Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants – Volume 1
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 39

Revision 2 – November 2010 Revision 1 – August 2007 Original – May 2007 PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 85 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants – Volume 1 Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity. Revision 2 – November 2010 Revision 1 – August 2007 Original – May 2007. U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory. Disclaimer

Download Presentation

Revision 2 – November 2010 Revision 1 – August 2007 Original – May 2007

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Revision 2 november 2010 revision 1 august 2007 original may 2007

Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants – Volume 1Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity

Revision 2 – November 2010

Revision 1 – August 2007

Original – May 2007

U.S. Department of Energy

National Energy Technology Laboratory


Revision 2 november 2010 revision 1 august 2007 original may 2007

Disclaimer

This presentation was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference therein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed therein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.


Objective

Objective

  • Determine cost and performance estimates of near-term commercial offerings for power plants both with and without current technology for CO2 capture

    • Consistent design requirements

    • Up-to-date performance and capital cost estimates

    • Technologies built now and deployed in the near term

  • Provides baseline costs and performance

    • Compare existing technologies

    • Guide R&D for advancing technologies within the FE Program


Study matrix

Study Matrix

GEE – GE Energy

CoP – Conoco Phillips


Design basis coal type

Design Basis: Coal Type


Environmental targets

Environmental Targets

1 Based on EPRI’s CoalFleet User Design Basis Specification for Coal-Based IGCC Power Plants

2 Based on BACT analysis, exceeding new NSPS requirements

3 Based on EPA pipeline natural gas specification and 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart KKKK


Economic assumptions

Economic Assumptions

First Year of Capital Expenditure2007

Effective Levelization Period (Years) 35 (PC & IGCC)

33 (NGCC)

Dollars 2007

Coal ($/MM Btu)1.64

Natural Gas ($/MM Btu)6.55

Capacity Factor

IGCC 80

PC/NGCC 85


Revision 2 november 2010 revision 1 august 2007 original may 2007

Technical Approach

Systems Analyses Categorization

STUDY CATEGORY

  • Order of Magnitude Estimate (+/- >50% Accuracy)

  • Very little project-specific definition

  • Rough scaling of previous related but dissimilar analyses

  • “Back-of-the-envelope” analyses

  • Concept Screening (+/- 50% Accuracy)

  • Preliminary mass and energy balances

  • Modeling and simulation of major unit operations

  • Factored estimate based on previous similar analyses

  • Budget Estimate (+30% / -15% Accuracy)

  • Thorough mass and energy balances

  • Detailed process and economic modeling

  • Estimate based on vendor quotes, third-party EPC firms


Technical approach

Technical Approach

  • 1. Extensive Process Simulation (ASPEN)

  • All major chemical processes and equipment are simulated

  • Detailed mass and energy balances

  • Performance calculations (auxiliary power, gross/net power output)

  • 2. Cost Estimation

  • Inputs from process simulation (Flow Rates/Gas Composition/Pressure/Temp.)

  • Sources for cost estimation

    WorleyParsons

    Vendor sources where available

  • Follow DOE Analysis Guidelines


Study assumptions

Study Assumptions

  • Capacity Factor assumed to equal Availability

    • IGCC capacity factor = 80% w/ no spare gasifier

    • PC and NGCC capacity factor = 85%

  • GE gasifier operated in radiant/quench mode

  • Shell gasifier with CO2 capture used water injection for cooling (instead of syngascooler)

  • Nitrogen dilution was used to the maximum extent possible in all IGCC cases and syngas humidification/steam injection were used only if necessary to achieve approximately 120 Btu/scf syngas LHV

  • In CO2 capture cases, CO2 was compressed to 2200 psig, transported 50 miles, sequestered in a saline formation at a depth of 4,000 feet and monitored for 80 years

  • CO2 transport, storage and monitoring (TS&M) costs were included in the levelized cost of electricity (COE)


Revision 2 november 2010 revision 1 august 2007 original may 2007

IGCC Power Plant

Current State-of-the-Art


Revision 2 november 2010 revision 1 august 2007 original may 2007

Current TechnologyIGCC Power Plant without CO2 Capture

Emission Controls:

PM: Water scrubbing and/or candle filters to get 0.0071 lb/MMBtu

NOx: N2 dilution to ~120 Btu/scf LHV to get 15 ppmv @15% O2

SOx: AGR design target of 0.0128 lb/MMBtu; Claus plant with tail gas recycle for ~99.8% overall S recovery

Hg: Activated carbon beds for ~95% removal

Advanced F-Class CC Turbine:232 MWe

Steam Conditions: 1800 psig/1050°F/1050°F


Gasifiers

Gasifiers

GEE Texaco Gasifier

ConocoPhillips

E-Gas

Shell

SCGP

Fuel Gas

HP

Steam

O2

Dry Coal

Slag


Revision 2 november 2010 revision 1 august 2007 original may 2007

IGCC Power Plant

With CO2 Capture


Revision 2 november 2010 revision 1 august 2007 original may 2007

Current TechnologyIGCC Power Plant with CO2Capture

  • Emission Controls:

  • PM: Water scrubbing and/or candle filters to get 0.007 lb/MMBtu

  • NOx: N2 dilution to ~120 Btu/scf LHV to get 15 ppmv @15% O2

  • SOx: Selexol AGR removal of sulfur to < 6 ppmv H2S in syngas

    • Claus plant with tail gas recycle for ~99.8% overall sulfur recovery

  • Hg: Activated carbon beds for ~95% removal

  • Advanced F-Class CC Turbine:232 MWe

  • Steam Conditions:1800 psig/1000°F/1000°F


Revision 2 november 2010 revision 1 august 2007 original may 2007

Water-Gas Shift Reactor System

  • Design:

