Vladimir Vaysman from WorleyParsons gave a Global CCS Institute webinar on 12 March 2013 to present a generic methodology developed to provide independent verification of the impact on a coal–fired power station of installing and operating a post-combustion capture plant. Vladimir illustrated the methodology using Loy Yang A power station in Australia in five different scenarios that cover carbon capture, air cooling, coal drying and plant optimisation. The methodology offers a sound approach to provide performance data and protect technology vendor IP while also providing confidence to the wider CCS community to evaluate a project. Vladimir is a Project Manager with more than 31 years of engineering experience, including 14 years with WorleyParsons. He has undertaken an array of design and analysis studies and developed significant expertise across a range of technologies, from pulverised coal and circulating fluidised bed, to integrated gasification combined cycle and carbon capture. Vladimir has participated in projects in Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Kazakhstan, Korea, Malaysia, Moldova, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Russia and Ukraine.

1. Post Combustion
Carbon Capture
Thermodynamic Modeling
by Vladimir Vaysman – Project Manager, WorleyParsons
Reading, PA, USA – 11 March 2013

2. At the heart of most first-of-a-kind carbon capture projects, there are
challenges for:
1 Project developers and financiers
Accurate prediction of lifecycle costs
2 Regulators
− Permitting and approval under existing models of environmental,
planning and energy law.
− Protection of technology provider’s IP
3 Communities
− Understanding cost, resources, emissions
4 Carbon capture technology providers
− Protection of expensive IP
Background

3. The Global CCS Institute (GCCSI) has supported WorleyParsons to go
through a process (study) to:
Create a methodology to assist power station owners with the validation of
performance and potential impacts on their facility operation.
In so doing, to work with:
a. Carbon capture project proponents Loy Yang Power and Energy
Australia (formerly TruEnergy), and
b. Carbon capture technology provider Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI),
c. Coal drying technology provider – Great River Energy (GRE)
while:
Protecting the IP of the technology providers.
Project Outline

4.  Loy Yang Power
• Acquired by AGL (100% ownership) in June 2012. Owns and operates the Loy Yang A Power Station
(2,200MW) and the adjacent Loy Yang coal mine in the state of Victoria, Australia
• Is Victoria’s largest electricity generation facility supplying approximately one third of the state’s electricity
requirements and supplies the equivalent of 8% of total generation for Victoria and the states of New
South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory, from a National
Electricity Market perspective
 Energy Australia (formerly TRUenergy)
• Is an investor, generator and retailer in Australian energy and is committed to reducing emissions from the
portfolio through Energy Australia’s climate change strategy announced in July 2007.
• Is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the CLP Group, which is publicly listed in Hong Kong. CLP is one of the
largest investor-owned power businesses in the Asia Pacific region and operates in Hong Kong, Australia,
India, China, Taiwan and Thailand and has a market capitalization of approximately A$21 billion
 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
• Is a leading global heavy machinery manufacturing and engineering company with a wide range of
products including fossil & nuclear power systems, chemical plants, renewable energy technology,
environmental control systems, aerospace systems, economical aircraft ocean going ships and other
heavy industrial equipment
• (PCC) technology is considered one of the most important product categories applicable to power
generation in the future due to GHG and carbon dioxide abatement legislation which is expected to be
introduced in many countries over the coming years
Proponents

5.  Great River Energy (GRE)
• Is a Cooperative Power producer serving 1.7 million people in rural Minnesota, USA, operates 8
Power Plants (plus 2 in permitting stage), and 4,500 miles of transmission lines
• GRE has developed and patented a unique coal drying and coal upgrading technology, termed
DryFining
• DryFining system (~ 1,000 tons/hr) is in commercial operation since December 2009 at the GRE
Coal Creek station
 WorleyParsons
• Is one of the world's largest engineering and project delivery companies and has serviced the
global resource, energy and infrastructure markets for over 30 years
• Has extensive experience in the design and construction of CO2 capture, compression and
pipeline transport, and the range of issues for deep geological storage
• Has provided carbon capture plant design, and support contractor services for over 27 years to
energy customers and national research organizations including the U.S. DoE and the EPRI
Proponents

