A Systems Approach for CO 2 Mitigation, Capture & Storage in the Electricity Sector An Ontario Case...

A Systems Approach for COA Systems Approach for CO22

Mitigation, Capture &Mitigation, Capture &

Storage in the ElectricityStorage in the Electricity

SectorSector

An Ontario Case StudyAn Ontario Case Study

P. L. Douglas, E. Croiset, A. Elkamel, H. Mirza, P. L. Douglas, E. Croiset, A. Elkamel, H. Mirza, C. Alie, A. Shafeen*, M. Gupta*C. Alie, A. Shafeen*, M. Gupta*

Department of Chemical EngineeringDepartment of Chemical EngineeringUniversity of Waterloo, Waterloo, OntarioUniversity of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario

*Natural Resources Canada*Natural Resources CanadaOttawa, CanadaOttawa, Canada

[email protected]

http://chemeng.uwaterloo.ca/faculty/douglas.html

mailto:[email protected]

http://chemeng.uwaterloo.ca/faculty/douglas.html

Presentation outline

overview of CO2 CCS R&D

some recent results:

1. CO2 capture from OPG’s Nanticoke GS

2. geological storage of CO2 captured from Nanticoke GS

3. fleet-wide CCS from Ontario’s electricity sub-sector

summary

CHEMRAWN-XVII & ICCDU-IX Conference on Greenhouse Gases, Kingston, Ontario, July 8th – 12th, 2007

Overview of R&D areas

H2 plants

regional H2

economyoil sands

industrial processes

– cement– oil, gas & chemicals

fleet-wide optimisation

CO2 capture technology– MEA absorption

– O2/CO2 recycle combustion

– membranes

electrical generation– PC, IGCC– NGCC– SOFC








summary


CO2 capture from OPG’s Nanticoke GS

one of eight 500 MWe coal fired boilers

Powder River Basin – US low sulphur coal mixture

flue gas flow rate 2,400 tonnes/hr (per boiler)

CO2 flow rate 336 tonnes/hr (per boiler)

Siemens steam turbines

85% recovery of CO2 at 98% purity

MEA absorption process


OPG’s Nanticoke Generating Station

ONTARIO

QUEBEC

MANITOBA

Lake Huron

Nanticoke(3,920 MW)

Lake Erie

OPG’s Nanticoke GS ison the north shore ofLake Erie

Waterloo

Kingston


CO2 capture – fossil fuel generating station

fossil fuel flue gasair boiler

500 MWe


CO2 capture - MEA absorption

98% pure CO2

stack gas

stripper

absorber


500 MWe


CO2 capture - MEA absorption

98% pure CO2

stack gas

stripper

absorber


historically:historically: most research has focussed on experimental operation of absorber little research on stripper or overall process simulation of complete process surprisingly difficult

– very large recycle stream

– MEA-CO2-H2O system is a highly non-ideal electrolyte solution

500 MWe


Simulation of MEA absorption process

ABSORBER

STRIPPER

MAKE-UPCOOLER

FLUE-ABS

LEAN-ABS

STACK

RICH-HX

CO2

LEAN-OUT

MAKE-UP

LEAN-CL

LEAN-MU

RICH-HX

blower and compressor

coolersstripper reboiler

Alie, C., L. Backham, E. Croiset, P.L. Douglas and M.A. Douglas, 2005, "Simulation of CO2 Capture Using MEA Scrubbing: a Flowsheet Decomposition Method", Energy Conversion & Management, 46, 475-487


Minimised reboiler heat duty is huge!

Qmin for 500 MWe power plant is 353 MWth 0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35

CO2 loading / mol CO2/mol MEA

Re

bo

iler

He

at

Du

ty /

MW

LEAN-HTLEAN-HTLEAN-HT

ABSORBER

STRIPPER

MAKE-UPCOOLER

FLUE-ABS

LEAN-ABS

STACK

RICH-HX

CO2

LEAN-OUT

MAKE-UP

LEAN-CL

LEAN-MU

RICH-HX

Qmin for 500 MWe power plant is 353 MWth

boiler output is

500 MWe ≈1428 MWth

boiler output is 500 MWe (≈1428 MWth) and minimised reboiler heat duty from CO2 capture process will require 353 MWth


How best to integrate capture plant with GS?

98% pure CO2

stack gas

stripper

absorber


Need to supply: electricity for blowersblowers and and compressorscompressors steam for reboiler cooling water for coolers

500 MWe


Energy requirements for 500 MWe GS

shaft power (MWe)

COCO22 compressors compressors 4040 flue gas blowerflue gas blower 1010

thermal energy (MWthermal energy (MWthth))

reboiler heat dutyreboiler heat duty 353353

kg steam/kg COkg steam/kg CO22 captured 1.7 captured 1.7

coolerscoolers 430430

ABSORBER

STRIPPER

MAKE-UPCOOLER

FLUE-ABS

LEAN-ABS

STACK

RICH-HX

CO2

LEAN-OUT

MAKE-UP

LEAN-CL

LEAN-MU

RICH-HX

blower and compressor 50 MWe

coolers, 430 MWth

stripper reboiler, 343 MWth


Best caseassume all heat can be supplied ‘free’ from steam cycle

shaft power (MWe)






ABSORBER

STRIPPER

MAKE-UPCOOLER

FLUE-ABS

LEAN-ABS

STACK

RICH-HX

CO2

LEAN-OUT

MAKE-UP

LEAN-CL

LEAN-MU

RICH-HX

min. de-rate = (40 + 10) = 50 MWe

= (50 / 500) * 100

= 10%


Worst caseassume none of the heat can be supplied ‘free’ from steam cycle

shaft power (MWe)






