 MW and 250 MW respectively were created. Thereafter, for each model CCP equipments were sized for 90%, 85%, 80% and 75% capture efficiency. A downstream plot layout design for the CCP model was used and the equipments were plotted spatially using CAD to calculate the land area requirement by the model at different capture efficiencies.
Area required by CCP (90% capture efficiency) at different NGCC plant capcity
11500 10500 9500 8500 7500 6500 5500 200 y = 61.066x0.8365 Area (m2) 9231 11000
6174
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
Capacity (MW)
Figure 32: Area required by a 90 % carbon capture plant at different NGCC capacity.
69
22
20 18 200 250 300 350 Capacity (MW) 400 450 500
Figure 33: Area required per MW for CCP at different NGCC plant capacity (90% CC efficiency) Figure 33 shows the area required by the CCP on per MW basis. It is clearly evident from Fig 33 that as the size of the CCP increases, the area required per MW decreases, which is quite normal and expected result. It is important to understand that all calculations have been based for single absorber train system using similar downstream CCP plant layout. It can also be clearly seen from the Fig 32 that for a 500 MW plant if two absorber trains were used in place of a single absorber train, than almost 12.5 % extra area would be required which is a very important result. Therefore to reduce the area requirement of the CCP, the first important step is to reduce the number of absorber trains. As a rule of thumb, the area requirement by the NGCC CCP can be calculated as:
This is a conservative estimate and it is unlikely that even in worst cases area more than the value calculated using the thumb rule would be required.
(Table 18:) Area required by the CCP per MW (SKM, 2009; URS, 2009, IEA, 2005, DECC, 2009) Area /MW (m2) 25 47 75 16 14 29 Reference Model IEA, 2005 CCR Guidelines (DECC, 2009) SKM, 2009 URS, 2009 % of model value 100% 188 % 300% 64 % 56% 116%
From the table 18, it is clear that the area required by the CCR guideline is overestimated by 200% compared to the value predicted by the model. Therefore there is a scope for reduction in the area prescribed in DECC CCR by at least 66%. The area calculated by the model is also on a higher side compared to the URS and SKM (URS, 2009 and SKM, 2009) but this is because of higher design margins and worst case assumptions used in the model.
70
Area (m2)
Figure 34: Equipment area sensitivity with capture efficiency Figure 35 shows the equipment area required per MW at different capture efficiency. It can be seen from the Fig 35 that the equipment area requirement per MW is lowest for 500 MW and highest for 250 MW. Further 250 MW shows slightly non-linear characteristics because certain equipments like pumps, filter, CO 2 compressor are available in standard size only. For 250 MW at 90% and 85% capture efficiency, only one standard equipment was suitable while another one was suitable for capture efficiency of 80% and 75 %, giving sensitivity non-linear characteristics.
71
Area (m2)
Figure 35: Equipment area per MW at different capture efficiency. Fig 36 shows the sensitivity of land area footprint with carbon capture efficiency for a 500 MW NGCC plant CCP. This sensitivity analysis of land area footprint must be taken in the context of the downstream layout chosen for the CCP model. It is evident that sensitivity for this model is a non - linear step-wise function and is highly dependent on layout chosen for the model. From the Fig 36 it can be interpreted that approximately 2% saving in land area can be achieved with each 5% reduction in capture efficiency for this layout.
Sensitivity of area footprint with carbon capture efficiency for a 500 MW NGCC plant CCP
11500 Area (m2) 11000 10500 10000 90% CC Efficiency 85% CC Efficiency 80% CC Efficiency 75% CC Efficiency 11000 10890 10560 10340
Figure 36: Sensitivity of area footprint with carbon capture efficiency for a 500 MW NGCC plant CCP.
C. Relationship between land area requirement and amine regeneration energy requirement.
The amine regeneration energy is expected to decrease by 30 % in coming decades and therefore it is important to understand, the possible reduction in CCP area footprint with decrease in amine regeneration energy requirement. The amine regeneration energy requirement is proportional to steam flow requirements, therefore a decrease in amine regeneration energy requirement would lead to decrease in steam flow rate. In the CCP model, steam flow rate decides the size of the pipe rack, the stripper, the reboiler, the reboiler condensate pump, the reboiler condensate tank, the reclaimer and reclaimer condensate tank.
72
Table 19 shows the land area occupied by CCP equipments that are affected by steam flow rate for a CCP (500 MW NGCC CCP with 90 % capture efficiency). The equipment area is multiplied by the multiplication factor to obtain the area occupied by the equipments in the carbon capture plant. The possible reduction in area foot print can be calculated using equation :
Using the above equation, the possible reduction in area that can be achieved for a 500 MW NGCC CCP by reduction in amine regeneration energy requirement is listed in the Table 20. These values have been calculated based on the layout chosen for this CCP model and are highly dependent upon the layout design of the CCP. Therefore these values are not absolute but in general they are sufficient to prove that with reduction in amine regeneration energy even by 3040 %, the land requirement for the CCP is unlikely to reduce by more than 34% of the total area footprints.