6. Independent evaluation requires the following critical roles:
 Independent engineering contractor:
Cooperative Power producer serving 1.7 million people in rural Minnesota, USA, operates 8
Power Selects modelling software , defines project scope, models power plant and integration of
the PCC plant, coal drying plant and assessment of resulting plant performance
 Host (Owner) of plant or unit:
Provides the data of the power station’s boiler and steam turbine to Independent engineering
contractor and PCC process provider. Provides resources to validate the thermodynamic models
by comparing the outputs with real plant performance data
 Technology (PCC process IP proprietor) provider:
Provides data for operation of the core PCC-process including all inputs and outputs for a
5000tpd PCC plant retrofit
 Technology (Coal Drying process IP proprietor) provider:
Provides data for operation of the coal drying process including all inputs and outputs for a boiler
retrofit
Methodology
Project Execution Roles

7. A case study to demonstrate the methodology to retrofit an existing Loy Yang A
Power Station sub-critical PC (brown coal) fired unit with a commercial sized
(5,000 tpd) PCC plant for the partial capture of CO2, while assessing process
improvements, including:
− a coal drying plant, and
− integration of the PCC plant
The methodology:
− can be extended to similar retrofit or green-field applications of
PCC-technology
− does not model the transportation and storage of CO2
Methodology
Study Framework

8. Involves selection of “cases” for actual study:
Methodology
Study Framework
Base Plant PCC Plant Coal Drying Plant
Optimisation
Air Cooled
Operation
Base Case X
Case 1 X X
Case 2 X X X
Case 3 X X X X
Case 4 X X X
Case 5 X X X X X

9. Methodology
Overall Study Methodology

10. Importance of defining the evaluation methodology in the initial project phase
Parameters chosen will depend on the technology evaluated
In this project, the following are important for carbon capture facilities:
 Steam Extraction Supply to PCC plant, MWth
 Auxiliary Power Supply to PCC plant, MWe
 CO2 Compression Power, MWe
 Power Station Net Sent Out Generation, MWe
 Water Requirements for the retrofit PCC plant, ML
 CO2 emissions intensity per net power generated, kg CO2/ MWh net
The following were added to address the impact of the coal drying process:
 Power Unit Net Efficiency, %
 Impact of Coal Drying Plant on Auxiliary Power Demand, MWe
Methodology
Definition of Evaluation Methodology

11. As recommended by the independent peer reviewer, a calculated Electricity
Output Penalty (EOP) was also used to compare results for the different cases
EOP = Net Power Output Reduction (kWhe/tCO2)
CO2 captured mass flow
where:-
− Net Power Output Reduction (kW) =
[Base Case Net generation (kW) ] – [Study Case Net Generation (kW)
normalized to the Base case fuel input]
CO2 captured mass flow (tonnes/h)
Study Case Net Generation = Study Case Gross Generation
− [Study Case base plant auxiliary power + PCC auxiliary power (including CO2
Compression ) + Coal Drying auxiliary power]
Auxiliary power is the parasitic (power) loads of the plant/equipment of the
respective base plant, PCC plant and coal drying plant
Methodology
Definition of Evaluation Methodology

12. On this project, the software selected was:
LYA Power Plant (Base Case Plant) Modelling Software
 Commercially available software packages were assessed:
1. GE’s GateCycleTM
2. ThermoflowTM’s SteamPro
3. ThermoflowTM’s Themoflex
 GateCycleTM software was chosen, because we feel:
• It is easier to use for analysing off-design runs and “what if”
scenarios
• It allows the as-built Loy Yang A plant to be modelled more
accurately using the component-by-component approach
Methodology
Selection of Software Tools

13.  Post Combustion Capture Plant Software
• The PCC technology IP proprietor used their own software and provided
WorleyParsons the relevant Vendor performance information/data
• Validated using a third-party model to test the expected performance
• The process undertaken involved simulating the output of the Loy Yang
A boiler (flue gas flow, temperature, characteristics, etc.) and using an
embedded PCC model in SteamPro software
Methodology
Selection of Software Tools

