Fast-tracking CCS

Commercialisation through
Modelling and Simulation
Eni Oko and Meihong Wang
Process and Energy Systems Research Group, School of Engineering
University of Hull HU6 7RX, United Kingdom

IChemE Hull and Humber Event: Summer Social and CCS Technical Talk
July 29, 2015, Minerva Hotel Hull

Process and Energy Systems Research

Prof Meihong Wang

Group Leader

3 Research staff, 9 PhDs and

academic visitors

Research area:
Power plant, CO2 capture and transport processes, Bio-energy, Energy storage
Collaborators:
Industry >> COSTAIN, Alstom, CCS Ltd etc.
Academia >> Imperial College, Newcastle, Sheffield, Tsinghua (China),
Valenciennes (France) etc.
Funding:
EPSRC, DECC, EU Marie Curie etc

Outline
Background

Status of commercial CCS projects

Challenges facing CCS commercialization
Solvent screening
Process configuration for PCC
Retrofitting PCC to power plant
Steady state/Dynamic simulations
Conclusion

1. Background

1.1 Climate change

Greenhouse gases (76% CO2)
Average temperature rise more than 2oC = disaster!
800 ppm by 2100 >>>>> Average global temperature rise of 4oC

Global averages of surface warming

(relative to 1980-1999)1

Concentration of atmospheric CO2 (ppm)2

1.2 Consequences

1.3 Mind-boggling CO2 stat

CO2 is mostly from power generation sector
500 MWe Coal-fired subcritical power plant emits about 10000 tons of CO2/day
Similar size CCGT power plant emits about 4000 tons of CO2/day
Thousands of coal-fired and gas-fired power plants in operation globally

Concentration of atmospheric CO2 (ppm)3

UK Grid watch4

1.4 Cap CO2 emission: Options

CO2 emission to be halved by 2050
CCS offers economic and realistic option for CERT by 2050
CO2 emission reduction will cost more without CCS (up to 70%)

IEA BLUE Map Scenario5

1.2 Options for CCS

Post-combustion CO2 (PCC) is the most matured CCS technology route
Retrofit capability
Relies on established technologies
High technology readiness level (TRL)
Most first generation CCS projects based on PCC

2. Status of commercial CCS projects

2.1 Existing/Planned CCS Projects

Boundary Dam CCS,
Canada, (2014)

Kemper County
CCS, Mississippi
(2015)

Petra Nova CCS,

Texas (2016)

For more on CCS projects, refer to MIT CCS Database 5

ROAD CCS,
Netherland (2017)

Peterhead CCS,
Scotland (2017)

White Rose CCS,

(2017)

3. Challenges facing CCS commercial projects

.1 Challenges
Ridiculous cost/MWe generated
SaskPower (Boundary Dam) convinced to cut cost by 20-30% in future projects
Boundary Dam competitive with CCGT with revenues from sales of CO2,
sulphuric acid and fly ash
Energy penalty >>> Build more plants!
Total Cost ($ Billion)
6

5.6

4.0

2.9

3
2
1
0

Power Output (MWe)

1.7
1.0

1.4

1.6

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

.1 Challenges
Pipeline route corridor
Nearness of sites to densely populated area

Storage site
In Salah, Algeria project (2004-11)
Onshore storage ban (Netherland, 2010)

.1 Challenges
Government policies
Carbon price under the EU ETS (/tCO2)
Technological uncertainty
Many stakeholders with varying interests

European Emission Allowance (EUA) EEX 6

.2 Cancelled/Suspended CCS projects

Nuon Magnum CCS, Netherland

Suspended due to new law on onshore storage

Tenaska (Trailblazer) CCS, Texas

Cancelled due to lack of commercial viability

GETICA Demo CCS, Romania

Suspended due to lack of funding

Longannet CCS, Scotland

Cancelled due to lack of commercial viability

AEP Mountaineer CCS Phase II, Texas

Cancelled due to unknown climate policy

Porto Telle CCS, Italy

Suspended due to legislative and permitting issues

4. Solvent screening

.1 Solvents for PCC

Aqueous Monoethanolamine (MEA)

Equipment corrosion

High solvent degradation

High regeneration energy requirement

Environmental problems due to fugitive

emissions
Large equipment sizes due to high
circulation rates

Efficiency penalty of 10-12%

Low cost

Process comparison7

.1 Solvents for PCC

Amine-based solvents
Methyl-Diethanolamine (MDEA)
Piperazine (PZ)
Piperidine (PIP)
Diethanolamine (DEA)

Absorption efficency8

Methyl-monoethanolamine (MMEA)
Diglycolamine (DGA)
Diisopropylamine (DIPA)
Piperazinyl-1,2-ethylamine (PZEA)
2-Amino-2-methyl-1-propanol (AMP)
Amine solvent blends
Regeneration efficency8

.1 Solvents for PCC

Non amine-based solvents

Proprietary solvents

Aqueous ammonia

KS-1 (KM-CDR)

Chilled ammonia
High energy demand
Ionic liquid

Petra-Nova CCS
CanSolv (Shell)
Boundary Dam CCS

Low environmental impact

ABB Lummus/Kerr McGee

Great thermal stability

Siemens PostCap

High boiling point

Flour Econamine FGSM and FG PlusSM

Flue gas cooler unnecessary

Chilled Ammonia Process (Alstom)

High viscosity >> bad news!

