310 likes | 438 Views
This overview presents cutting-edge research in carbon management within the power generation process, focusing on sustainable strategies to maintain fossil fuel viability. Key areas include the development of utility fuels, biomass fast pyrolysis for bio-oil, and improvements in combustion technologies. We explore advanced emission control tactics and the economic implications of carbon capture and storage (CCS). The research emphasizes the need for innovative solutions to reduce CO2 emissions while enhancing energy efficiency and maintaining competitiveness in the power utility sector.
E N D
Carbon Management in Power Generation Process An Research Overview for Research in Power Generation and Utility Fuels Group
Our Goal is to Prevent This: Keep fossil fuel-based power generation as a viable option
Research Overview (1) • Utility Fuels • Biomass fast pyrolysis • three-in-one process for bio-oil production • Engineering fuel from coal fine and biomass • Impoundment remediation
Test Burn of Coal/Biomass Briquettes at the EKCC Reductions in SO2/NOx emissions relative to coal normally used
Research Overview (II) • Power Generation • New generation technology development • combustion (PCLC) • steam generation • Emission control (SO2/SO3/Hg) • Post-combustion carbon management
Do We Have to Pay for Separation • Targeted Process: • From a dilute state to over 90% purity • dStotal = dSsystem + dSsurrounding ≥ 0 • the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium; • the entropy change dS of a system undergoing any infinitesimal reversible process is given by δq / T, where δq is the heat supplied to the system and T is the absolute temperature of the system.
The Minimum Work for Separation Only • The first law • The Second law from 14% to 90% 175 kJ/kg CO2 (166 Btu/kg CO2) ~4% of coal HHV
Absorption Processes – Chemical • Two islands system • Absorber • Regenerator • Connected by pumps • Energy Involved • Temperature Swing • Heat removal • Energy input Clean gas (CO2<1%) CO2 Stream (>90%) Lean Sorbent Abs Reg Flue Gas (CO2 ~14%) Heat Rich Sorbent
IGCC PC Flue Gas Post Combustion Scrubbing in Fossil Power Plants • Challenges: • Low CO2 partial pres. (~0.14 atm) • Large volume • ‘Poison’ contamination • Consequences: • Capital Costs $700-1000/kW • Absorbers three or four times • diameter as FGD with packing • Strippers and BOP • 25-35% of plant output reduction
Research Activities at PGUF (1) >80% COE Increased i.e. >60 mills/kWh • >30 mills/kWh • >21.5 mills/kWh 8.5 mills/kWh CCS Direct $1000/kW CCS Indirect 1350 Btu/lb CO2capted. T.S.M. D.F.O. 5.5 mills/kWh 2.5 mills/kWh A 1 14 m/kWh Compression 6 m/kWh - CAPX- 6 m/kWh 7.5 m/kWh - OPEX- 1 m/kWh - OPEX- Absorber 7.5 m/kWh ∆Habs Solvent 1.5 m/kWh - CAPX- RR CL CO2 PP NC BOP Stripper
Solvent Preferred • The magic solvent should have (1) High reaction rate; (2) High cyclic carbon capacity; (3) Less reaction energy; and (4) contamination-tolerated
Technologies/Solvent Underdeveloped • $1000/kW CAPX • - $1M/1MWe • 85% Capacity Factor • 13.8% ROI • 20 yrs • 1350Btu/lb CO2 Cap. • - $4/MMBtu coal • - $35/MWh • - only additional boiler 80% Slower 60% Lesser on Heating, but Chilling 85% Slower 30% Lesser on OPEX 2 Orders Slower 50% Lesser on OPEX Dev/Demo 50% on CAPX, 40% lesser on OPEX 40% Faster. 20% Lesser on OPEX
The Impact of CAER’s Solvent Research 2 Orders Slower 50% Lesser on OPEX $1000/kW CAPX, 85% CF, 13.8 ROI 20 yrs, 1350Btu/lb CO2 Captured Dev/Demo 50% on CAPX Heat Integra. 40% on OPEX 40% Faster. 20% Lesser on OPEX 10% Faster. 30% Lesser on OPEX 50% Faster 40% Lesser on OPEX