14.  Coal Drying Plant Software
 Simulated using proprietary MS Excel-based model developed by the
Lehigh University for Great River Energy (GRE), the coal drying
technology proprietor
 Validation of coal drying was carried out by a high level design check for
the integration of coal drying plant with the coal fired power plant
 Data provided by the coal drying IP Proprietor is sufficiently defined and
understood by the validating consultant
 The process undertaken for the coal drying involved simulating the output
of the Loy Yang A boiler (flue gas flow, temperature, characteristics, etc.)
and carrying out a number of iterations with the data generated on Lehigh
University’s Excel- based model
Methodology
Selection of Software Tools

15. Data collection and review, as input for the thermodynamic modelling
Set up the thermodynamic model
• validate it so that it reproduces the existing unit’s performance
• provides assurance that the model will predict cycle performance under the
various design modes
For each design case, perform simulations and produce
• overall block flow diagrams
• host unit power plant heat and mass balance diagrams
Validate results against real performance data (where possible) or against
general thermodynamic and process requirements
Methodology
Construct and Validate the Thermodynamic Models

16. Establish Evaluation Basis
 Site Conditions
 Coal Specification
 Boiler Inputs and Outputs and limitations
(flue gas composition, P, T, flow rate)
 Steam Cycle inputs and Outputs (Heat & Mass Balance diagrams for
several operating modes)
 Plant Cooling system parameters
 Required CO2 capture efficiency, CO2 pipeline parameters
The above information is critical design input for technology providers to
develop
 PCC Data
 Coal Drying Data
Plant Configuration and Technology

17. Loy Yang A Power Station Plant
Block Flow Diagram of Existing Power Station retrofitted with Coal Drying and PCC Plant

18. Establish Evaluation Basis
The 5,000 tpd PCC plant has three main sections:
(1) Flue gas pre-treatment section
(2) CO2 capture section
(3) CO2 Compression and Dehydration section
PCC Plant
Technical Process Description

19. For one study case (Case 5), the air cooling system will replace the wet cooling
system of the PCC plant for:
 Flue Gas Cooling Water Cooler
 Wash Water Cooler
 Lean Solution Cooler
 Absorption Intermediate Cooler
 Regenerator Condenser
 1st Stage to 6th Stage Discharge Coolers
 Low/High Pressure Stage CO2 Compressor Stage Cooler
PCC
PCC Plant Dry Air Cooling System

20. Coal Drying plant Waste Heat
Coal
Bag House
Fines
Refined Coal

21. Base Case: Host Unit - LYA Power Plant

22. Case 1: Host Unit and Post Combustion Capture
Plant Model

23. Case 2: Host Unit with Coal Drying Plant Model

24. Case 3: Host Unit with Coal Drying, PCC Plant,
Optimization

25. Case 4: Host Unit with PCC Plant and Optimization

26. Case 5: Host Unit with Coal Drying, PCC Plant (with
Air Cooling) and Optimization

27. Validation of Methodology by Independent
Peer Review
This validation process focused on the review of the methodology, not
review specific performance data from either the power station or the PCC
process
The Independent Peer Reviewer do not have access to any proprietary
information from either the power station or the technology IP proprietors
The validation was carried out through close involvement of the
Independent Peer Reviewer in the following phases:
• Kick-off meeting and definition of methodology at the start of the project
• Intermediate methodology review after the base cases have been
established
• Final review at project end

28. Post Combustion Capture Integration

29. Post Combustion Capture Integration

30. Post Combustion Capture Integration
Operating Flexibility of Power Station Boiler Plant
• The power station’s boiler plant should be able to operate at the
modelled design conditions without any adverse effect
• In the model cases where coal drying is integrated, the minimum dried
coal moisture content was selected so as not to have any adverse
impact on the flue gas acid dew point in the existing power station
stack
Operating Flexibility of PCC Plant
• The PCC plants should have an ability to adjust to Power Station load
changes
• Only a slipstream of the flue gas is being processed by the PCC in the
studied configuration

