Gasification to meet refinery hydrogen, electricity and steam demands: Availability vs Costs
GTC Annual Conference4 - 7 October 2009 – Colorado Springs
demands: Availability vs Costs
p g
S. Arienti – Process DirectorFoster Wheeler Italiana - Power Division
© 2009 Foster Wheeler. All rights reserved1
Foster Wheeler Italiana Power Division
Gasification to meet refinery hydrogen, electricity and steam demands: availability vs. costs
The feasibility study case
IGCC plant as only source to co-produce electricity, steam and hydrogen for a refinery:
250 MW electric energy (refinery back up electricity available for emergency only)
400 t/h HP steam @ 40 barg 400 °C
60,000 Nm3/h hydrogen @ 28 barg
Feedstock is pet coke from the refineryy
Natural gas available as back up fuel for the gas turbines
Slurry feed, quench type gasifiers – 120 MW nominal gas turbines
Location: far east – hot and humid atmospheric conditionsLocation: far east hot and humid atmospheric conditions
Unitary prices considered for economics:
pet coke 20 €/t
natural gas 0 14 €/Nm3 (5 $/MM BTU)natural gas 0.14 €/Nm3 (5 $/MM BTU)
hydrogen 0.17 €/Nm3
electric energy 0.08 €/kWh
HP t 15 5 €/t
© 2009 Foster Wheeler. All rights reserved2
HP steam 15.5 €/t
Gasification to meet refinery hydrogen, electricity and steam demands: availability vs. costs
IGCC Block flow Diagram - Base Case Configuration
© 2009 Foster Wheeler. All rights reserved3
Gasification to meet refinery hydrogen, electricity and steam demands: availability vs. costs
IGCC performance data
Pet coke
from refinery
Hydrogen to
refinery
HP steam to
refinery
Gross Power
Aux.
Loads
Net power to
refineryy
y yOutput
y
t/h Nm3/h t/h MWe MWe MWe
160 60,000 400 380 130 250
© 2009 Foster Wheeler. All rights reserved4
Gasification to meet refinery hydrogen, electricity and steam demands: availability vs. costs
IGCC availability assessment – the concepts
The spare equipment is provided for all the items whose shutdown causes the IGCC shutdown or significant capacity reduction: PUMPS & COMPRESSORS
F i IGCC ti i t i h d l d i tFew main IGCC sections require extensive scheduled maintenance and can have significant unplanned shut downs: in particular GASIFIERS and GAS TURBINES
IGCC i t i t bli h d i tIGCC maintenance program is established as an appropriate combination of the maintenance programs of these major critical components: other sections are in shadowE g : GT maintenance programE.g.: GT maintenance program
IGCC unplanned shut downs: evaluation based on statistical data of pFWI in-house data base
FWI data base includes real results from Italian operating IGCCs FWI was involved in
© 2009 Foster Wheeler. All rights reserved5
Gasification to meet refinery hydrogen, electricity and steam demands: availability vs. costs
IGCC availability assessment – the basis
Gasification: availability of each train 90% provided by Licensor based on existing solid gasifiers
ASU: availability 98%; becomes 99.5% by adding 12 h oxygen storage
SRU: 3x50% trains to avoid impact on IGCC availability
H d l t Hydrogen plant:
Membranes and PSA constituted by several modules in parallel
Permeate compressor is spared e eate co p esso s spa ed
Gas turbines and associated HRSG: 95% availability
Steam turbine: 97% availability
© 2009 Foster Wheeler. All rights reserved6
Gasification to meet refinery hydrogen, electricity and steam demands: availability vs. costs
IGCC availability assessment methodology – states definition
STATE AGasifier 1
BGasifier 2
CGasifier 3
DGasifier 4 Capacity Probability A
Gasifier 1B