(Table 20:) Reduction in land area footprint with amine regeneration energy requirement for a 500 MW NGCC CCP at 90 % capture efficiency. Reduction in amine regeneration energy requirement (%) 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % Possible reduction in total land area footprint (%) 0.7 % 1.45 % 2.23 % 3%
73
Area requirement for a 500 MW NGCC CCP at different % recirculation of flue gas
12000 Area (m2) 11000 10000 9000 8000 No Recirculation 10% Recirculation 20% Recirculation 30% Recirculation 40% Recirculation 11000 10835 10698 10560 10423
Figure 37: Area requirement by a 500 MW NGCC CCP with 90 % capture efficiency at different recirculation rates. From the Figure 37 it is clearly apparent that the sensitivity of land area requirement with flue gas recirculation is not very high. The prime reason for this is that flue gas recirculation impacts just the size of absorber and flue gas heater while the size of all other equipments are independent of flue gas recirculation. Figure 38 shows the % reduction in area requirement for a 500 MW NGCC CCP with 90 % capture efficiency with flue gas recirculation. This reduction in area footprint too is sensitive to CCP layout chosen and therefore the values shown in the Figure 38 are based only on the CCP layout chosen. A different chosen layout will have different values, however the range of values are likely to remain same. Therefore, it can be interpreted that although the percentage reduction in area with flue gas recirculation is highly dependent upon the chosen layout for the CCP, it is unlikely that more than 56 % reduction in area footprint could be achieved even for flue gas recirculation up to 40%
74
Reduction in area footprint of a CCP for 500 MW NGCC at different flue gas recirculation rate
6 4 2 0 10% Recirculation 20% Recirculation 30% Recirculation 40% Recirculation 1.5 2.8 4 5.3
Figure 38: Reduction in area foot print of a CCP for 500 MW NGCC at different flue gas recirculation rate
75
The impact of variation in plant capacity, carbon capture efficiency, possible reduction in amine regeneration energy requirement and flue gas recirculation on land area footprints required by the CCP can be described by the equation (37)
Where, Y= land area footprints of the CCP. Capacity = capacity of the NGCC plant before capture (in MW) Capture Efficiency = the capture efficiency of the proposed CCP (in %) Recirculation rate = the recirculation rate (in %) Reduction in amine energy req. = Reduction in amine regeneration energy requirement (in %) And A, B, C, D, a, b, c, d are constants. Two versions of this model equation have been developed. One is based on the minimization of difference between the predicted value by the model equation and the actual value obtained from the CCP layout. The other is based on minimization of maximum error between the predicted value and the value obtained from CCP layout.
Model Equation 1: This version of model equation was developed by minimizing the overall squared error between the value predicted by the model equation and the area calculated from layout of the CCP. This equation has an average error of 0.7% with maximum error of 3%. Table 21 shows the value of the constants for this model.
76
Model Equation 2: This version of model equation was developed by minimizing the maximum error between the value predicted by the model equation and the area calculated from the layout of the CCP. This equation has an average error of 0.8% with maximum error of 2%. Table 22 shows the value of the constants for this model. Table 22 Value of the constants for model Equation 2 A 7.572651 B 26.82171 C -18.2047 D -8.83607 E -42.6755 a 1.131898 b 1.002406 c 0.864072 d 0.88812
Using the model equation (37), the area required by the NGCC CCP can be calculated. It can be proved using equation (37) that area requirements as provided in the guidance notes is overestimated and a 66 % reduction in area is feasible based on the CCP model. The area footprint sensitivity to the reduction in amine regeneration energy requirement and flue gas recirculation is not very high. Therefore a massive reduction in the CCP area cannot be expected in future from the technological development of amines and flue gas recirculation (max 10-15% reduction in area footprint can be expected). Other important conclusion from the project is that reducing the number of absorber trains can significantly reduce the land area footprints of the CCP. It is worth noting that all the results derived above are based on the single absorber downstream layout chosen for the CCP model and the results are likely to change, if different layout designs are used. However, the range of impact is likely to remain same.
Limitations of the project model: 1. The project is based on Fluor Econoamine plus (EFG+) process and all major parameters are based on the data provided by Fluor.