31. Post Combustion Capture Integration
Implications of an actual PCC Retrofit with Coal Drying
• Engineering and addition of the PCC plant and CO2 compression system,
modifications to the boiler flue gas system, steam cycle/condensate
systems, and additions/modifications to the balance of plant systems
• It is recommended to further investigate aspects related to the above,
including :
• Impact of changes on the existing ID fan and stack operation (not
taken into account in this assessment, e.g. in Cases 2, 3 and 4)
• Impact of the flue gas cooler that results in the flue gas temperature
and volumetric flow rate to the stack being reduced as compared to
the Base Case (e.g. Case 4)
• Adequacy of the existing stack liner material given flue gas
temperature entering the stack will be lower as compared to the
Base Case

32. Results
Power Generation Outputs
CO2 CAPTURE SUMMARY Base Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5
CO2 Captured, (tpd) - 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
CO2 Produced, (tpd) 14,831 14,831 14,081 14,081 14,854 14,081
CO2 Emitted, (tpd) 14,831 9,831 9,081 9,081 9,854 9,081
Gross Specific Emission,
(kg/kWh)
1.086 0.772 0.717 0.708 0.743 0.708
Net Specific Emission, (kg/kWh) 1.185 0.917 0.849 0.836 0.877 0.836
Electricity Output Penalty,
(kWh/t CO2 )
- 419.89 274.70 233.60 284.36 233.60
SYSTEM CONFIGURATION Base Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5
Base Plant X X X X X X
PCC Plant X X X X X
Coal Drying X X X
Plant Optimization X X X
Air Cooled (PCC Plant Only) X
POWER GENERATION
SUMMARY
kW kW kW kW kW kW
Main Steam Turbine Generation 568,960 530,810 527,700 528,840 549,390 528,840
Expander Generation 5,320 3,130 5,320
Total Gross Power Generation 568,960 530,810 527,700 534,160 552,520 534,160
Net Power Generation 521,380 446,460 445,840 452,380 468,270 452,480
Net Power Output Reduction - 74,920 75,540 69,000 53,110 68,900
Gross Plant Efficiency, % 31.46% 29.35% 30.74% 31.12% 30.53% 31.12%
Net Plant Efficiency, % 28.82% 24.68% 25.97% 26.36% 25.88% 26.36%
AUXILIARY LOAD POWER
SUMMARY
kW kW kW kW kW kW
Base Plant Auxiliary Load 47,580 47,450 44,350 44,270 47,350 44,170
PCC Plant Auxiliary Load - 36,900 34,500 34,500 * 36,900 * 34,500
Coal Drying Plant Auxiliary Load - - 3,010 3,010 - 3,010
Total Plant Auxiliary Load Power 47,580 84,350 81,860 81,780 * 84,250 * 81,680
Note: (*) The actual PCC Plant Auxiliary Load and hence the Total Plant Auxiliary Load for Case 4 and
Case 5 will be either equal or less than the figures shown in table above. For the purpose of this study, a
detailed assessment of the PCC auxiliary load has not been carried out.

33. Results
Retrofit PCC Makeup Water Requirements

34. Application of the Modelling Methodology
Adaptability to a Generic Coal Fired Power Plant
• The models (GateCycleTM ) built of power station steam cycle, coal drying
process and PCC process) are able to be adapted for use on a generic
subcritical coal fired power plant that is to be retrofitted with a post combustion
carbon capture plant
• The proposed methodology can be universally adopted for the independent
valuation of CCS-project performance impacts
• Whilst the specific outcomes of each step will differ, the general steps to be
taken are broadly similar
Other Plausible Model Cases
• This study has only included five model cases based on one specific PCC
process technology, where a specific solvent is utilised for carbon capture
• The same methodology can be applied in evaluating other cases with different
solvent types employed in post combustion capture
• This is on the basis of experience gained from recent confidential
WorleyParsons’ study projects delivered to various customers

