AIChE 2011 Cogen Screening 05

Cogen Screening for Improved Performance and CO2 Reduction: Revisiting the R-Curves
By Oscar Aguilar March 2011

Oscar.Aguilar@shell.com
2009 Shell Global Solutions (US) Inc. All rights reserved.
Disclaimer
The companies in which Royal Dutch Shell plc directly or indirectly owns investments are separate entities. In this publication the expressions "Shell", "Group" and "Shell Group" are sometimes used for convenience where references are made to Group companies in general. Likewise the words "we", "us" and "our" are also used to refer to Group companies in general or those who work for them. The expressions are also used where there is no purpose in identifying specific companies. Shell Global Solutions is a network of independent technology companies in the Shell Group. In this publication the expression Shell Global Solutions is sometimes used for convenience where reference is made to these companies in general, or where no useful purpose is served by identifying a particular company. The information contained in this publication contains forward-looking statements, that are subject to risk factors which may affect the outcome of the matters covered. None of Shell Global Solutions, any other Shell company and their respective officers, employees and agents represents the accuracy or completeness of the information set forth in this publication and none of the foregoing shall be liable for any loss, cost, expense or damage (whether arising from negligence or otherwise) relating to the use of such information. The information contained in this publication is intended to be general in nature and must not be relied on as specific advice in connection with any decisions you may make. Shell Global Solutions is not liable for any action you may take as a result of you relying on such material or for any loss or damage suffered by you as a result of you taking this action. Furthermore, these materials do not in any way constitute an offer to provide specific services. Some services may not be available in certain countries or political subdivisions thereof. Copyright 2010 Shell Global Solutions (US) Inc.. All copyright and other (intellectual property) rights in all text, images and other information contained in this publication are the property of Shell Global Solutions (US) Inc., or other Shell companies. Permission should be sought from Shell Global Solutions (US) Inc. before any part of this publication is reproduced, stored or transmitted by any means, electronic or mechanical including by photocopy, recording or information storage and retrieval system.
Cogen Screening & Targeting for Improved Performance
2/39
Presentation Outline
1.
Introduction
4 4 4
Some Definitions Cogen plant design/optimization Challenges in Cogen design/retrofit
2.
Cogen Screening & Targeting

4 4 4 4
Main features Cogen configurations Plant customization Results comparison
3. 4.
Case Study
4
Cogen targeting for an existing site
Conclusions and Future Work
3/39
1. I N T R O D U C T I O N
4/39
Introduction
Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Plant
i A system that satisfies the heat and power demands from other processes 4 A combined cycle plant (CCP) produces heat, but only delivers power 4 Heat and power are utilities directly consumed by users (CHP = Utility Systems)
Cogeneration
i Production of power and useful heat from a common energy source 4 Energy cascades to produce power and then meets a heating demand i Cogeneration is an operating mode for individual units in a CHP system 4 Some steam may be directly delivered by a boiler while some is expanded in a turbine
5/39
Introduction
Overview of a CHP Plant
i A series of interconnected units transforming feeds into products (utilities) 4 Flows with direct cost implications: Fuel, Power, Water, Emissions (mainly)
Atmospheric Emissions
BO HRSG GTg
Grid Electricity
Process Electricity
Several Fuels
LD
BTg
MTg
pump
Process Steam
Condensate Returns
CTg EM Deaer Fan
Shaft Power
Raw Water + Treat Chems
Treatment Plant
Heat Rejection
Cool Sys Cond
Blowdown + Water Rejects
6/39
Introduction
CHP/Cogen Plant Optimization
i Objective: Determine the flowsheet conditions that Minimize Opex 4 Establish how to operate each piece of equipment 4 For an existing site, no changes in configuration considered i Simulation / Optimization tools widely used for these applications 4 Integrated approach is needed as all variables are interrelated 4 Streams across boundaries will establish cost implications
Options for CHP Optimization:
BO BO BO HRSG GTg
Many choices to supply MP steam

LD BTg BTg
Each option has complex plant-wide implications!
MTg
7/39
Introduction
CHP/Cogen Plant Design (grassroots)
i Objective: Determine the flowsheet configuration that will minimize Total
Cost (Opex + Capex)

4 Equipment types, number of units, sizes, interconnections 4 Plus the operational variables for a given design
i Complex problem, just a few non-commercial tools have been developed 4 In general, no specialized tools to address this type of problems i Typically addressed by trial-error using (operational) simulation/optim tools! 4 Non-systematic, tedious and time-consuming
Options for CHP Design:
How many units? What types of equipment?
BO BO BO BO HRSG HRSG GTg BO HRSG GTg HRSG GTg BO BO BO GTg
How to size them? How to connect them?