77
Scope for Future work: The problem dimensions and the scope defined in the project was sufficient to answer the research questions raised in the introduction section However, in the allotted time-frame of the project it was difficult to carry out various layout designs possible for the CCP and understand how layout design impacts the area footprint required by the CCP. Therefore the scope of the project can be extended and it would be interesting to explore a few research questions related to CCP for NGCC like1. Impact of various layouts on the area footprint of NGCC at different capture efficiencies. 2. Impact of carbon capture efficiency of CCP on total cost of the CCP for the NGCC. 3. This project uses single cooling tower design for the CCP model, however the number of cooling towers for the same heat load can be changed resulting in different area layout. Various layouts of cooling towers could be tried to optimize area utilization. Therefore it would be important to understand how the total area footprints of the CCP are related with number of cooling towers because cooling tower occupies 30% of the total equipment area footprint. 4. Reboiler data for different capacity of CCP at different capture efficiency has been obtained from SKM report using a simple correlation. It would be a good idea to model the reboiler and obtain equipment area from the model.
78
Bibliography
Acechempack, 2011. Structured Tower packing Online] Available at: http://www.tower-packing.com/Dir_structured_packing.htm (Accessed 3/06/2011) Alco, 2011. Dehydration Units. [Online] Available at: http://www.alcogasoil.com/products/dehydrationstandard/dehystandard30.htm (Accessed 3/07/2011) Alfa Laval, 2011. Plate heat exchangers. [Online] Available at: http://www.alfalaval.com/solution-finder/products/gasketedindustrial-range-phe/pages/documentation.aspx?Source=http%3a%2f%2fwww.alfalaval.com%2fsolutionfinder%2fproducts%2fPages%2fdefault.aspx%3ftype%3dProductCategory%26firstItemID%3d11393475-0471-460d-99374b70c7f22830%26secondItemID%3df996d1f7-6085-4155-b715-08343956a605 (Accessed 11/08/2011) Alstom, 2011. Gas Turbines. [Online] Available at: http://www.alstom.com/power/fossil/gas/gas-turbines/ (Accessed 3/06/2011) Amann J.M.G. & Bouallou C. 2009a. CO2 Capture from Power Stations Running with Natural Gas (NGCC) and Pulverized Coal (PC): Assessment of a New Chemical Solvent Based on Aqueous Solutions of N-Methyl Di-Ethanol Amine + Tri-Ethylene Tetra-Amine. GHGT-9. Energy Procedia 1, 909 916 Amann J.M., Kanniche M. & Bouallou C. 2009b. Reforming natural gas for CO2 pre-combustion capture in combined cycle power plant. Clean Techn Environ Policy 11, 6776 AMR Process Inc, 2011. Gas Dehydration. [Online] Available at: http://www.amrprocess.com/natural-gas/gas-dehydration (Accessed 25/08/2011) Amrollahi Z., Ertesvg I.S. & Olav Bolland O. 2010. Thermodynamic analysis on post-combustion CO2 capture of natural-gas-fired power plant. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 352, xxxxxx (Article in press) Amundsen T.G, i E.L & Eimer D.A. 2009. Density and Viscosity of Monoethanolamine + Water + Carbon Dioxide from (25 to 80) C.Journal of Chemical Engineering, 3096-3100. Anderson S. & Newell R. 2003. Prospects for carbon capture and storage technologies. [Online] Available at: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=Anderson+S.+%26+Newell+R.+2003.+Prospects+for+carbon+capture+and+storage+technolog ies&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart (Accessed 4/04/2011) Apex, 2011. TC Technical booklet. Available at: http://www.apexpumps.com/assets/downloads/TCtechnicalbooklet.pdf (Accessed1 6/07/2011) Arnod K & Stewart M, 1999. Surface production operations Design of gas handling system and facilities. Vol 2. Gulf Publishing Company, Texas, USA. Aspen, 2011. Aspen Tutorial - Distillation [Online] Available at: http://courses.washington.edu/overney/Aspen/Aspen_Tutorial_Unit_6.pdf (Accessed 2/06/2011) Babcock-Hitachi, 2011. Non Leakage gas-gas heaters. [Online] Available at: http://www.bhk.co.jp/english/energy/environmental/ggh/index.html (Accessed 21/08/2011) BERR, 2008. Towards carbon capture and storage. . [Online] Available at :http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file46810.pdf (Accessed 14/04/2011) Bolland O. & Undrum H. 2003. A novel methodology for comparing CO2 capture options for natural gas-fired combined cycle plants. Advances in Environmental Research 7, 901911 Boteroa C., Finkenratha M., Bartletta M., Chub R., Choi G. & Chinn D. 2009. Redesign, Optimization, and Economic Evaluation of a Natural Gas Combined Cycle with the Best Integrated Technology CO2 Capture. Energy Procedia 1, 38353842 BWE, 2011. Gas-Gas heaters. [Online] Available at: http://www.bwe.dk/pdf/brochure-02%20GGH_06.pdf (Accessed 16/06/2011) CCP, 2010. CO2 Capture project Update on selected regulatory issues for CO 2 capture and geological storage. [Online] Available at: http://www.co2captureproject.org/reports/regulatory_report.pdf (Accessed 29/05/2011)