ABSORBER

STRIPPER

MAKE-UPCOOLER

FLUE-ABS

LEAN-ABS

STACK

RICH-HX

CO2

LEAN-OUT

MAKE-UP

LEAN-CL

LEAN-MU

RICH-HX

max. de-rate = (40 + 10) + 353*0.35 = 173.5

MWe

= (173.5 / 500) * 100

= 34.7%CHEMRAWN-XVII & ICCDU-IX Conference on Greenhouse Gases, Kingston, Ontario, July 8th – 12th, 2007

Match reboiler with steam from IP/LP crossover

MEA plant

steam cycle

IP/LP crossover

best case (10%) ≤ typical de-rate (20%) ≤ worst case (35%)


costs: ~ $400 million; $50/tonne of CO2 avoided







summary


CO2 Storage in Ontario

ONTARIO

QUEBEC

MANITOBA

Lake Huron

Nanticoke(3,920 MW)

Lake Erie

two potential reservoirs identified– Lake Huron– Lake Erie

significant capacities– Lake Huron (289 MT)– Lake Erie (442 MT)

Shafeen, A., E. Croiset, P.L. Douglas and I. Chatzis, 2004, “CO2 Sequestration in Ontario, Canada, Part I: Storage Evaluation of Potential Reservoirs”, Energy Conversion & Management, 45, 2645-2659


Cost of CO2 storage in Lake Erie

ONTARIO

QUEBEC

MANITOBA

Lake Huron

Nanticoke(3,920 MW)

Lake Erie

~ 442 MT storage capacity

~ 336 tonnes/hr per boiler

~ 160 years / boiler

~ 20 years / 8 boilers

~ 300 million US$– ~ 10 US$/tonne of CO2 storage

Shafeen, A., E. Croiset, P.L. Douglas and I. Chatzis, 2004, “CO2 Sequestration in Ontario, Canada, Part II: Cost Estimation”, Energy Conversion & Management, 45, 3207-3217



CO2 mitigation group at UW





summary and future work


Ci (i = 1-5)

CO2

C-C i

CO2

N i (i = 1-3) Hi (i=1-69) PCi new

CO2

IG inew

CO2

NG inew

CO2

C-O inew

NG i (i=1) Ai

C-NG i C-C inew C-NG i

new

S-C i S-NG i S-C inew S-NG i

new S-O inew

Generating capacity superstructuremodel all of Ontario’s generating stations

splitter sequestrationcapture process new process

NG inewPCi

new IG inew

New plants with capture New plants without captureExisting non-

fossil fuel plants

Existing fossil

fuel plants

N inew


Ontario’s Demand/Supply GapOntario’s Demand/Supply Gapsource: OPA Supply Mix Advice, 2005source: OPA Supply Mix Advice, 2005

MW

Renewable

Natural Gas & Oil

Nuclear

Coal


Optimal Plan to Add New Capacity (Example)

MW

New Natural Gas Plant

New Coal

New Nuclear

New IGCC Plant

DEMAND

CONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCTION

New Natural Gas

New CoalNew Nuclear

New IGCC

Demand

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026


Two Case StudiesTwo Case Studies

Case Stud

y

Electricity Demand

(MW)

CO2 Emissions (Mt of CO2)

Conservation Strategy

Fuel Price Forecast

New Sources

Considered

1

medium demand

growth with summer peak

no restrictions

normal conservation

normal coal & NG

price forecast

nuclear, NGCC,

IGCC, PC

2medium demand

growth with summer peak

6% reduction of 1990 levels

by 2010

normal conservation

normal coal & NG

price forecast

nuclear, NGCC,

IGCC, PC


1. no CO2 reduction constraints

2. 6% reduction of 1990 CO2 emissions by 2010

Model Statistics


single equations

42,204

single variables 25,526

discrete variables

9,950

generation time36 minutes

execution time 12 hours

Case 1 - Fleet Structure: New Power Plants




Case 1 - CO2 emissions




OPG’s fossil fuel generating stations

Lennox(2,100 MW)

Thunder Bay(360 MW)

Atikokan(211 MW)

ONTARIO

QUEBEC

MANITOBA

Lake Huron

Lakeview(1,148 MW)

Lambton(1,948 MW) Nanticoke

(3,920 MW)

Lake Erie

6 fossil fuel generating stations

~ 10,000 MWt

~ 27 MT/year

two potential reservoirs – Lake Huron (289 MT)– Lake Erie (442 MT)


Case 2 - Fleet Structure: New Power Plants

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

New Power Plants w/o CCS

NGCC (243 MW) X

NGCC(760 MW) X

NGCC(3,039 MW)

X

New Power Plants w/ CCS

NGCC(648 MW) X

New Nuclear Power Plants

ACR-700(1,406 MW)

X




Case 2 - Fleet Structure: Fuel-Switching

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Lambton X

Nanticoke X

Atikokan

Lennox

ThunderBay X

Lambton, Nanticoke, Thunder Bay coal-fired GS are switched to NG




Case 2 - Fleet Structure: CCS retrofits

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Lambton X

Nanticoke

Atikokan

Lennox

ThunderBay

only Lambton coal-fired station is retrofitted with a CCS system




Case 2 - CO2 emissions with constraints




Summary of Case Studies


Acknowledgements - Sponsors

Natural Resources Ressources NaturellesCanada Canada


Date post:	31-Mar-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ainsley-elbon
View:	212 times
Download:	0 times

A Systems Approach for CO 2 Mitigation, Capture & Storage in the Electricity Sector An Ontario Case...

Documents