HRSG GTg HRSG GTg BO BO HRSG GTg BO HRSG HRSG GTg GTg
All the operational issues
BO
8/39
Introduction
CHP/Cogen Plant Retrofit
i Objective: Determine changes in configuration that will minimize Opex +
Capex (or just min Opex for a given Capex)

4 Also design + operational variables to be defined
i A special case of the design problem with some features fixed (existing) 4 Reduced searching space compared to grassroots problems i Again, typically involves a trial-error procedure using operational tools
Options for CHP Retrofit:
9/39
Introduction
Challenges in CHP/Cogen Design/Retrofit
i Commercial software mainly intended for operational applications 4 For existing plants with a fixed configuration i Users have to figure out several configurations to test 4 Mainly based on experience, speculation on the best design i Trial-Error is time consuming and can miss better opportunities 4 May not make consistent comparisons i Other concerns: 4 What is the best a plant can achieve? (e.g. economics-efficiency-emissions) 4 E/E/E performance trends with configuration changes 4 How to size units to match a certain configuration? 4 Can other designs with similar E/E/E performance save capex
A systematic approach needed to tackle CHP design/retrofit cases
10/39
2. C O G E N S C R E E N I N G & TARGETING
11/39

Main features
i Quick screening of promising Cogen configurations 4 Side-by-side comparison basis to identify best performers i Consider Economics-Efficiency-Emissions at the same time 4 Conventionally, only one aspect taken into account i Systematic guide to define the design/retrofit of the plant 4 Practically all major options are compared 4 Ensure decisions are taken in the right direction 4 Top performers can be further evaluated for capex savings i Customization options to represent different systems 4 Practical problems encountered in industry i Alternatives beyond existing configuration for retrofit cases
Screening for New Designs + Targeting for Retrofit Cases
12/39

Data Input
i Net steam (heating) demands/surplus and headers pressures 4 Up to 4 steam headers, temperature defined from steam turbines
HEADERS' CONDITIONS
VHP
Press = Tsat =
STEAM DEMANDS/SURPLUS
psig F
630.0 494.0
VHP Steam
2 Surplus
0.00
From Process
klb/hr
Steam Flow = Aprox VHP Heat =
0.00 -145.00
From Process
MMBtu/hr
HP
Press = Tsat =
400.0 448.2
psig F
HP Steam Surplus
klb/hr
Steam Flow = Aprox HP Heat =
179.86 207.00
To Process
MMBtu/hr
MP
Press = Tsat =
250.0 406.0
psig F
MP Steam Demands
klb/hr
Steam Flow = Aprox MP Heat =
248.86 231.00
To Process
MMBtu/hr
LP
Press = Tsat = Target LP Temp =
50.0 297.7 320.0 0.597 85.0 21.6 261.4 262.0
psig F F
LP Steam Demands
klb/hr
Steam Flow = Aprox LP Heat =
255.00 683.73 293.00 622.20 404.00 511.20
MMBtu/hr
VP
Press = Temp =
psia F Net Stm Dem = MMBtu/hr klb/hr klb/hr klb/hr klb/hr
Deaerator BFW
Press Dea = Tsat Dea = Final BFW T =
psig F F
Process BFW = Condens Rtn = Proc Wtr Dem =
13/39

Data Input
i Other site data such as available fuel, power demands, prices 4 Fuel data, CO2 charges, CO2 from external power supplier
ECONOMIC DATA
SITE DATA
FUEL DATA
Pow Imp Price = Pow Exp Price = Fuel Price LHV = Econ Imp Eff = Econ Exp Eff =
58.28 58.28 6.86 40.2% 40.2%
$/MWh $/MWh $/MMBtu
Pow Demands =
36.00 122.0 77.00 2
MWe
Fuel Type = Natural Gas
2
MJ/kg MJ/kg MJ/Nm3 25C MJ/Nm3 25 C (-) (-) kg-CO2/kg-fuel kg-CO2/kg-fuel g-CO2/MJ-fuel g-CO2/MJ-fuel
Cond Return T = Mkup Wtr Temp =
F F
Fuel LHV wt = Fuel LHV wt = Fuel LHV vol =
46.28 46.50 33.56 51.00 1.107 1.10 2.589 2.50 55.942 130.00
1 1
Include DA Stm = No Onsite CO2 Chrg= Extern CO2 Chrg=
Fuel LHV vol = Fuel HHV/LHV = Fuel HHV/LHV =
30.00 0.00 1.00 0.26 1.71
$/ton $/ton
Heat Calcs Ref
Cond Return Temp 4
Exter Pow CO2 = Mkup Wtr Cost = Desal Wtr Value = Cooling Cost = $/ton-water $/ton-water $/MWh Equiv Eff = Op Hours =
0.575 35.0% 8760.0
ton/MWh
CO2 Release = CO2 Release =
hrs/yr
CO2 Release = CO2 Release =
1
LHV
LHV
14/39

Main Configuration Options
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Boilers Only (pure steam system)

4 4 4 4 4 4
Stand-alone boilers supply steam, all power imported Some power extracted in ST before delivering steam Additional VHP header to extract more power from ST Extra steam sent to condensing ST Steam: Boiler + HRSG with duct firing (SF), Power: GT + bck-press ST Steam producers sized to exactly match demands Steam: Boiler + SF-HRSG, Power: GT + BP ST + condensing ST Extra steam sent to condensing ST
Simple steam turbine extraction Enhanced ST extraction Enhanced ST extraction + Condensing Boiler + Gas Turbine with Supp-Fired HRSG Boiler + GT w SF HRSG + Condensing
4 4
6.
15/39

