flue gas co2 capture - stanford university - the global ... · pdf fileflue gas co2 capture...

MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES, LTD.

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.

FLUE GAS COFLUE GAS CO2 2 CAPTURECAPTURE

(CO(CO22 CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY OF KSCAPTURE TECHNOLOGY OF KS--1)1)


Process Flow for Amine Absorption

C.W.

C.W.

Steam

Reboiler

C.W.

ABSORBER

Flue GasCooler

CO2

Flue Gas Outlet

Flue Gas

STRIPPER

Purity : 99.9 %


Amine Reaction MechanismAmine Reaction Mechanism

MonoMono--ethanol Amine (MEA)ethanol Amine (MEA)

2 R2 R--NHNH22 + CO+ CO22 RR--NHNH33+ + + R+ R--NHNH--COOCOO--

RR--NHNH22 + CO+ CO22 + H+ H22O RO R--NHNH33++ + HCO+ HCO33

--

Sterically Hindered Amine (KSSterically Hindered Amine (KS--1)1)

2 R2 R--NHNH22 + CO+ CO22 RR--NHNH33+ + + R+ R--NHNH--COOCOO--

RR--NHNH22 + CO+ CO22 + H+ H22O RO R--NHNH33++ + HCO+ HCO33

--


Research and Development ActivitiesMHI and Kansai Electric initiated R&D since 1990.MHI and Kansai Electric initiated R&D since 1990.

•• Laboratory testsLaboratory tests•• Bench scale testsBench scale tests•• Pilot plant testsPilot plant tests•• Data collection and analysis from commercial plantsData collection and analysis from commercial plants

Laboratory test Bench scale test Pilot plant test


Solubility of CO2 in KS-1 and MEA Solution

Loading (mol.CO0.40 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

CO 2 2/mol.Amine)

CO

2Pa

rtia

l Pre

ssur

e

Regeneration RegionRegeneration Region

Absorption RegionAbsorption Region

MEAMEAKSKS--11

CONFIDENTIAL


Heat of Dissociation Heat of Dissociation (Heat of Absorption)(Heat of Absorption)

CONFIDENTIAL

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8CO2 Loading (mol.CO 2/mol.Amine)

Hea

t of D

isso

ciat

ion

MEA

KS-1


Deteriorated Product of MEA and KSDeteriorated Product of MEA and KS--11

CONFIDENTIAL

+1+1

+2+2

+3+3

+4+4

BaseBase0 100 200 300 400 500 600

KS-1 CommercialKS-1 PilotMEA Pilot

HE

AT

ST

AB

LE

SA

LT

S (w

t%)

RUNNING TIME (hours)


Corrosion Test ResultCorrosion Test Result

MEA

MEA + inhibitor

KS-1

93.0

9.5

3.1

76.4

8.3

3.6

Test 1 Test 2(Unit : mils per year)(Unit : mils per year)

Test condition : 130Test condition : 130°°C, in the presence of OC, in the presence of O22


KS-1 Process Excellency

Lower Dissociation HeatLower Dissociation Heat

Higher COHigher CO22 LoadingLoading

Lower CorrosionLower Corrosion

Lower DegradationLower Degradation

Low Regeneration Energy

Low Regeneration Low Regeneration EnergyEnergy

Corrosion InhibitorNot Required

Corrosion InhibitorCorrosion InhibitorNot RequiredNot Required

Low SolventCirculation Flow Rate

Low SolventLow SolventCirculation Flow RateCirculation Flow Rate

Minimal Reclaiming Requirement

Minimal Reclaiming Minimal Reclaiming RequirementRequirement


Process ComparisonProcess Comparison

Solution Circulation RateSolution Circulation Rate

Regeneration EnergyRegeneration Energy

Degradation of the SolventDegradation of the Solvent

Solvent LossSolvent Loss

Corrosion InhibitorCorrosion Inhibitor

11

11

11

11

YESYES

0.60.6

0.80.8

0.10.1

0.10.1

NONO

MEAMEA KSKS--11


Performance of Amine CO2 Capture Process(Comparison Basis of KS-1 and MEA)

Performance of Amine CO2 Capture Process(Comparison Basis of KS-1 and MEA)