35. Conclusions
• The methodology adopted in this study achieves the project goal
• It is important to minimize the technology vendor’s “black box” as much as
possible from the remaining plant
• Selection of suitable software tools is critical to achieving the project goals
since there is no software package currently available that is able to integrate
all required technology components
• The cases selected for this study are targeted to identify and compare
sensitivities of energy penalties of different technical solutions with a specific
and pre-selected PCC technology, and several approaches to reduce the
energy penalty associated with the PCC retrofit have been assessed in the
course of this work
• Findings suggest that an additional cost benefit analysis needs to be
undertaken to establish which design approach is most beneficial and/or of
net advantage in reducing the overall cost of CO2 capture in subcritical coal-
fired power plants firing high moisture coals

36. Recommendations
• The specifics of the methodology described in this report were developed
in relation to retrofit of PCC to a particular power plant. This methodology
can, in general, be applied for such projects on other plants
• It is recommended that an independent evaluation be included at every
critical stage of a PCC project
• This evaluation concludes that the thermodynamic modelling and
integration of a PCC plant into an existing or new fossil fuel fired power
station can be performed with commercially available software

37. References
• WorleyParsons, 29th July-2010, ‘DryFiningTM,
Coal Drying Prefeasibility Study Phase 1a
Report, Rev 0’, WorleyParsons, Melbourne
• Sinclair Knight Merz, 29th September 2009,
‘Power Enhancement Project, Post Upgrade
Report Units1, 3 and 4, Final’, Sinclair Knight
Merz, Melboune
• HRL Technology Pty Ltd, August 2007, ‘Loy Yang
A Power Station - Unit 3 Net Unit Heat Rate Tests
Pre And Post-Upgrades Conducted 22nd March
and 6th June 2007 Report No: Hlc/2007/111’,
HRL Technology Pty Ltd, Melbourne
• WorleyParsons, 20th January 2012, ‘Loy Yang
Large Scale Demonstration PCC Plant Basis of
Design, Rev 2’, WorleyParsons, Melbourne
• HRL Technology Pty Ltd, August 2011,
‘Emissions Sampling On Loy Yang A Unit 4, Flue
1 and 2, 27 - 30 June 2011 (High Load) 19 – 22
July 2011 (Low Load); Report No: HLC/2011/244’,
HRL Technology Pty Ltd, Melbourne
• WorleyParsons, 19th December 2011, ‘Loy Yang
Large Scale Demonstration PCC Plant -
Efficiency Offset Study’, WorleyParsons,
Melbourne
• Lucquiaud,M, Gibbins, J, March 2011, ‘On the
integration of CO2 capture with coal-fired power plants:
A methodology to assess and optimize solvent-based
post-combustion capture systems’, Chemical
Engineering Research and Design, The Institution of
Chemical Engineers, (doi:10.1016/j.cherd.2011.03.003),
Elsevier B.V.
• Lucquiaud, M, Gibbins, J, November 2010, ‘Effective
retrofitting of post-combustion CO2 capture to coal-fired
power plants and insensitivity of CO2 abatement costs
to base plant efficiency’, International Journal of
Greenhouse Gas Control,
(doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2010.09.003), Elsevier B.V.
• Independent Peer Reviewer, ‘Notes on effective
thermodynamic post-combustion capture integration
and sensitivity analyses of the thermodynamic model
developed for the PCC retrofit’, Peer Reviewer,
Melbourne

38. For further information contact:
Vladimir Vaysman
Project Manager - Select
2675 Morgantown Rd.
Reading PA 19607
United States of America
Tel: +1-610-855-2588
e-mail: vladimir.vaysman@worleyparsons.com
Or
Matt Robinson
Power Sector Manager
Level 12, 333 Collins Street
Melbourne VIC 3000
Australia
Tel: +61-(0)-3-86763775
e-mail: matthew.robinson@worleyparsons.com
www.worleyparsons.com