  • Sulfur Tolerant Catalyst

  • Up to 98.5% CO Conversion

  • 2 stages for GE and Shell, 3 stages for E-Gas

  • H2O/CO = 1.8 – 2.25 (to achieve 90% CO2 capture)

Steam

Steam

400oF

700-870oF

800psia

550oF

H2O + CO CO2 + H2

1 Recovered from Heat Integration


Igcc performance results

IGCC Performance Results

Steam for Selexol

h in ASU air comp. load w/o CT integration

Includes H2S/CO2 Removal in Selexol Solvent

1CO2 Capture Energy Penalty = Percent points decrease in net power plant efficiency due to CO2 Capture


Igcc performance results1

IGCC Performance Results

1CO2 Capture Energy Penalty = Percent points decrease in net power plant efficiency due to CO2 Capture


Igcc economic results

IGCC Economic Results

1Total Plant Capital Cost (Includes contingencies and engineering fees but not owner’s costs)

280% Capacity Factor


Revision 2 november 2010 revision 1 august 2007 original may 2007

Comparison to PC and NGCC

Current State-of-the-Art


Revision 2 november 2010 revision 1 august 2007 original may 2007

Current TechnologyPulverized Coal Power Plant*

*Orange Blocks Indicate Unit Operations Added for CO2 Capture Case

PM Control:Baghouse to achieve 0.013 lb/MMBtu (99.8% removal)

SOx Control:FGD to achieve 0.085 lb/MMBtu (98% removal)

NOx Control:LNB + OFA + SCR to maintain 0.07 lb/MMBtu

Mercury Control:Co-benefit capture ~90% removal

Steam Conditions (Sub):2400 psig/1050°F/1050°F

Steam Conditions (SC):3500 psig/1100°F/1100°F


Revision 2 november 2010 revision 1 august 2007 original may 2007

Current TechnologyNatural Gas Combined Cycle*

*Orange Blocks Indicate Unit Operations Added for CO2 Capture Case

Natural Gas

Direct Contact

Cooler

HRSG

Air

Cooling Water

Stack Gas

Combustion Turbine

Blower

Reboiler Steam

MEA

Stack

Condensate Return

CO2

2200 psig

CO2

Compressor

NOx Control:LNB + SCR to maintain 2.5 ppmvd @ 15% O2

Steam Conditions:2400 psig/1050°F/1050°F


Pc and ngcc performance results

PC and NGCC Performance Results

1CO2 Capture Energy Penalty = Percent points decrease in net power plant efficiency due to CO2 Capture


Pc and ngcc economic results

PC and NGCC Economic Results

1Total Plant Capital Cost (Includes contingencies and engineering fees but not owner’s costs)

285% Capacity Factor


Revision 2 november 2010 revision 1 august 2007 original may 2007

Environmental Performance Comparison

IGCC, PC and NGCC


Criteria pollutant emissions for all cases

Criteria Pollutant Emissions for All Cases


Co 2 emissions for all cases

CO2 Emissions for All Cases


Revision 2 november 2010 revision 1 august 2007 original may 2007

Raw Water Withdrawal and Consumption Comparison

IGCC, PC and NGCC


Raw water withdrawal and consumption per mw net absolute

Raw Water Withdrawal and Consumption per MWnet(Absolute)


Revision 2 november 2010 revision 1 august 2007 original may 2007

Economic Results for All Cases


Co 2 avoided costs

CO2 Avoided Costs


Plant cost comparison

Plant Cost Comparison


Cost of electricity comparison

Cost of Electricity Comparison

Coal cost $1.64/106Btu,Gas cost $6.55/106Btu


Revision 2 november 2010 revision 1 august 2007 original may 2007

Highlights


Netl viewpoint

NETL Viewpoint

  • Most up-to-date performance and costs available in public literature to date

  • Establishes baseline performance and cost estimates for current state of technology

  • Improved efficiencies and reduced costs are required to improve competitiveness of advanced coal-based systems

    • In today’s market and regulatory environment

    • Also in a carbon constrained scenario

  • Fossil Energy RD&D aimed at improving performance and cost of clean coal power systems including development of new approaches to capture and sequester greenhouse gases


Result highlights efficiency capital cost

Result Highlights: Efficiency & Capital Cost

  • Coal-based plants using today’s technology are efficient and clean

    • IGCC & PC: 39%, HHV (without capture on bituminous coal)

    • Meet or exceed current environmental requirements

    • Today’s capture technology can remove 90% of CO2, but at significant increase in COE

  • Total Overnight Cost: IGCC ~25% higher than PC

    • NGCC: $718/kW

    • PC: $2010/kW (average)

    • IGCC: $2505/kW (average)

  • Total Overnight Cost with Capture: PC > IGCC

    • NGCC: $1497/kW

    • IGCC: $3568/kW (average)

    • PC: $3590/kW (average)


Results highlights coe 2007

Results HighlightsCOE ($2007)

  • COE: NGCC & PC lowest cost generators

    • NGCC: 59 $/MWh

    • PC: 59 $/MWh (average)

    • IGCC: 77 $/MWh (average)

  • With CCS: PC lowest coal-based option

    • NGCC: 86 $/MWh

    • PC: 108 $/MWh (average)

    • IGCC: 112 $/MWh (average)

  • Breakeven FY COE* when natural gas price is:

    • No Capture IGCC: $9.24/MMBtu PC: $6.59/MMBtu

    • With Capture IGCC: $9.80/MMBtu PC: $9.34/MMBtu

      * At baseline coal cost of $1.64/MMBtu


Revision 2 november 2010 revision 1 august 2007 original may 2007

Summary Table for All Cases


Summary table

Summary Table


  • Login