Mountaineer CCS Phase 1

Very expensive

5. Process configurations for PCC

Conventional PCC9

+ Condensate heating case9

+ Absorber intercooler case9

+ Condensate evacuation and evaporation case 9

+ Stripper overhead compression case9

+ Multi-pressure stripping case9

+ Lean amine flash case9

+ Heat integration case9

+ Split-amine flow case9

+ Multiple modifications (absorber intercooling, condensate evaporation and lean amine flash) case 9

6. Retrofitting PCC to power plant

6.1 Retrofit requirements

Flue gas connection to absorber >> Cooler, desulphurization, blower etc

Reboiler steam
Upstream power plant cycle >> Condensate return to power cycle
Auxiliary boiler power externally by solar, natural gas etc suggested
Stripper pressure of about 1.90 bar (Reboiler temperature of about 120oC, Reboiler steam
needed at 3-4 bar , Energy of 1-6 MW/kg CO2 is needed)

6.2 Steam cycle options

+ New LP cylinder and let-down turbine case 10

+ Pass-out backpressure turbine case10

(from hot RH or IP exit depending on access and pressures available and required)

+ Two backpressure turbine case10

+ Two throttle valves case10

(from hot RH or IP exit depending on access and pressures available and required)

+ Ancillary boiler and optional BP turbine case 10

6.2 Steam cycle options

Integrated CCGT and coal-fired power plant case 11

7. Steady state/Dynamic simulations

7.2 Steady state simulation

What should be the capacity of downstream CCS systems?
Operating boundaries for CCS at different power plant load?
How different variables respond as load changes? Etc
E.g. 500 MWe coal-fired subcritical power plant

Absorber sizes

7.2 Dynamic simulation

Can CCS units cope with the inevitable and persistent changes in load
without limiting the desired flexible capability of the power plant?
Small changes in load will not cause significant fluctuations along transport
pipeline for PCC. This is not the case for Oxyfuel!
PCC is considerably slower > special control design!

8. Modelling and simulation tools

gPROMS ModelBuilder/gCCS

Aspen Plus

Mobatec Modeller

OLGA

9. Conclusion

 CCS is a bridging technology for reaching low carbon energy future

First commercial CCS project has taken off regardless of cancellations of many
Many projects will become operational soon
Regardless, commercialisation plans beset by lots of difficulties
Process modelling and simulation is an economic, sustainable and safe option for
improving CCS design and operation and thereby hasten its commercialization

References
1.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html [Accessed July, 2015]

2.

http://co2now.org/ [Accessed July, 2015]

3.

IEA, 2011. CO2 emission from fuel combustion highlights

4.

IEA, 2010. Energy technology perspectives: Scenarios and strategy to 2050. Available at:
http://www.iea.org/techno/etp/etp10/English.pdf [Accessed Sept., 2014]

5.

MIT CCS Database. http://sequestration.mit.edu/index.htmlA

6.

EEA EEX. https://www.eex.com/en/market-data/emission-allowances/spot-market/european-emissionallowances#!/2015/07/29

7.

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. Flue gas CO2 capture. Available at:
http://gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/energy_workshops_04_04/carbon_iijima.pdf [Accessed July, 2015]

8.

Dubois, L and Thomas, D. Screening aqueous amine-based solvents for post-combustion CO 2 capture by chemical absorption.
Chem. Eng. Technol. 2012, 35, No. 3, 513524

9.

Ahn, H., Luberti, M., Liu, Z. and Brandani, S. Process configuration studies of the amine capture process for coal-fired power
plants. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 16 (2013) 2940

10. Lucquiaud, M. and Gibbins, J. Steam cycle options for the retrofit of coal and gas power plants with post-combustion capture.
Energy Procedia 4 (2011) 1812-1819
11. Rio, M.S., Lucquiaud, M. and Gibbins, J. Maintaining the power output of an existing coal plant with the addition of CO 2:
Retrofits options with gas turbine combined cycle plants. Energy Procedia 63 (2014) 2530-2541

Thank you for your Attention!

Contact:
Prof Meihong Wang
Tel.: +44 1482 466688
E-mail address: Meihong.Wang@hull.ac.uk
Dr Eni Oko
Tel.: +44 (0) 7447947024
E-mail address: e.oko@hull.ac.uk