Main Configuration Options (cont)
7. 8. 9.
GT w SF-HRSG + Condensing
4 4 4 4 4 4
All steam from SF-HRSG, extra steam to CT ( CT= GT) GT sized to exactly match steam demands ( SF= GT) Larger GT sized to exactly match steam demands (SF=0) Additional steam sent to a condensing ST ( CT= GT)
GT w SF-HRSG GT w Unfired HRSG
10. GT w UF-HRSG + Condensing 11. GT w UF-HRSG + Exhaust Bypass

Larger GT as not all exhaust gases produce steam Even larger as some extra steam to CT
12. GT w UF-HRSG + Bypass + Condensing
16/39

Customization Options
i Performance parameters can be edited to represent different systems 4 Several units of each type can be represented (e.g. bulk efficiency) 4 Duct firing, condensing steam, GT exhaust bypass can be adjusted
INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS
Boiler Eff = ST Elec/Mech Eff = Extra Cond Duty =
85% 90% 40% 100% 80% 80% 80% 87% 34% 1.000 0.00 2.00 69% 5.0% 3.0%
%GT Gross Pow of steam ton/MWh kWe/MW-cool % Stm heating
Sup Firing =
%Max
STg1 Isen Eff = STg2 Isen Eff = STg3 Isen Eff = STg4 Isen Eff = GT Gross Eff = WHB Correction = Desal Water = Pow for Cooling = BFW pmp Eff = GT Fuel Compress Pow = BD Fraction =
17/39
3. C A S E S T U D Y C H P R E T R O F I T
18/39
Case Study
Existing CHP plant
i Main driver: Reduce CO2/Energy/Opex cost-effectively 4 What is the best the plant can achieve? How to get there?
HR2 GTg HR2 GTg HR2 GTg
BO2 P2
LD2
STG
32CWP
6RGC
1 1RGC
3WSP
1 ovhdC
4AbsP
P3
LD3
1 ChgP
7RGC
32CWP
HP LP
M P LP
P4
P DA
ai P Conden
Cool Sys CW
19/39
Case Study
Short-cut version of the system
i Performance parameters adjusted to represent the existing system 4 Letdown reflected as lower efficiency in ST power production 4 Drivers w/out electric motor option are part of steam demands
167.5 MMBtu/hr 125.0 klb/hr BO VHP 630.0 psig WHB GTg 499.8 klb/hr 0.0 / 1365.3 MMBtu/hr 136.0 MW 735.9 F 494.0 F 0.00 0.0 klb/hr STg HP 400.0 psig 0.0 MW 638.6 F 448.2 F 26.14 207.0 klb/hr STg MP 250.0 psig 4.4 MW 549.0 F 406.0 F 52.75 STg LP 50.0 psig Dea Steam 184.5 klb/hr 147.3 klb/hr STg VP 0.597 psia 85.0 F 129.6 MMBtu/hr 10.1 MW 417.8 klb/hr 19.6 MW 320.3 F 297.7 F 255.0 MMBtu/hr 231.0 klb/hr 248.9 MMBtu/hr -179.9 MMBtu/hr
STg1 Isen Eff = STg2 Isen Eff = STg3 Isen Eff = STg4 Isen Eff = GT Gross Eff = WHB Correction = Desal Water = Pow for Cooling = BFW pmp Eff = GT Fuel Compress Pow = BD Fraction = Boiler Eff =
Temps OK!
EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS 85% 90% 40% 20% 0% 80% 80% 80% 87% 34% 1.000 0.00 2.00 69% 5.0% 3.0%
%GT Gross Pow of steam ton/MWh kWe/MW-cool % Stm heating %Tot steam flow %Max
0.0 MMBtu/hr 0.0 klb/hr
ST Elec/Mech Eff = Extra Cond Duty = Boiler Output = Sup Firing =
5.2 MW -145.0 klb/hr
0.0 MW 207.0 klb/hr
20/39
Case Study
Results 1) Boilers Only
i Typically the reference case as simplest and lowest-capex design 4 All power from external grid, note de-aeration steam for process boilers
OK: Steam is being supplied to the Process Onsite Pow = Power Import = Power Cost = Net Steam Duty =
423.7 MMBtu/hr BO HP 400.0 psig 326.8 klb/hr 644.5 F 448.2 F 59.52 LD MP 250.0 psig 625.6 F 406.0 F 34.26 LD LP 50.0 psig Dea Steam 66.3 klb/hr 598.6 F 297.7 F 255.0 MMBtu/hr 205.0 klb/hr 271.3 klb/hr 248.9 MMBtu/hr 200.1 klb/hr 471.4 klb/hr -179.9 MMBtu/hr -144.6 klb/hr
-0.5 36.5 18.6 324.0 260.5 423.7 25.5 0.0 0.0 0.00