Research Activities at PGUF (2) >80% COE Increased i.e. >60 mills/kWh • >30 mills/kWh • >21.5 mills/kWh 8.5 mills/kWh CCS Direct $1000/kW CCS Indirect 1350 Btu/lb CO2capted. T.S.M. D.F.O. 5.5 mills/kWh 2.5 mills/kWh A 1 14 m/kWh Compression 6 m/kWh - CAPX- 6 m/kWh 7.5 m/kWh - OPEX- 1 m/kWh - OPEX- Absorber 7.5 m/kWh ∆Habs Solvent 1.5 m/kWh - CAPX- RR CL CO2 PP NC A 2 BOP Stripper
The Impact of CAER’s Catalytic Research 80% Slower 60% Lesser on Heating, but Chilling 85% Slower 30% Lesser on OPEX 60% Slower 30% Lesser on OPEX $500/kW CAPX, 85% CF, 13.8 ROI 20 yrs, 800Btu/lb CO2 Captured
Research Activities at PGUF (3) >80% COE Increased i.e. >60 mills/kWh • >30 mills/kWh • >21.5 mills/kWh 8.5 mills/kWh CCS Direct $1000/kW CCS Indirect 1350 Btu/lb CO2capted. T.S.M. D.F.O. 5.5 mills/kWh 2.5 mills/kWh A 1 14 m/kWh Compression 6 m/kWh - CAPX- 6 m/kWh 7.5 m/kWh - OPEX- 1 m/kWh - OPEX- Absorber 7.5 m/kWh ∆Habs Solvent 1.5 m/kWh - CAPX- RR CL CO2 PP NC A 2 BOP A 3 Stripper
The Impact of Post-Combustion Dewatering Research 85% Slower to MEA 30% Lesser on OPEX 5% Extra on CAPX 20% Lesser OPEX to Catalytic NH3 60% Slower to MEA 30% Lesser on OPEX
Research Activities at PGUF (4) >80% COE Increased i.e. >60 mills/kWh • >30 mills/kWh • >21.5 mills/kWh 8.5 mills/kWh CCS Direct $1000/kW CCS Indirect 1350 Btu/lb CO2capted. T.S.M. D.F.O. 5.5 mills/kWh 2.5 mills/kWh A 1 14 m/kWh Compression 6 m/kWh - CAPX- 6 m/kWh 7.5 m/kWh - OPEX- 1 m/kWh - OPEX- Absorber 7.5 m/kWh ∆Habs Solvent 1.5 m/kWh - CAPX- RR CL CO2 PP NC A 2 BOP A 3 A 4 Stripper
The Impact of CAER’s Stripping Research 85% Slower to MEA 30% Lesser on OPEX 5% Extra on CAPX 20% Lesser OPEX to Catalytic NH3 60% Slower to MEA 30% Lesser on OPEX Additional 30% Lesser OPEX
Research Activities at PGUF A 5 >80% COE Increased i.e. >60 mills/kWh • >30 mills/kWh • >21.5 mills/kWh 8.5 mills/kWh CCS Direct $1000/kW CCS Indirect 1350 Btu/lb CO2capted. T.S.M. D.F.O. 5.5 mills/kWh 2.5 mills/kWh A 1 14 m/kWh Compression 6 m/kWh - CAPX- 6 m/kWh 7.5 m/kWh - OPEX- 1 m/kWh - OPEX- Absorber 7.5 m/kWh ∆Habs Solvent 1.5 m/kWh - CAPX- RR CL CO2 PP NC A 2 BOP A 3 A 4 Stripper
Corrosion Study Using Electrochemical and Traditional Cells A106 with O2 A106
Activity Integration and Synergy Slipstream Demo Pilot-scale Proof of Concept Brainstorm
CAER Carbon Management Research Completed commissioning using K2CO3 Solvent Only reaches 3%-10% capture 100-hour Preliminary Study using K2CO3/Piperizane (PZ) Could reach 90% capture Precipitation of PZ Two-month MEA with 32 runs using ceramic packing MEA degradation vs. stripping temperature Mass transfer under utility flue gas conditions 1.5-year study using Aqueous Ammonia Ammonia slip vs. rich-solution pH etc Mass transfer/energy vs. packing and operating parameters Troubleshooting and problem solving On-going new solution study Catalyzed solvent Formulated solvent
Where We are • Carbon Management Research Group • Formed last year with four utilities (AEP, Duke, East Ky Power, Eon), EPRI and KY DEDI • ICCI and Big Rivers joined this year • A 10-year research program with $24M investment • Currently $2.4/year funding level • Develop more energy and cost effective carbon management technologies • Address specific materials, controls and waste management solutions
Three Research Topics • Short-medium Term Projects • Post-Combustion CO2 Capture • 0.1MWth Pilot-scale study • 0.5~1MWth Slipstream field testing at members’ sites • Technical-Economic Analysis • Long-term Project • Chemical Looping Combustion/ Gasification for Solid Fuels
One more ---Energy Conservation is SUPER Important Pre-Industry Early Industry 20 century Is it maximum soon?