1
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION MITIGATION THROUGH AMINE BASED CARBON DIOXIDE CAPTURE IN COAL FIRED ELECTRICITY
GENERATION PLANTS
Tanuja Bhattacharjeest104547
Fos- Energy
Prof. Sivanappan Kumar (Chairperson) Dr. Animesh Dutta (Co-chairperson) Dr. Brahmanand Mohanty Dr. Mithulananthan Nadarajah
2
OutlineOutline of the presentation • Introduction Introduction
– Over view of CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) and its role in emission mitigation
– Target of GHG stabilization - when to take action for mitigation?– Emission mitigation- where the actions need to take place?
• Study descriptionStudy description– Research gap and specific objective– Methodology
• Results of the studyResults of the study• Highlights Highlights
This presentation highlights highlights
•the need to deploy CCS (Carbon capture and storage) for GHG emission mitigation in developing countries
•the scope of utilizing MEA (mono ethanolamine) technology for coal fired power plants
3
CCS- for GHG emission for GHG emission mitigationmitigation
Long term emission mitigation
Changes
• source of energy
• process of transformation
Source: IPCC, 2005
Why CCS ?
Compatibility Maturity Capacity
Courtesy: CO2CRC
4
Source: GTSP, 2007
CO2 remains in the
atmosphere for 80 to 200 years
Today / Tomorrow ??
Allowable increase 20C=> 450 ppm CO2 conc.
Source: IPCC, 2005
GHG emission mitigation – target and time of actiontarget and time of action
Time of action-
Source: GTSP, 2007
5
• Coal is largest source (40%) of emission from fossil fuel and attractive option for CCS
• 60% of world’s coal production is in Asia (IEA, 2006)- China 1st, India 3rd
• Growth of coal production by 2.2% per year to 2020-main contribution by developing countries of Asia
World CO2 emission, 2004-2030 source: EIA, 2007
Global distribution of large stationary sources of CO2 Source: IEA GHG, 2002
CCS- needs to shift the research paradigmneeds to shift the research paradigm
6
Research gap
• Lack of information - regional emission inventory and mitigation potential-sector wise
• Performance – most of the works consider highest limit of CO2 removal and ignore suitable integration strategy
• Lack of extensive research on existing plants
1. To estimate the CO2 emission reduction potential using MEA system for coal fired power plants in Thailand, Vietnam, India and Bangladesh.
2. To study net emission reduction benefit of MEA based CO2 capture system.
3. Identify cost effective level of CO2 capture using MEA
system for two coal power plants
Focus of this
presentation
Objectives
7
Result 1: CO2 emission in 2008
Result 2: CO2
emission in 2020
Result 3: CO2 emission mitigation
potential in 2020
Results 4: cost performance of
different group of power plant
Methodology(Objective 1)
8
Result 1 –CO2 Emission in 2008
Present installed capacity (GW) and share of fuel
Emission from coal fired power plants, 2008
9
Country
Growth of electricity generation capacity
(%)
TOTAL
Growth of electricity generation capacity
(%)
COAL
India 6 6
Thailand 5 6
Vietnam 11 17
Bangladesh 8 25
choice of CoaCoall is
driven by fuel availability and
price
Power development plan- influence of CoaCoall
CO2 Emission from coal power plants, 2020
Result 2 –CO2 Emission in 2020
10
Observations
0
1
2
3
4
5
India Others (Thailand, Vietnam,Bangladesh)
1990-2008
2008-2020
Cumulative emisison (MtCO2) during 1990-2020 due to coal fired electricity generation
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
Em
issi
on M
tCO
2
xxxx
Obs. 2: Cumulative emission, 1990-2020
Obs. 1: Trend of emission, 1990-2020
Obs. 4: Comparative Growth of installed capacity , India and others 1990-2020
1.5 GtCO2/yr by 2020
Obs. 3: EmissionsCoal fired power: Other
large point sources 3:2
2ppm CO2
in atm
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Inst
alle
d c
apac
ity
GW
vv
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Em
issi
on M
tCO
2/yr
..nnn
Installed capacity GWEmission MtCO2
11
Result 3- Emission mitigation potential using MEA technology
Emission mitigation potential
PC technology, age/ year of operation, Size
Total coal fired capacity
Compatible capacity to be integrated
with amine system
12
Results 4- cost performance of different groups of power plants
1. Identify plant size, coal type, technology, coal price
2. Differentiate in retrofit and capture ready option
3. 10 cases formed to compared the performance; India 4 cases, Thailand 3 cases, Vietnam 2 cases, Bangladesh 1 case
Comparison of COE ($/MWh) and Performance
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
I2 I1 V1 I3 T1 T3 T2 I4 V2 B
CO
E($
/MW
h)
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
Net
Eff
icie
ncy
% (
HH
V)
$/MWh $/MWh CO2 capture Efficiency %
•COE almost double
•COE is not equally affected
•COE not fully governed by Efficiency
13
Range of Capture cost($/ton)
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
I1 I2 I3 V1 T1 T2 I4 T3 B V2
Range of capture cost due to the uncertainties imposed to model, size, plant capacity factor etc
Emission mitigation potential 600 MtCO2/yr 65% of total emission from the same sector in 2020
Results 4- contd.