MW MW MM$/yr MMBtu/hr klb/hr MMBtu/hr MM$/yr MMBtu/hr klb/hr MM$/yr
Net Process Stm = Fuel Input = Fuel Cost = Cooling Duty = Desal Potential = Cool Net Cost=
Onsite CO2 = Extern CO2 = CO2 Cost = Pow/Heat Ratio = Power Eff = CHP Eff = Net Opex =
219.0 183.6 6.57 -0.005 0.0% 76.5% 50.64
kton/yr kton/yr MM$/yr Net Pow/Stm % % MM$/yr
21/39
Case Study
Results 2) Simple ST Extraction
i Simple extraction enables some onsite power production 4 Steam temps and flows slightly different
OK: Steam is being supplied to the Process Onsite Pow = Power Import = Power Cost = Net Steam Duty = 478.3 MMBtu/hr BO HP 400.0 psig 368.9 klb/hr 644.5 F 448.2 F 26.09 206.6 klb/hr STg MP 250.0 psig 2.1 MW 553.1 F 406.0 F 38.76 306.9 klb/hr STg LP 50.0 psig Dea Steam 75.9 klb/hr 11.3 MW 320.0 F 297.7 F 255.0 MMBtu/hr 231.0 klb/hr 248.9 MMBtu/hr Onsite CO2 = Extern CO2 = CO2 Cost = Pow/Heat Ratio = Power Eff = CHP Eff = Net Opex = 247.3 116.1 7.42 0.136 9.2% 77.0% 47.93 kton/yr kton/yr MM$/yr Net Pow/Stm % % MM$/yr -179.9 MMBtu/hr -144.6 klb/hr Temps OK! Net Process Stm = Fuel Input = Fuel Cost = Cooling Duty = Desal Potential = Cool Net Cost= 13.0 23.0 11.8 324.0 293.0 478.3 28.7 0.0 0.0 0.00 MW MW MM$/yr MMBtu/hr klb/hr MMBtu/hr MM$/yr MMBtu/hr klb/hr MM$/yr
0.0 MW 206.6 klb/hr
*All STs shown on the diagram
22/39
Case Study
Results 3) Enhanced ST Extraction
i Marginally lower opex w higher steam press for power production 4 Additional fuel cancels benefits of extra power
OK: Steam is being supplied to the Process
492.9 MMBtu/hr BO VHP 600.0 psig 368.9 klb/hr 725.8 F 488.9 F 0.00 0.0 klb/hr STg HP 400.0 psig 0.0 MW 639.2 F 448.2 F 26.13 207.0 klb/hr STg MP 250.0 psig 4.1 MW 549.4 F 406.0 F 20.45 162.0 klb/hr STg LP 50.0 psig Dea Steam 75.9 klb/hr 7.4 MW 320.0 F 297.7 F 255.0 MMBtu/hr 231.0 klb/hr 248.9 MMBtu/hr -179.9 MMBtu/hr 0.0 MMBtu/hr 0.0 klb/hr Temps OK!
Onsite Pow = Power Import = Power Cost = Net Steam Duty = Net Process Stm = Fuel Input = Fuel Cost = Cooling Duty = Desal Potential = Cool Net Cost=
16.3 19.7 10.08 324.0 293.0 492.9 29.62 0.0 0.0 0.00
5.2 MW -145.0 klb/hr
254.8 99.4 7.64 0.171 11.3% 77.0% 47.34
0.0 MW 207.0 klb/hr
*STs expanding process steam surplus to LP not shown
23/39
Case Study
Results 4) Enhanced ST Extraction + Condensing
i Extra steam expanded all the way to condensing 4 Higher opex as fuel/emissions costs offset savings in power
OK: Steam is being supplied to the Process 667.6 MMBtu/hr BO VHP 600.0 psig 499.8 klb/hr 725.8 F 488.9 F 0.00 0.0 klb/hr STg HP 400.0 psig 0.0 MW 639.2 F 448.2 F 26.13 207.0 klb/hr STg MP 250.0 psig 4.1 MW 549.4 F 406.0 F 36.97 292.8 klb/hr STg LP 50.0 psig Dea Steam 96.3 klb/hr 110.5 klb/hr STg VP 0.597 psig 85.0 F 97.2 MMBtu/hr 7.6 MW 13.4 MW 320.0 F 297.7 F 255.0 MMBtu/hr 231.0 klb/hr 248.9 MMBtu/hr
Onsite CO2 = Extern CO2 = CO2 Cost = Pow/Heat Ratio = Power Eff = CHP Eff = Net Opex = 345.2 32.1 10.36 0.312 15.1% 63.7% 54.16 kton/yr kton/yr MM$/yr Net Pow/Stm % % MM$/yr
Temps OK!
Onsite Pow = Power Import = Power Cost =
29.6 6.4 3.26 324.0 293.0 667.6 40.12 97.2 0.0 0.43
Net Steam Duty = Net Process Stm = Fuel Input = Fuel Cost =
-179.9 MMBtu/hr
Cooling Duty = Desal Potential = Cool Net Cost=
5.2 MW -145.0 klb/hr
0.0 MW 207.0 klb/hr
24/39
Case Study
Results 5) Boiler + GT w SF-HRSG
i Opex decreases as boiler steam share is reduced (transition to pow export) 4 GT+SF-HRSG is more efficient to produce steam and power than BO+ST
