Cryogenic Carbon Capture Development

2018 NETL CO2 Capture ConferenceAugust 13-17, 2018

Larry Baxter,1,2 Kyler Stitt,1 Chris Russell,2 and Daisy Harmon2

1Sustainable Energy Solutions2Brigham Young University

Outline• Project Background• Process, Energy, Economics Overview• Field Test Summary• Robust Unit Operations Review• Next Steps

2

Background• SES developed the Cryogenic Carbon Capture™ process under

separate funding to the stage of a 1 tonne/day skid-scale system that has been widely tested in house and in the field.

• DOE/NETL is funding the further development of unit operations in the existing skid to improve reliability and related issues that became apparent during the testing and updated TEA. (DE-FE0028697; $3.7M DOE/$4.7M total; 10/01/2016 – 03/31/2019)

• This presentation summarizes progress on the DOE-funded project.• The culmination of this project is a 6-month field test (3 months

under DOE funding) of the improved skid at a utility power plant, which starts 10/2018.

3

CCC is a Simple Process

4

The CCC process (1) cools a dirty exhaust gas stream to the point that the CO2 freezes using mostly heat recuperation, (2) separates solid CO2 as it freezes from the clean gas, (3) melts the CO2 through heat recuperation and pressurizes it to form a pure liquid, and

(4) warms up the clean, harmless gas releasing it to the atmosphere. See appendix slides for more detailed flow diagrams.

Cryogenic Carbon Capture (CCC) Cuts Costs in Half

5

-Numbers based on NETL 2013 net 550 MW super critical pulverized coal plant-Integration includes energy and cost savings from steam cycle improvements and offsetting cost and energy requirements for SOX, NOX, and

Mercury controls. -Additional value and revenues could be gained from CO2 sales and energy storage.

$35

$14

$69

14%

11%

28%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

CCC Base Case CCC with Plant Integration Current Technology (Amine)

$/Tonne AvoidedEnergy Penalty (Parasitic Load)

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

$90

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Ener

gy P

enal

ty (G

J/to

nne)

CAPE

X ($

/ton

ne/y

r)

Carbon Dioxide Concentration

CAPEX Energy Penalty

Cost and Energy with Composition

6

CAPEX numbers is the total equipment cost, not depreciated over any timeframe, and it does not includeoperating costs. These numbers assume large installations on the order of a power plant

NGCC Amine

Coal Amine

Cost and Energy with Plant Size

7

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

Ener

gy P

enal

ty (G

J/to

nne)

CAPE

X ($

/ton

ne/y

r)

Carbon Dioxide (kT/yr)

CAPEX Energy Penalty

550 MWe Coal

CAPEX numbers is the total equipment cost, not depreciated over any timeframe, and it does not includeoperating costs. These numbers assume a CO2 composition of approximately 16% on a dry basis.

Pilot Plant

Industrial

Additional CCC Benefits• Bolt-on Retrofit• Grid-level Energy Storage• Multipollutant System• Low Water Demand• Highly Adaptable

8

9

Previous CCC Demonstrations• Fuels

– Coal– Natural gas– Biomass– Municipal Waste– Shredded Tires

• Field Tests– Power Utilities– Heat Plants– Cement Kilns– Pilot Combustion

Facilities

Thousands of cumulative hours of total testing.

Demonstration Pictures

10

CO2 used in concreteFebruary 6, 2018

CO2 captured from cementJanuary 22, 2018

12

Light Gas Path through System

13

Front End and Dryer- Commercially Available

Technologies, with promising Dryer Modifications

Water Vapor Pressure

14

1.E-111.E-101.E-091.E-081.E-071.E-061.E-051.E-041.E-031.E-02

-120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0

Vapo

r Pre

ssur

e (b

ar)

Temperature (°C)

Process 1 Process 2 Ice

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0 0.5 1

Pres

sure

(bar

)

Liq/Vap Mole Frac

Prediction Data

15

Multi-StreamHeat Exchanger

- Commercially AvailableIn Partnership with

Chart Industries

16

Direct Contact Desublimating

Heat Exchanger

17

Spray Tower Selected as Main HX• Easiest to scale• Most similar to commercial

processes• Lowest pressure drop• Most tested desublimating

heat exchanger

17

18

Desublimating Heat Exchangers• Spray tower has been

proven, including on-site with real flue gas sources

• CO2 capture above 90%, and can be increased up to 99% easily

• Average capture above 98% in tests at Alabama

19

Contact LiquidCooler

20

Contact Liquid Cooling Heat ExchangersUsed to cool the recirculating contact liquid without fouling

Self-cleaning Shell-and-tubeParticle Based Fluidized Bed

Custom Designed Brazed Plate HX with Patented Clearing Mechanisms

21

Solid-Liquid Separations

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0.0 20.0 40.0

CO2%

Time (hr)

22

Solid-Liquid Separations• Increases the

concentration of solid CO2 before melting

• Current implementation is a screw press filtration system

Videos

Solid CO2 separation: https://youtu.be/9ZzIlBA3y9I

Solid CO2 melting: https://youtu.be/Qomy8H8cX00

23

24

CO2 Path through System

25

Final CO2 Purification- Commercially Available- 99.99%+ CO2 purity and

high purity contact liquid

26

High Capture and Purity

98+% Average 99+% Average

Current Status• Thousands of cumulative hours for the system

and individual unit operations• Consistently demonstrated high rate of capture• Preliminary designs and quotes in place for larger

pilot scale system• Next step: six-month demonstration at Pacificorp

power plant

27

Next Step: $25M Pilot Project

28

Objective: Demonstrate industrial reliability and

validate commercial-scale economics

First commercial-scale (100 TPD CO2 liquid) demonstration

Design and engineering to begin first half of 2019

Acknowledgements• DOE/NETL Project No. DE-FE0028697

– $3.7M DOE/$4.7M total– 10/01/2016 – 03/31/2019

• Lynn Brickett and David Lang of DOE• SES Employees• Partners – Pacificorp, EPRI

29

30

This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under AwardNumber DE-FE0028697.

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the UnitedStates Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, norany of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legalliability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of anyinformation, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use wouldnot infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product,process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does notnecessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by theUnited States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authorsexpressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United StatesGovernment or any agency thereof.