79
83
Appendices
Appendix 1: Design of Absorber
The absorber model was created in the MS Excel to calculate the area that would be required at different plant capacity and at different capture efficiency. The general characteristics of the model have already been discussed in the absorber section. In this section, the details are provided how the absorber model calculates the diameter of the absorber column at different plant capacity and capture efficiency. This model is based on the Strigle modified Eckerts GDPC correlation as described in the Perrys and Kohl and Nielsen (Perrys, 1984; Kohl & Nielsen, 1997). The model is based on 30 % MEA + water solvent used for capturing CO2 from the flue gas. 1. Choose the capacity of the plant. 2. Define efficiency of the plant. 3. The model calculates the amount of CO2 that would be produced. The calorific value of fuel used is 11000 kcal/ kg which is a conservative figure (the range is 11000 12000 kcal/ kg). The fuel is assumed as 100 % methane. 4. The CO2 composition in flue gas varies from 3 3.6 % based on different fuel used. This model used conservative figure of 3% CO2 in flue gas. The total molar flow of flue gas can be calculated as weight of CO2 and its percentage in flue gas is known. The % of moisture in flue gas has been reported between 10 11 % in the literature; therefore in the model the moisture percentage of 10 % in flue gas has been used. 5. The partial pressure of CO2 at inlet is know (the partial pressure of CO2 is equal to its concentration in flue gas); the partial pressure at outlet is calculated by the model based on the capture efficiency. 6. The lean amine at the absorber top inlet has initial CO2 loading of 0.15 mol of CO2 /mol of amine. 7. From the equilibrium diagram (Kohl and Nielsen; Tong, 2011), the maximum possible CO2 loading of amine has been determined as 0.53 mol of CO2 / mol of amine. 8. Since the flue gas flow rate is known (Gm), therefore the minimum amine circulation rate (Lm) required to achieve the required capture efficiency can be calculated using the mass balance equation (38)
It is important to note here that, this equation is valid only when the concentration of solute in solvent is low. Further Y1 and Y2 are molar concentration of CO2 in inlet and outlet amine solvent. Since MEA has 30 % wt composition in amine solvent, therefore the loading capacity of amines should be divided by 8.91 to obtain CO2 loading in terms of mol of CO2 /mol of solvent. 9. The actual amine flow rate is 1.2 to 1.5 times the theoretical minimum amine flow rate calculated using Equilibrium diagram (Perrys, 1984; Kohl & Nielsen, 1997). Therefore in the model the value used in 1.45 which is very conservative figure. 10. The density of flue gas and 30 % MEA solvent used in this model are as follows =1.25 kg/m3 and
84
(39)
12. Read the flow capacity factor from the Fig 39 corresponding to the Relative flow capacity calculated using equation (39)
13.
14. Select the packing material for the absorber column. Usually ceramic intalox saddles are used for corrosive liquids and therefore for this model ceramic intalox saddle packing with the packing factor of 22 / feet has been selected. The packing factor is substituted in the flow capacity factor to calculate gas mass velocity (G* ). Since this velocity is in lb/ft2.sec, therefore it should be converted to kg /m2.sec. Thereafter the diameter of the column can be calculated using the equation
where, D = diameter of the column (m) and G* = gas mass velocity kg/m2.sec 15. Once the diameter is known, the area footprint occupied by the absorber column can be calculated using equation (42)
85
Figure 39: Generalized Pressure Drop Correlation (GDPC) for packed towers (Chemsof, 2011). Determination of Absorber height: Since the column height does not have much impact on the net area footprint required by the absorber system therefore preliminary design method has been used in the model to estimate absorber column height.
Where number of theoretical stage required is 20 and HETP is estimated to be 6 feet or 1.83 m (AceChemPack, 2011). Add another 34 stages for flue gas washing so the total number of stages required would be 2324.
(44) 8. Read the flow capacity factor from the Fig 39 corresponding to the Relative flow capacity calculated using equation (44) 9. 10. Select the packing material for the stripper column. Select ceramic intalox saddle packing with the packing factor of 22 / feet. The packing factor is substituted in the flow capacity factor to calculate gas mass velocity (G* ). Since this velocity is in lb/ft2.sec, therefore it should be converted to kg /m2.sec. Thereafter the diameter of the column can be calculated using the equation
where, D = diameter of the stripper column (m) and G* = gas mass velocity kg/m2.sec 11. Once the diameter is known, the area footprint occupied by the stripper column can be calculated using equation (47)
87
88
89
90