246.4 MMBtu/hr 184.5 klb/hr BO VHP 600.0 psig WHB GTg 184.5 klb/hr 96.2 / 231.9 MMBtu/hr 22.8 MW 725.8 F 488.9 F 0.00 0.0 klb/hr STg HP 400.0 psig 0.0 MW 639.2 F 448.2 F 26.13 207.0 klb/hr STg MP 250.0 psig 4.1 MW 549.4 F 406.0 F 20.45 STg LP 50.0 psig Dea Steam 75.9 klb/hr 162.0 klb/hr 7.4 MW 320.0 F 297.7 F 255.0 MMBtu/hr 231.0 klb/hr 248.9 MMBtu/hr -179.9 MMBtu/hr 0.0 MMBtu/hr 0.0 klb/hr Temps OK!
38.0 -2.0 -1.00 324.0 293.0 574.5 34.53 0.0 0.0 0.00
5.2 MW -145.0 klb/hr
297.0 -9.8 8.91 0.400 22.5% 78.9% 42.44
0.0 MW 207.0 klb/hr
25/39
Case Study
Results 6) Boiler + GT w SF-HRSG + Condensing
i GT+HRSG reduces opex, but BO+CT is not cost-effective 4 Opex varies with boiler steam share and % duct firing in HRSG
OK: Steam is being supplied to the Process 333.8 MMBtu/hr 249.9 klb/hr BO VHP 600.0 psig 130.3 / 316.1 MMBtu/hr WHB GTg 249.9 klb/hr 31.5 MW 725.8 F 488.9 F 0.00 0.0 klb/hr STg HP 400.0 psig 0.0 MW 639.2 F 448.2 F 26.13 207.0 klb/hr STg MP 250.0 psig 4.1 MW 549.4 F 406.0 F 36.97 STg LP 50.0 psig Dea Steam 184.5 klb/hr 110.5 klb/hr STg VP 0.597 psia 85.0 F 129.6 MMBtu/hr 10.1 MW 292.8 klb/hr 13.4 MW 320.0 F 297.7 F 255.0 MMBtu/hr 231.0 klb/hr 248.9 MMBtu/hr Onsite CO2 = Extern CO2 = CO2 Cost = Pow/Heat Ratio = Power Eff = CHP Eff = Net Opex = 403.4 -118.6 12.10 0.627 26.0% 67.6% 47.39 kton/yr kton/yr MM$/yr Net Pow/Stm % % MM$/yr -179.9 MMBtu/hr 0.0 MMBtu/hr 0.0 klb/hr Temps OK! Onsite Pow = Power Import = Power Cost = Net Steam Duty = Net Process Stm = Fuel Input = Fuel Cost = Cooling Duty = Desal Potential = Cool Net Cost= 59.5 -23.5 -12.02 324.0 293.0 780.2 46.89 97.2 0.0 0.43 MW MW MM$/yr MMBtu/hr klb/hr MMBtu/hr MM$/yr MMBtu/hr klb/hr MM$/yr
5.2 MW -145.0 klb/hr
0.0 MW 207.0 klb/hr
26/39
Case Study
Results 7) GT w SF-HRSG + Condensing
i Lower opex without boilers, but condensing still impacts opex 4 Opex varies with condensing duty and % duct firing in HRSG
260.6 / 628.2 MMBtu/hr WHB VHP 600.0 psig GTg 499.8 klb/hr 61.9 MW 725.8 F 488.9 F 0.00 0.0 klb/hr STg HP 400.0 psig 0.0 MW 639.2 F 448.2 F 26.13 207.0 klb/hr STg MP 250.0 psig 4.1 MW 549.4 F 406.0 F 36.97 292.8 klb/hr STg LP 50.0 psig Dea Steam 96.3 klb/hr 110.5 klb/hr STg VP 0.597 psia 85.0 F 97.2 MMBtu/hr 7.6 MW 13.4 MW 320.0 F 297.7 F
Temps OK!
98.0 -62.0 -31.64 324.0 293.0 966.4 58.08 129.6 0.0 0.57
-179.9 MMBtu/hr
5.2 MW -145.0 klb/hr
248.9 MMBtu/hr
Onsite CO2 = Extern CO2 = CO2 Cost = Pow/Heat Ratio =
499.7 -312.2 14.99 1.032 34.6% 68.1% 41.99
0.0 MW 207.0 klb/hr
Power Eff = CHP Eff = Net Opex =
27/39
Case Study
Results 8) GT w SF-HRSG
i Eliminating boilers and condensing reduces opex even further 4 Opex varies with % duct firing in HRSG
192.4 / 463.8 MMBtu/hr WHB VHP 600.0 psig GTg 368.9 klb/hr 45.7 MW 725.8 F 488.9 F 0.00 0.0 klb/hr STg HP 400.0 psig 0.0 MW 639.2 F 448.2 F 26.13 207.0 klb/hr STg MP 250.0 psig 4.1 MW 549.4 F 406.0 F 20.45 STg LP 50.0 psig Dea Steam 75.9 klb/hr 162.0 klb/hr 7.4 MW 320.0 F 297.7 F
Temps OK!
59.6 -23.6 -12.07 324.0 293.0 656.2 39.43 0.0 0.0 0.00
-179.9 MMBtu/hr
5.2 MW -145.0 klb/hr
248.9 MMBtu/hr
339.3 -119.1 10.18 0.628 31.0% 80.4% 37.54
0.0 MW 207.0 klb/hr
28/39
Case Study
Results 9) GT w UF-HRSG
i Unfired HRSG allows installing a larger GT for additional power 4 >Power Eff, but <CHP Eff, Opex Last case due to <HRSG Eff in UF mode