Gasifier 2C
Gasifier 3D
Gasifier 4
1 1 1 1 1 100 00% 65 61% 90 00% 90 00% 90 00% 90 00%1 1 1 1 1 100.00% 65.61% 90.00% 90.00% 90.00% 90.00%2 1 1 1 0 100.00% 7.29% 90.00% 90.00% 90.00% 10.00%3 1 1 0 1 100.00% 7.29% 90.00% 90.00% 10.00% 90.00%4 1 0 1 1 100.00% 7.29% 90.00% 10.00% 90.00% 90.00%5 0 1 1 1 100.00% 7.29% 10.00% 90.00% 90.00% 90.00%6 1 1 0 0 66.66% 0.81% 90.00% 90.00% 10.00% 10.00%7 1 0 1 0 66.66% 0.81% 90.00% 10.00% 90.00% 10.00%8 0 1 1 0 66.66% 0.81% 10.00% 90.00% 90.00% 10.00%9 0 0 1 1 66.66% 0.81% 10.00% 10.00% 90.00% 90.00%
10 1 0 0 1 66.66% 0.81% 90.00% 10.00% 10.00% 90.00%11 0 1 0 1 66.66% 0.81% 10.00% 90.00% 10.00% 90.00%GASIFIER A
33%12 1 0 0 0 33.33% 0.09% 90.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00%13 0 1 0 0 33.33% 0.09% 10.00% 90.00% 10.00% 10.00%14 0 0 1 0 33.33% 0.09% 10.00% 10.00% 90.00% 10.00%15 0 0 0 1 33.33% 0.09% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 90.00%16 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.01% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00%
33%
HYDROGENPETCOKE
GASIFIER B33%
GASIFIER C33%
Example: 4 x 33% Gasifiers
© 2009 Foster Wheeler. All rights reserved7
GASIFIER D33%
Gasification to meet refinery hydrogen, electricity and steam demands: availability vs. costs
IGCC availability assessment methodology – availability calculation
Example: 4 x 33% Gasifiers
STATE Probability(Pk) (%)
Duration(hours/year)
Capacity(Ck) (%)
I 94.77% 8301.9 100.00%II 4 86% 425 7 66 66%
Capacity levels and probabilities
II 4.86% 425.7 66.66%III 0.36% 31.5 33.33%IV 0.01% 0.9 0.00%
Total 100.00% 8760.0 -
Equivalent Availability: ratio between actual syngas produced during a year and the syngas which could be produced during the year if operating all time at full capacity
EA = 100% - (100%-66.66%)x4.86% - (100%-33.33%)x0.36% - (100%-0%)x0.01% = 98.10%
© 2009 Foster Wheeler. All rights reserved8
( ) ( ) ( )
Gasification to meet refinery hydrogen, electricity and steam demands: availability vs. costs
The study case – Availability Block Diagram of base case
GASIFIER33%
PETCOKE 95% H2
PRODUCTION100%
GASIFIER33%
HYDROGEN
GAS TURBINE
100%
GASIFIER33%
HP STEAM5%
ELECTRIC ENERGY
GAS TURBINE& HRSG
50%
33%BYPASS
STEAMTURBINE
100%
NATURAL GASGAS TURBINE
& HRSG50%
© 2009 Foster Wheeler. All rights reserved9
Gasification to meet refinery hydrogen, electricity and steam demands: availability vs. costs
The study case - availability and costs for different gasifier and GT numbers
Alternative BASE - - A B - - C D
Number of Gasifiers G G G G+1 G+1 G+1 G+2 G+2 G+2Number of Gasifiers G G G G+1 G+1 G+1 G+2 G+2 G+2
Number of Gas Turbines GT GT+1 GT+2 GT GT+1 GT+2 GT GT+1 GT+2
Syngas from gasifiers 90.00% 90.00% 90.00% 98.10% 98.10% 98.10% 99.70% 99.70% 99.70%
H2 (priority) 90.67% 90.67% 90.67% 98.26% 98.26% 98.26% 99.72% 99.72% 99.72%H2 (priority) 90.67% 90.67% 90.67% 98.26% 98.26% 98.26% 99.72% 99.72% 99.72%
Syngas to GT 90.05% 90.05% 90.05% 98.14% 98.14% 98.14% 99.70% 99.70% 99.70%
Export Steam 95.00% 99.63% 99.98% 95.00% 99.63% 99.98% 95.00% 99.63% 99.98%
Export EE 94.37% 98.97% 99.32% 94.37% 98.97% 99.32% 94.37% 98.97% 99.32%p
Power Island NG operation (y/h) 823 863 866 154 161 162 25 26 26
Investment cost (M€) 951 1,053 1,155 1,002 1,104 1,206 1,053 1,155 1,257
Revenues (M€/y) 303 314 314 310 321 322 312 322 323
Costs (M€/y) 72 77 82 69 77 79 70 75 80
delta (M€/y) 231 236 232 241 244 243 242 247 243
Payback (y) 4.1 4.5 5.0 4.2 4.5 5.0 4.4 4.7 5.2
© 2009 Foster Wheeler. All rights reserved10