1. Flue Gas Sources:1. Flue Gas Sources: Coal FiredCoal Fired (CO(CO22 Conc. = 12%[d])Conc. = 12%[d])Gas/Oil FiredGas/Oil Fired (CO(CO22 Conc. = 9%[d])Conc. = 9%[d])Gas TurbineGas Turbine (CO(CO22 Conc. = 3%[d])Conc. = 3%[d])

2. Utility Unit Rate:2. Utility Unit Rate: LP Steam 3.0 US�/MMBTUElectricity 5 US�/KwhC.W. 1 US�/T

3. Solvent Price: KS-1 6.5 US�/ kgMEA 1.8 US�/ kg

4. Plant Depreciation:4. Plant Depreciation: 1515--YearsYears


CO2 Capture Cost of KS-1 ProcessCO2 Capture Cost of KS-1 Process

(CO(CO22 = 12%)= 12%)(CO(CO22 = 9%)= 9%)(CO(CO22 = 3%)= 3%)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

G/T Boiler Coal

Operation &MaintenanceSolvent

Cooling Water

Electricity

LP Steam

(US$/T-CO2)


MHIMHI’’ss ExperienceExperience

PILOT PLANTPILOT PLANT

LocationLocation : Nanko Power Plant, Osaka, Japan: Nanko Power Plant, Osaka, Japan

CapacityCapacity : Flue Gas 600 Nm: Flue Gas 600 Nm33/H/HCOCO22 Capture Rate 2 Ton/DCapture Rate 2 Ton/D

Start UpStart Up : April, 1991: April, 1991

Research ItemsResearch Items: New Solvent Development : New Solvent Development : : New Packing Development (KPNew Packing Development (KP--1)1): System Improvement: System Improvement


160 T/D CO160 T/D CO22 Capture PlantCapture Plant

ClientClient : : PetronasPetronas Fertilizer Fertilizer ((KedaKeda)) SdnSdn.. BhdBhd..

••LocationLocation : : Kedah Darul AmanKedah Darul Aman, Malaysia, Malaysia

••Feed GasFeed Gas : Steam Reformer Flue Gas: Steam Reformer Flue Gas

••CapacityCapacity : Flue Gas 47,000 Nm3/H: Flue Gas 47,000 Nm3/H(Max. Capacity = 210 T/D)(Max. Capacity = 210 T/D)

••Use of COUse of CO22 : Urea Production: Urea Production

••Start UpStart Up : October 1999: October 1999

MHI’s Experience (KS-1)


Large Scale CO2 Capture Plant (Conceptual)


CO2 Purity: 94% or above•CH4, C2H6 below 4%. N2 below 5%. H2S below 100 ppmv.Amount CO2 required: 3 - 20 MSCF/bbl of oil•If CO2 requirement is between 3 - 8 MSCF/bbl, EOR may be economical.CO2 Delivery Pressure: 2,000 psig at inlet of pipeline•CO2 is then compressed further to suit wellhead pressure.

DELIVERED CO2 REQUIREMENTS FOR EOR


A comprehensive economic study has been carried out on COA comprehensive economic study has been carried out on CO22recovery plants in the Middle east area for the purpose of EOR recovery plants in the Middle east area for the purpose of EOR based on the following parameters:based on the following parameters:

(1) Capacity of CO2 Recovery Unit

(2) Utility Cost- Fuel gas- Cooling water- Electricity

(3) Other Operational Requirements- Pipeline cost

STUDY BASIS


Boiler CaseBoiler Case--11 8.5 vol%8.5 vol% 100 MMSCFD100 MMSCFD

Boiler CaseBoiler Case--22 8.5 vol%8.5 vol% 60 MMSCFD60 MMSCFD

Gas Turbine CaseGas Turbine Case--11 3.0 vol%3.0 vol% 90 MMSCFD90 MMSCFD

Gas Turbine CaseGas Turbine Case--22 3.0 vol%3.0 vol% 50MMSCFD50MMSCFD

CO2 Content CO2 Recovery Capacity

CASES


Figure-1

Gas Turbine Case

Figure-2

Boiler Case

: Scope of the Study

Aux.Boiler

Steam

2000 psig To CO2Pipeline

W.H.B. CO2Recovery

CO2Compression &

Dehydration

GasTurbine

Aux.Boiler

Steam

2000 psig To CO2Pipeline

BoilerCO2

Recovery

CO2Compression &

Dehydration

: Scope of the Study


(1)(1) Initial investment cost of COInitial investment cost of CO22 recovery, recovery, compression, auxiliary utilitiescompression, auxiliary utilities