0.0 / 997.8 MMBtu/hr WHB VHP 600.0 psig GTg 368.9 klb/hr 98.3 MW 725.8 F 488.9 F 0.00 0.0 klb/hr STg HP 400.0 psig 0.0 MW 639.2 F 448.2 F 26.13 207.0 klb/hr STg MP 250.0 psig 4.1 MW 549.4 F 406.0 F 20.45 STg LP 50.0 psig Dea Steam 75.9 klb/hr 162.0 klb/hr 7.4 MW 320.0 F 297.7 F 255.0 MMBtu/hr 231.0 klb/hr 248.9 MMBtu/hr -179.9 MMBtu/hr 0.0 MMBtu/hr 0.0 klb/hr Temps OK!
109.6 -73.6 -37.58 324.0 293.0 997.8 59.96 0.0 0.0 0.00
5.2 MW -145.0 klb/hr
515.9 -370.8 15.48 1.154 37.5% 70.0% 37.86
0.0 MW 207.0 klb/hr
29/39
Case Study
Results 10) GT w UF-HRSG + Condensing
i Larger GT+UF-HRSG, more power output, and higher power efficiency 4 However, <CHP Eff and >Opex, still fuel/CO2 costs offset power revenue
0.0 / 1351.7 MMBtu/hr WHB VHP 600.0 psig GTg 499.8 klb/hr 133.1 MW 725.8 F 488.9 F 0.00 0.0 klb/hr STg HP 400.0 psig 0.0 MW 639.2 F 448.2 F 26.13 207.0 klb/hr STg MP 250.0 psig 4.1 MW 549.4 F 406.0 F 36.97 STg LP 50.0 psig Dea Steam 96.3 klb/hr 110.5 klb/hr STg VP 0.597 psia 85.0 F 97.2 MMBtu/hr 7.6 MW 292.8 klb/hr 13.4 MW 320.0 F 297.7 F
Temps OK!
156.1 -120.1 -61.30 324.0 293.0 1351.7 81.23 97.2 0.0 0.43
MWe MWe MM$/yr MMBtu/hr klb/hr MMBtu/hr MM$/yr MMBtu/hr klb/hr MM$/yr
-179.9 MMBtu/hr
5.2 MW -145.0 klb/hr
248.9 MMBtu/hr
698.9 -604.8 20.97 1.644 39.4% 63.4% 41.32
0.0 MW 207.0 klb/hr
30/39
Case Study
Results 11) GT w UF-HRSG + Bypass
i GT size fully decoupled from steam demands and condensing 4 More GT output, but <Power & CHP Efficiencies, and >Opex
Bpass = 50.0% WHB VHP 600.0 psig
0.0 / 1995.7 MMBtu/hr 196.5 MW 725.8 F 488.9 F GTg 368.9 klb/hr
Temps OK!
203.0 -167.0 -85.24 324.0 293.0 1995.7 119.93 0.0 0.0 0.00
MWe MWe MM$/yr MMBtu/hr klb/hr MMBtu/hr MM$/yr MMBtu/hr klb/hr MM$/yr
0.00
0.0 klb/hr STg 0.0 MW 639.2 F 448.2 F
HP 400.0 psig
-179.9 MMBtu/hr
26.13
207.0 klb/hr STg 4.1 MW
5.2 MW -145.0 klb/hr
MP 250.0 psig
549.4 F 406.0 F 248.9 MMBtu/hr Onsite CO2 = Extern CO2 = CO2 Cost = Pow/Heat Ratio = 255.0 MMBtu/hr 231.0 klb/hr 0.0 MW Power Eff = CHP Eff = Net Opex = 1031.8 -841.0 30.96 2.137 34.7% 50.9% 65.65 kton/yr kton/yr MM$/yr Net Pow/Stm % % MM$/yr
20.45 STg LP 50.0 psig Dea Steam 75.9 klb/hr
162.0 klb/hr 7.4 MW
0.0 MW 207.0 klb/hr
320.0 F 297.7 F 0.0 klb/hr STg
VP 0.597 psia 85.0 F 0.0 MMBtu/hr
31/39
Case Study
Results 12) GT w UF-HRSG + Bypass + Condensing
i Even larger GT for the same %bypass, but penalty from condensing too 4 A way to produce more power if it were cost effective
Bpass = 50.0% 0.0 MMBtu/hr 0.0 klb/hr BO WHB GTg 499.8 klb/hr 0.0 / 2703.3 MMBtu/hr 266.2 MW 725.8 F 488.9 F 0.00 0.0 klb/hr STg HP 400.0 psig 0.0 MW 639.2 F 448.2 F 26.13 207.0 klb/hr STg MP 250.0 psig 4.1 MW 549.4 F 406.0 F 36.97 STg LP 50.0 psig Dea Steam 96.3 klb/hr 110.5 klb/hr STg VP 0.597 psia 85.0 F 97.2 MMBtu/hr 7.6 MW 292.8 klb/hr 13.4 MW 320.0 F 297.7 F 255.0 MMBtu/hr 231.0 klb/hr 248.9 MMBtu/hr -179.9 MMBtu/hr 0.0 MMBtu/hr 0.0 klb/hr Temps OK!
282.5 -246.5 -125.85 324.0 293.0 2703.3 162.45 97.2 0.0 0.43
VHP 600.0 psig
5.2 MW -145.0 klb/hr
1397.7 -1241.7 41.93 2.975 35.7% 47.6% 78.96
0.0 MW 207.0 klb/hr
32/39
Case Study
Performance Results: Improved R-Curves
i Conventional R-curves only for limited configurations and equipment sizes 4 Proposed approach customizable to represent different systems i Portraying the efficiency trends of (practically) all options
R-Curves for diff CHP Configurations 90%
80%
70%
60% Efficiency
50%
CHP Efficiency Power Efficiency