14
Conclusion
• Total CO2 emission (450 MtCO2/yr) from coal fired power generation (in India, Bangladesh, Thailand and Vietnam) would be double in 2020 (885 MtCO2)
• In 2020, around 600 MtCO2 /yr is possible to mitigate by MEA technology at a cost lower than $50/tCO2 of which half is possible to mitigate at 37-42 $/tCO2 which is highly competitive
• Raghuvanshi, 2005 estimated CO2 emission for India results 675 MtCO2/yr in 2020- within 7.5% variation from current study
• GTSP, 2007 presents cost of CO2 capture 25-55 $/tCO2- range of current study is within the range
Results- comparison with others’ work
15
Case studies: Bangladesh and Thailand
Varying CO2 capture level observation of
•Investment and energy penalty
•CO2 avoidance cost
•Using bypass option observation of the parameters
Case a Thailand 1800MW, Lignite coal
Case b, Bangladesh 250 MW, Bituminous coal
16
• Case ‘a’ can capture 903 tCO2 /hr (75%) bypassing 15% flue gas with 20% power drop (wrt. gross plant size) and 1.7 times increase in COE
• Case ‘b’ can capture 184 tCO2/ hr (80%) without bypass and with one third reduction in output with more than twice increase in COE
• Compared to case ‘a’, cost of CO2 capture ($/tCO2) is 30% more for case ‘b’, emission reduction potential is only one fifth, specific energy penalty in case ‘b’ is around 10-15 kWh/tCO2 higher than case ‘a’
Results- performance of two existing plant with CO2 capture
Comparison between case a and case b
17
Highlights
• Low rank coal would be in comparatively favorable position with CO2 capture compared to high rank coal
• Coal fired power plants can play vital role in GHG mitigation utilizing the opportunity CO2 capture in commercial manner
• One fifth on total CO2 emission is possible to mitigate in these countries using MEA technology only in coal fired power generation sector
18
emission and mitigation are going as usual…….. consequence….
Today 28GtCO2Ocean - 7.4 GTCO2
Forest- 5.5 GTCO2
Rest Rest ???? ???? (More than 5-10 GtCO2
need to be mitigated)
CCS- present potential 2.5 GtCO2……………… need to develop rapid deployment potential
Option 1
Option 2
19
emission and mitigation are going as usual…….. consequence….
Today 28GtCO2Ocean - 7.4 GTCO2
Forest- 5.5 GTCO2
Rest Rest ???? ???? (More than 5-10 GtCO2
need to be mitigated)
CCS- present potential 2.5 GtCO2……………… need to develop rapid deployment potential
Option 1
Option 2
Q n A Q n A
THANK YOUTHANK YOU
Is it acceptable ????
20
22
2030
Sukla, 2004
23
24
process overview
Power plant
25
26…………maximum allowable range of change in temperature => 2maximum allowable range of change in temperature => 200CC
27
28
AcronymsCCS- Carbon Capture and Storage COE-Cost of ElectricityDCC-Direct Contact CoolerEIA- Energy Information Administration ESP-Electrostatic PrecipitatorFGD-Flue Gas DesulphurizationGHG-Greenhouse GasGT- Gas TurbineGTSP-Global Energy Technology Strategy Program HHV-Higher Heating ValueIEA-International Energy AgencyIEA GHG- IEA Greenhouse Gas Research & Development Programme IECM-Integrated Environmental Control Model IGCC-Integrated Gasification Combined CycleIPCC-Intergovernmental Panel of Climate ChangeMEA-MonoethanolamineMTCO2- Million Ton of CO2O&M-Operation and MaintenancePC-Pulverized CoalPM- Particulate MaterialSCHR- Steam Cycle Heat Rate
29
World wide CCS project distribution
North America Australia Europe South America Africa Asia
Source: IEA GHG R&D Programme
32