Gasification to meet refinery hydrogen, electricity and steam demands: availability vs. costs
Hydrogen availability versus plant investment cost (GT+1 configuration)
© 2009 Foster Wheeler. All rights reserved11
Gasification to meet refinery hydrogen, electricity and steam demands: availability vs. costs
Electric Energy availability versus plant investment cost (G+1 configuration)
© 2009 Foster Wheeler. All rights reserved12
Gasification to meet refinery hydrogen, electricity and steam demands: availability vs. costs
Investment payback versus products availability
(G+1;GT+2)
(G+2;GT+1)
(G 1;GT 2)
(G GT+1)
(G+1;GT+1)
(G+1;GT+1)(G;GT+1)
( ; )
(G+1;GT)
© 2009 Foster Wheeler. All rights reserved13
Gasification to meet refinery hydrogen, electricity and steam demands: availability vs. costs
Investment payback versus EE availability: operating cost sensitivity (G+1 configuration)
15.0
11.0
13.0
s]
9.0
y B
ack
time
[yea
rs
5.0
7.0Pay
3.094.00% 95.00% 96.00% 97.00% 98.00% 99.00% 100.00%
EE Availability
© 2009 Foster Wheeler. All rights reserved14
Natural Gas at 5.0 US$/MMBTU Natural Gas at 3.0 US$/MMBTU
Gasification to meet refinery hydrogen, electricity and steam demands: availability vs. costs
Investment Payback versus EE availability:Electric Energy price sensitivity (G+1 configuration)
© 2009 Foster Wheeler. All rights reserved15
Gasification to meet refinery hydrogen, electricity and steam demands: availability vs. costs
IGCC Block Flow Diagram - Alternative Configuration (CO Shift)
Syngas split: 50%CO Shift for the syngas
fed to H2 productionH2 production based on PSA
Higher flexibility in H2/EE productionHigher investment cost (+15%)
© 2009 Foster Wheeler. All rights reserved16
Note (1): Number refers to base case (no spare)
Higher investment cost (+15%)
Gasification to meet refinery hydrogen, electricity and steam demands: availability vs. costs
Conclusions
IGCC plant is flexible in producing the three main products: Hydrogen, Electric p p g p y g ,Energy and Steam. Membrane + PSA scheme for hydrogen production is normally applied.
Higher flexibility for hydrogen production is got in the alternative configuration with CO shift, but at higher investment cost (+15%). This scheme is also adequate for CCS by limited additional facilitiesCCS by limited additional facilities.
The study confirms that the products availability strongly depends on the number of spare main equipment (gasifiers and gas turbines).
© 2009 Foster Wheeler. All rights reserved17
Gasification to meet refinery hydrogen, electricity and steam demands: availability vs. costs
Conclusions
A spare gasifier is basic in order to ensure very good hydrogen availability (98.3%) and to restrain back-up fuel consumption of the gas turbines, with a favourable
b k tipayback time.
A spare gas turbine is useful to increase electric energy availability to about 99% A spare gas turbine is useful to increase electric energy availability to about 99%, and steam availability to 99.6%, with a reasonable investment payback time.
Double sparing for main equipment (gasifiers and gas turbines) implies higher investment payback time: it may be justified only in case of specific request of extremely high availability of products.
The greater the difference between product and feedstock prices, the greater the incentive to add spare components.
© 2009 Foster Wheeler. All rights reserved18
incentive to add spare components.
Thank youThank youwww.fwc.comwww.fosterwheeler.itwww.fosterwheeler.it
[email protected][email protected]
l t @f
© 2009 Foster Wheeler. All rights reserved19