GT+UF+ST+CT GT+SF+ST+CT GT+UF+ST+Bpass
40%
GT+SF+ST
30%
BO+GT+SF+ST
20%
BO+ST+CT
10%
BO+ST
0% 0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
Power/Heat Ratio, MWe/MWth
33/39
Case Study
Performance Results: Improved R-Curves
i Depending on specific site conditions, trends can be different 4 Configurations and sizes will affect site performance 4 E.g. condensing reduces CHP efficiency (but improves power efficiency)
R-Curves for diff CHP Configurations 90% 80% 70% 60% CHP Efficiency 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0.00 BO+ST BO+GT+SF+ST GT+SF+ST GT+SF+ST+CT BO+ST+CT GT+UF+ST+CT GT+UF+ST+Bpass
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
34/39
Case Study
Economic Results: E-Curves
i Efficiency not always equivalent to cost-effectiveness 4 Decisions should be also supported by economics i Note the divergent trends in fuel and power costs
Economic Curves for diff CHP Configurations
200
150
Tot Cost Fuel Cost Pow Cost
100
Annual Cost, MM$/yr
50
0 0.00
BO+ST
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
-50
BO+ST+CT BO+GT+SF+ST GT+SF+ST
-100
GT+SF+ST+CT GT+UF+ST+CT
-150
GT+UF+ST+Bpass
-200 Power/Heat Ratio, MWe/MWth
35/39
Case Study
Fuel Chargeable to Power: Fuel-Power Curves
i How much extra fuel to produce additional power 4 Onsite cost of producing power
Extra Power Cost for different CHP Configurations
BO = Stand Alone Boiler BST = Back-Press Steam Turbine CST = Condensing Steam Turbine GT = Gas Turbine 100%SF = F ully fired HRSG 0%UF = Unfired HRSG Bpass = Bypass HRSG GT Exhaust
90 BO+BST 80 BO+BST+CST
Note 1) BO+BST+CST may show a constant value since BO+BST is taken as reference Note 2) F or lower site power, extra cost drops down to zero
70
60
Extra Power Cost, $/MWh
50
GT+0%UF+BST+Bp ass
40 BO+GT+100%SF+BST GT+100%SF+BST+CST 30 GT+0%UF+BST GT+50%SF+BST GT+0%UF+BST+CST
20
GT+100%SF+BST 10
0 0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 On s ite Po wer, MW e 500.0 600.0 700.0 800.0
36/39
Case Study
Economic Results: E-Curves
i This approach provides insight to the design process 4 E.g. even if efficiency is reduced, condensing can be cost-effective i Note that min Opex happens when eliminating duct firing 4 Largest GT size without bypassing the HRSG Economic Curves for diff CHP Configurations
90 80
70 BO+ST+CT GT+UF+ST+Bpass
60 Annual Cost, MM$/yr BO+ST
50
GT+SF+ST+CT BO+GT+SF+ST GT+UF+ST+CT GT+SF+ST
40
30
20
10
0 0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50 Power/Heat Ratio, MWe/MWth
2.00
2.50
3.00
37/39
Case Study
CO2 Emissions: CO2-Curves
i To identify the design options that minimize CO2 emissions 4 E.g. impact of CO2 taxes or cost to reduce the emissions i Trends in onsite and overall CO2 footprint
CO2 Curves for diff CHP Configurations
1500 Onsite CO2 Extern CO2 1000 Tot CO2
CO2 Emissions, kton/yr
500
0 0.00
BO+ST
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
-500
BO+ST+CT
BO+GT+SF+ST GT+SF+ST GT+SF+ST+CT
-1000
GT+UF+ST+CT
GT+UF+ST+Bpass
-1500 Power/Heat Ratio, MWe/MWth
38/39
Case Study
CO2 Emissions: CO2-Curves
i Trends can significantly change with individual factors 4 Overall emissions vary with internal and external power efficiencies
500 450 400 CO2 Emissions, kton/yr 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0.00 GT+UF+ST+CT BO+GT+SF+ST GT+SF+ST+CT GT+UF+ST+Bpass BO+ST+CT BO+ST Tot CO2
GT+SF+ST
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
39/39
Case Study
CO2 Emmissions: CO2-Curves
i Impact of increasing external efficiency from 35% to 50% 4 In this case, loading the CT increases overall CO2 4 Less emissions by importing power from a more efficient external source
700
600
Tot CO2
500 CO2 Emissions, kton/yr
400 BO+ST 300
BO+ST+CT BO+GT+SF+ST GT+SF+ST+CT GT+UF+ST+Bpass
GT+SF+ST 200
GT+UF+ST+CT
100
0 0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
40/39
Conclusions & Future Work

