co2 capture - ccs-r wb - 29102014(0)
TRANSCRIPT
1
Boiler
Coal
Air
Steam
Power generation and heat recovery
Flue gas conditioning
Flue gas
CO2 capture system
CO2 dehydration and
compression
SO2, NO2
Clean flue gas
CO2
CO2 to Pipeline
Scope of Work
Bojonegara (2x1000 MWe) Sumsel-6 (1x600 MWe)
STUDY OF CO2 CAPTURE FOR BOJONEGARA AND SUMSEL-6 POWER PLANT
4 subsystem will be evaluated
1 2
3
4
Plant retrofit
CO2 Clean Gas
Feed Gas
Absorber Column
CO2 Gas
Reboiler
Regeneration ColumnSolvent
Makeup
Blower
DirectContactCooler
Flue gas from FGD
2
Post Combustion CO2 Capture – 2nd subsystem
Flue gas stream which contains CO2 is captured utilizing absorptive acid gas.
MEA (Monoethanolamine) amine solvent is selected as the basis of the study.
Commercial amine process vendor : ABB Lummus, Fluor Daniels, Shell Cansolv
Rich amine
Lean amine
STUDY OF CO2 CAPTURE FOR BOJONEGARA AND SUMSEL-6 POWER PLANT
3
Simulation has been conducted by using Aspen Hysys v.8.6
MEA absorber column is operated at 1.1 bar CO2 stripper is operated at 1.8 bar
Simulation and Assumptions
Pump and blower efficiency = 75% Lean/rich exchanger min. temperature approach > 10oC
STUDY OF CO2 CAPTURE FOR BOJONEGARA AND SUMSEL-6 POWER PLANT
4STUDY OF CO2 CAPTURE FOR BOJONEGARA AND SUMSEL-6 POWER PLANT
CO2 Conditioning– 3rd subsystem
CO2 is compressed and dehydrated to meet pipeline specification
Compression Section
(3 stage)
Water dehydration (adsorption)
Final Compression
to Pipeline
Molecular sieve 3ACO2 from scrubber
CO2 to pipeline
99% CO2
1% H2O5 ppm N2
1 ppm O2
99.9% CO2
20 ppm H2O
5STUDY OF CO2 CAPTURE FOR BOJONEGARA AND SUMSEL-6 POWER PLANT
Energy Penalty for Various CO2 Capture Scenario
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000
22.50%
45%
90%
1778
1596
1172
222
404
828
Electrical Energy (MWe)
CO
2C
aptu
re R
eco
very
Available Net Electricity CCS Energy Demand
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
30%
60%
90%
508
426
341
92
174
259
Electrical Energy (MWe)
CO
2C
aptu
re R
eco
very
Available Net Electricity CCS Energy Demand
As much as ~42% energy is allocated for CCS System
Coal power plant w/ CCS
needs to burn 40% more
fuel to achieve initial
power output w/o CCS
“Energy Penalty for Retrofit Post Combustion Capture ≈ 40% “ (Folger, 2010)
IMPACT
6
Capital Expenditure Comparison (Bojonegara)
Pulverized coal power plant
with CO2
capture2000 MW
Comparison to CCS Study (Finkenrath, 2011)
90% capture
STUDY OF CO2 CAPTURE FOR BOJONEGARA AND SUMSEL-6 POWER PLANT
4%
12%
5%3%
12%
64% 36%
SCR Area
MEA Scrubber Area
FGD Area
Compression andDehydration Area
CO2 Piping
CCS cost 2500 $US/kW
Powerplant
Cost
CCS Cost
5.0 Billion US$
CAPEX 90% capture 5.3 Billion US$
Case (CO2 recovery) Power Plant Cost CCS Cost Total CAPEX
22.5% $ 3.4 $ 1.1 $ 4.5
45% $ 1.4 $ 4.8
90% $ 1.9 $ 5.3
All cost in Billion US$
same
2%
14%
6%
4%2%
72% 28%
SCR Area
MEA Scrubber Area
FGD Area
Compression andDehydration Area
CO2 Piping
7
Capital Expenditure Comparison (Sumsel-6)
Pulverized coal power plant
with CO2
capture600 MW
Comparison to CCS Study (Finkenrath, 2011)
90% capture
STUDY OF CO2 CAPTURE FOR BOJONEGARA AND SUMSEL-6 POWER PLANT
CCS cost 2500 $US/kW
Powerplant
Cost
CCS Cost
1.5 Billion US$
CAPEX 90% capture 2.3 Billion US$
Case (CO2 recovery) Power Plant Cost CCS Cost Total CAPEX
30% $ 1.7 $ 0.4 $ 2.1
60% $ 0.5 $ 2.2
90% $ 0.6 $ 2.3
All cost in Billion US$
same