Benchmarking - SINTEF · Concept of benchmarking: bringing performance indicators to one...

DNV GL © 26 MARCH 2015 SAFER, SMARTER, GREENER DNV GL © Benchmarking: Novel carbon capture technologies

26 MARCH 2015

Gerben Jans, Gerard Stienstra and Bert Heesink

ENERGY

Benchmarking

1

Novel carbon capture technologies

DNV GL © 26 MARCH 2015

Key elements of this presentation

Benchmarking:

– Why?

– How?

Benchmarking of technologies in early stage of development

Experiences of DNV GL at the Carbon Capture Mongstad project

2


DNV GL Energy

An Energy Powerhouse uniting the strength of well-known brands: DNV GL -

Energy combines the strengths and rich heritage of a couple well-known brands

in energy, DNV KEMA, GL Garrad Hassan and GL Renewables Certification.

In energy, our 3,000 experts help customers throughout the electrical power

industry realize efficient, reliable and clean energy, for today and the future.

3 3

DNV GL © 26 MARCH 2015 4

Policy Production Transmission

& Distribution Use

DNV GL Energy - A Comprehensive Portfolio of Services

Power testing, inspections and

certification

Renewables advisory services

Renewables certification

Electricity transmission and distribution

Electricity production

Smart grids and smart cities

Energy market and policy design

Energy management and operations

services

Energy efficiency services

Software

Policy Production Transmission & distribution Use


Benchmarking is part of our Energy Business Decision Support-services

5

Benchmarking

Due Diligence

Technical Consultancy

Electricity Market Regulation Consultancy

Roadmaps Future Energy Systems

Technology (Development) Assessments

Electricity Master Planning

Market Analysis & Modelling Services

Definition Benchmarking (European Benchmarking code of conduct): “Benchmarking is about the process of identifying and learning from best practices in other organizations”


What is benchmarking?

6


One of the first Benchmarks

7

Source: http://www.waymarking.com

The origin of the term bench mark, or benchmark,

Chiselled horizontal marks made by surveyors in stone structures,

Used to place an angle-iron in to form a “bench” for a levelling rod

So this levelling rod could be replaced on the exact same level

Source: Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveying


Goal of benchmarking

Two types of goals

1. Metrics Benchmarking

(to determine (relative)

position in own sector)

Learn were you are, compared to others

2. Activity Benchmarking (find & implement ‘Best Practices’)

According to the European Benchmarking Code of conduct “Benchmarking is

about the process of identifying and learning from best practices in other

organizations ”

8

Benchmarking is about learning

Source: http://www.solomononline.com


Goal of activity benchmarking

9


Benchmarking cycle

10

KPI’s Performance

evaluation

Industrial installation

Set Performance Improvement Targets

Quality Control

“Best Practices”

Continuous Improvement

Reference data

Perf. data

Benchmark

Learn from best practices

Benchmarking


KPI’s and reference data explained

A KPI is

– a performance measurement

– defined by a set of values used to measure against

– based on math that is the same for all situations

– used to evaluate the success of a particular activity in which it is engaged

Preferred reference data is

obtained from a peer group

11

Statistical Analysis

Quartile

(25%)

Performance Indicator

Standard

Methodology

Data BaseP

ee

r G

rou

p Quartile

(25%)

median


Example results

POF = Planned Outage Factor

FOF = Forced Outage Factor

12

0.0%

4.0%

8.0%

12.0%

16.0%

20.0%

KPI-8POF

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

KPI-9FOF

Plant A

Plant B

Plant C

Peer group(median)

Peer group(top 25%)

Power plant maintenance performance


Benchmarking of technologies in early stage of development

13


Novel Technologies

14

Challenge: identify potential + compare across maturity

Maturity

potential

Different technologies, different potential, different maturity


Issues for the benchmarking model

No reference performance data available -> no peer group

– Other reference needed?

Not the same level of maturity (model ≠ pilot ≠ demo ≠ full scale)

– How to scale for comparison across maturity?

Scaling means uncertainty

– What to do with uncertainty?

15

How to deal with these issues?


Reference

When a peer group doesn’t exist one could use a well defined reference plant.