h An integrated approach for screening CHP options have been proposed
4 Blending standard calculations with novel features
h Consistent comparison framework to quickly identify promising options

4 Effect of different configurations and equipment sizes on performance 4 Performance: Fuel usage (efficiency), economics, CO2 emissions (E/E/E) 4 Alternatives can be evaluated side-by-side on a consistent basis 4 Can be tailored to represent a specific site or type of plant
h This approach guides the design process in a systematic way

4 Document and support decisions (in the right direction), rather than trial-error
h Screening tool for new designs / Targeting tool for existing sites
4 Best configurations for a new design / best an existing site can achieve
h Still a work in progress:

4 Need more cases to be tested 4 Include other options (desalination, capex)
41/39
CHP Screening for Improved Performance and CO2 Reduction: Revisiting the R-Curves
By Oscar Aguilar San Antonio, TX March 2010
Oscar.Aguilar@shell.com
Spring Meeting 2010

2009 Shell Global Solutions (US) Inc. All rights reserved.

AIChE 2011 Cogen Screening 05

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

AIChE 2011 Cogen Screening 05

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Cogen Screening for Improved Performance and CO2 Reduction: Revisiting the R-Curves

By Oscar Aguilar March 2011

2009 Shell Global Solutions (US) Inc. All rights reserved.

Cogen Screening & Targeting for Improved Performance

Some Definitions Cogen plant design/optimization Challenges in Cogen design/retrofit

Cogen Screening & Targeting

Main features Cogen configurations Plant customization Results comparison

Cogen targeting for an existing site

Conclusions and Future Work

Cogen Screening & Targeting for Improved Performance

Cogen Screening & Targeting for Improved Performance

Cogen Screening & Targeting for Improved Performance

CTg EM Deaer Fan

Raw Water + Treat Chems

Blowdown + Water Rejects

Cogen Screening & Targeting for Improved Performance

Many choices to supply MP steam

Each option has complex plant-wide implications!

Cogen Screening & Targeting for Improved Performance

Cost (Opex + Capex)

How to size them? How to connect them?

All the operational issues

Cogen Screening & Targeting for Improved Performance

Capex (or just min Opex for a given Capex)

Cogen Screening & Targeting for Improved Performance

A systematic approach needed to tackle CHP design/retrofit cases

Cogen Screening & Targeting for Improved Performance

Cogen Screening & Targeting for Improved Performance

Cogen Screening & Targeting

Screening for New Designs + Targeting for Retrofit Cases

Cogen Screening & Targeting for Improved Performance

Cogen Screening & Targeting

Steam Flow = Aprox VHP Heat =

Steam Flow = Aprox HP Heat =

Steam Flow = Aprox MP Heat =

Press = Tsat = Target LP Temp =

50.0 297.7 320.0 0.597 85.0 21.6 261.4 262.0

Steam Flow = Aprox LP Heat =

255.00 683.73 293.00 622.20 404.00 511.20

psia F Net Stm Dem = MMBtu/hr klb/hr klb/hr klb/hr klb/hr

Press Dea = Tsat Dea = Final BFW T =

Process BFW = Condens Rtn = Proc Wtr Dem =

Cogen Screening & Targeting for Improved Performance

Cogen Screening & Targeting

58.28 58.28 6.86 40.2% 40.2%

$/MWh $/MWh $/MMBtu

36.00 122.0 77.00 2

Fuel Type = Natural Gas

Cond Return T = Mkup Wtr Temp =

Fuel LHV wt = Fuel LHV wt = Fuel LHV vol =

Include DA Stm = No Onsite CO2 Chrg= Extern CO2 Chrg=

Fuel LHV vol = Fuel HHV/LHV = Fuel HHV/LHV =

30.00 0.00 1.00 0.26 1.71

Heat Calcs Ref

Cond Return Temp 4

0.575 35.0% 8760.0

CO2 Release = CO2 Release =

CO2 Release = CO2 Release =

Cogen Screening & Targeting for Improved Performance

Cogen Screening & Targeting

Boilers Only (pure steam system)

Cogen Screening & Targeting for Improved Performance

Cogen Screening & Targeting