(2) (2) Location area:Location area: Middle EastMiddle East

(3) (3) Depreciation:Depreciation: 10% per year10% per year

*CAPEX = Capital Expenditure*CAPEX = Capital Expenditure

CAPEX*


Fuel Gas 0.5 1.0 1.5(US$/106BTU) (Base)

Cooling Water 1.0 1.5 2.0(US�/T) (Base)

Electricity 2.0 3.0 4.0(US�/Kwh) (Base)

Study Case

*OPEX = Operative Expenditure*OPEX = Operative Expenditure

-- Operator costOperator cost

-- Maintenance costMaintenance cost

-- General chargeGeneral charge

-- Utility costUtility cost

OPEX*


Boiler CaseBoiler Case--11 8.58.5 100100 90%90% 0.4720.472 0.4440.444 0.9160.916

Boiler CaseBoiler Case--22 8.58.5 6060 90%90% 0.5330.533 0.5150.515 1.0481.048

Gas Turbine CaseGas Turbine Case--11 3.03.0 9090 90%90% 0.6090.609 0.8300.830 1.4391.439

Gas Turbine CaseGas Turbine Case--22 3.03.0 5050 90%90% 0.6090.609 0.8380.838 1.4461.446

RecoveryCapacity

CO2Content

On StreamFactor

CAPEX(US$/MSCF)

OPEX(US$/MSCF)

Cost Total(US$/MSCF)Base Case

BASE CASE STUDY RESULTS


0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

C apacity o f C O 2 R ecovery P lant(MMSC FD)

CO

2 D

eliv

ery

Cos

t(U

S$/M

SCF)

N ote :Fue l gas : 1 .0 � ‘/ MMBTUElectricity: 2 .0 � ‘/kWhC oo ling w ate r: 1 .5 � ‘/TIndus tria l w a ter: 2 .0 � ‘/TPipe line C os t (N ot included)

B oiler

G/T

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CO2 DELIVERY COSTAND CO2 RECOVERY PLANT CAPACITY


0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0Fuel gas cost(� ‘/MMBTU)

CO

2 D

eliv

ery

Cos

t(U

S$/M

SCF)

Note:Electricity: 2.0 � ‘/kWhCooling water: 1.5 � ‘/TIndustrial water: 2.0 � ‘/TPipeline Cost (Not included)

Boiler

G/T

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CO2 DELIVERY COSTAND FUEL GAS COST

$$


0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5Cooling water cost

(� ‘/T)

CO

2 D

eliv

ery

Cos

t(U

S$/M

SCF)

Boiler

Note:Fuel gas: 1.0 � ‘/MMBTUElectricity: 2.0 � ‘/kWhIndustrial water: 2.0 � ‘/TPipeline Cost (Not included)

G/T

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CO2 DELIVERY COSTAND COOLING WATER COST


PIPELINE

PIPELINE COSTS

EXAMPLE

CO2 transportation from flue gas CO2 recovery plant to Oil fields

6 US�/MSCF/100 km (Middle East base)

CO2 recovery and compression cost: 1.0 $/MSCF100km pipeline cost: 0.06 $/MSCF

Total 1.06 $/MSCF

PIPELINE COST


CO2 EOR CO2 can be stored in the oil reservoir

Reduction of CO2 emissions

Application of JI*1) or CDM*2) will result in CO2 credit surplus

*1) JI = Joint Implementation*1) JI = Joint Implementation*2) CDM = Clean Development Mechanism*2) CDM = Clean Development Mechanism

BENEFITS OF USING CO2 RECOVERED FROM FLUE GAS FOR EOR


Projects for flue gas CO2 recovery and the utilization of CO2

for EOR will become economical for the circumstances stated below:

I. Larger CO2 recovery plant for sources with higher CO2

content with cheap utility cost will give attractive CO2

delivery cost.

II. If JI or CDM can trade CO2 emission rights, financial benefits can be enjoyed for the projects.

CONCLUSION

flue gas co2 capture - stanford university - the global ... · pdf fileflue gas co2 capture...

Documents