1. Reference plant

2. Plant to be benchmarked

16

PP 1

PP 1 + CAP 1

PP 1 + CAP 2

PP 1

Benchmark

Co

mp

ari

so

n


Uncertainty

17

Commercial application

“Performance”

“Cost”

New version,

followed by improvement

Maturity


Benchmarking model

18

Concept of benchmarking: bringing performance indicators to one (artificial) level for comparison, generally executed by an independent 3rd party

maturity

potential

prove of concept & prototyping

Scale up

Benchmark for comparison

Build process / application

1 2

Benchmarking model Data


Example results: ROAD 250 MWe DEMO - design alternatives

19

Net Electrical output and reboiler duty compared: illustrative of the need to have a model to bring all inputs to the same level of comparison. source: de Miguel Mercader et al, IJGGC, 2013

94%

91%

94%

100%

90%

83%

86%

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

MEA intermediate

HEX no integration

MEA LVC+split nointegration

MEA LVC nointegration

Base case MEA nointegration

relative

reboilerduty

variation

relative

efficiencypenalty

variation

Base Case = 100 %

energy penalty, relative to base

Reboiler duty, relative to base case


Let’s take a side-step - Example use of TRL Carbon Capture Mongstad (CCM)

20


New gas fired CHP plant at Mongstad Refinery (2010)

CCM Agreement

CHP plant may be

operated on the

condition that CO2 is

captured and stored

Max. capacity 1.3

Mton/yr

Start-up foreseen in

2020

Only amine based and

ammonium carbonate

based technologies

considered

21


Typical post-combustion CO2 capture plant

22

Source: CCM


Participating Technology Vendors

1. Huaneng CERI Powerspan

– Proprietary amine based ECO2 solvent

2. Siemens

– Proprietary amino acid salt based AAS solvent

3. Aker Clean Carbon (ACC)

– Proprietary amine based S-21 solvent

4. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI)

– Proprietary amine based KS-1 solvent

5. Alstom

– Ammonium carbonate solvent

23


Technology qualification process

Goals:

• Prove capture plant is TRL 4*

• Energy performance meet minimum requirements

• Emissions meet minimum requirements

24

Executed by Statoil +

Technology Vendors

Our main task “follow-up,

verification and evaluation of all

technology qualification activities“

*According to Statoil WR-1622


Technology Readiness Level goal

TRL 4: Representative of full scale prototype (or production unit) built and put

through a qualification test program in (simulated or actual) intended environment

Technology Readiness Level (Statoil WR-1622)

25

Level Development stage

TRL 0 Unproven Idea

TRL 1 Analytically Proven Concept

TRL 2 Physically Proven Concept

TRL 3 Prototype Tested

TRL 4 Environment Tested

TRL 5 System Integration Tested

TRL 6 System Installed

TRL 7 Proven Technology


Technology Readiness Levels

26

maturity

potential

Strict definitions for TRL level

TRL 6 TRL 7 TRL 5 TRL 3 TRL 4

Expert judgment

Assigned TLR level

TRL 2


Technology qualification process

Goals:

• Prove capture plant is TRL 4*

• Energy performance meet minimum requirements

• Emissions meet minimum requirements

27

Executed by Statoil +

Technology Vendors

Our main task “follow-up,

verification and evaluation of all

technology qualification activities“

Main risks

*According to Statoil WR-1622


Main development risks identified

Scale-up of absorber (and stripper)

(Diameter 0.5 m) (Diameter ~20 m)

Severe solvent degradation

– O2 and NOx in flue gas

H&E aspects

– Carcinogenic nitrosamines and nitramines

– Amines and other degradation products

– Waste (water)

– NH3

28


Example step out A: (design and scale-up of) Absorber

TRL assessed per technology step out category

29


TRL assessment of technology vendors on three project phases

Because of confidentiality reasons, these numbers are not corresponding to the actual outcome of the CCM project

30

2.92.5 2.5

3.53

2.5

3.93.4

2.5

0

1

2

3

4

5

A B C

TRL at TQP-1 TRL at TQP-2 TRL at TQP-3

DNV GL © 26 MARCH 2015 31

TRL 4 ?

Technology Center Mongstad source: http://www.gassnova.no


SAFER, SMARTER, GREENER

www.dnvgl.com

Thanks

32

Gerben Jans

[email protected]

+31 (0)26 3566210

Date post:	12-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	doandan
View:	225 times
Download:	6 times

Benchmarking - SINTEF · Concept of benchmarking: bringing performance indicators to one...

Documents