Webinar: CCS major project development lessons from the ZeroGen experienceReduction of freshwater usage of a coal-fired power plant with CCS by applying a high level of integration of all water streams
•
0 recomendaciones•889 vistas
The integration of the recently built 1070 MWe coal-fired unit in Rotterdam (Netherlands) with the proposed new 250 MWe demonstration carbon capture unit of the Rotterdam Opslag en Afvang Demonstratieproject (ROAD) would lead to a substantial reduction in freshwater withdrawal and usage. This is partly due to the power plant design, the most relevant features being the seawater direct cooling and the limestone gypsum Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD), and partly due to the high level of integration. The addition of the ROAD carbon capture demo plant will increase the cooling water usage at MPP3. For units using evaporative cooling (such as conventional cooling towers) this will result in a substantial increase in water usage, this being the dominant water consumption by such a power plant. However, where seawater cooling is available, as at MPP3, this has a much more limited environmental impact. The impact can be even lower if an optimised integration of heat and water streams are adopted in the design, as at ROAD, and this will also be described. The webinar illustrated the detailed water balances with and without the capture plant that ROAD has carried out in order to estimate the water and (aqueous) waste streams of the capture plant, including quality and (re-) use in the power plant. The implications for a full-scale capture have been also discussed. The result showed included a quantification of: The cooling (sea)water demand increase for the demonstration capture plant and for a full scale plant of the same design The production of water in the capture process and its reuse in the power plant, reducing freshwater usage.
Recomendados
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
Más de Global CCS Institute
Más de Global CCS Institute (20)
Último
Último (20)
Webinar: CCS major project development lessons from the ZeroGen experienceReduction of freshwater usage of a coal-fired power plant with CCS by applying a high level of integration of all water streams
- 1. Reduction of freshwater usage of a coal-fired power plant with CCS by applying a high level of integration of all water streams Thursday 15 January 2014, 2000 AEDT
- 2. Dr Andy Read A physicist by training, Andy’s whole career has been as an engineer and project manager in the power industry. He started working as a specialist in combustion plant and boilers before moving into engineering and project management. His experience also includes time spent working in the performance department of an operating power plant, and project development for new CCGT units. Andy has spent the last nine years developing CCS projects, first at Killingholme and Kingsnorth in the UK for E.ON, and since 2010 responsible for the capture part of the ROAD Project. In the current organisation, he also has technical oversight over the transport and storage solutions. Since working on CCS, he has learnt a lot about the politics of the energy industry, about public perceptions and public relations, and stakeholder management in general. He is 47, British, with a wife and three children. Since 2010, the whole family have been based in the Netherlands.
- 3. QUESTIONS We will collect questions during the presentation. Your MC will pose these questions to the presenters after the presentation. Please submit your questions directly into the GoToWebinar control panel. The webinar will start shortly.
- 4. Reduction of freshwater usage of a coal-fired power plant with CCS by applying a high level of integration of all water streams Global CCS Institute Webinar, 15th January 2015 Andy Read and Hette Hylkema, ROAD Project Presented by Andy Read
- 5. Page 5 The Project: Who is ROAD? • Maasvlakte CCS Project C.V. is a joint venture of: • E.ON Benelux • GdF SUEZ Energie Nederland (GdF-SUEZ Group) • In co-operation with intended partners: • TAQA Energy • GDF SUEZ E&P • With financial support: • European Commission (EU) • Dutch Government • Global CCS Institute
- 6. Page 6 Integrated CCS Chain ROAD
- 7. Page 7 The Context – New Coal Power Plants E.ON and GDF SUEZ are commissioning new coal fired power plants at Maasvlakte, Rotterdam (1 100 & 800 MW resp.)
- 8. Page 8 Location of Capture Plant: Maasvlakte Power Plant 3 • Coal-fired • 1 070 MWe • 46% LHV efficiency • Up to 20% w/w biomass in permit • Hot commissioning is in progress
- 9. Page 9 Location of Capture Plant: Maasvlakte Power Plant 3 • Fluor post combustion technology • 250 MW (23.4% of power plant) • 90% capture efficiency • CO2 captured: 1.1 Mt/year
- 10. Page 10 The Project: Transport • Pipeline length: - 5 km (3 miles) onshore - 20 km (13 miles) offshore • Diameter: 16” • Capacity: - 1.5 Mt/year (gaseous) - >5 Mt/year (dense) • Pipeline design up to: - 140 bar (2030 psi) - 80ºC (176ºF) • Pipeline insulated Shipping lane crossing Harbour crossing 25 km P18-A TAQA
- 11. Page 11 The Project: Storage • Depleted gas field P18 • P18-4 reservoir used initially (7 Mt), re-using an existing well • Operator: TAQA • Depth: 3 500 m (11,500 ft) • Capacity: 35 Mt (P18 as a whole) • Available: 2014 • Original pressure: 350 bar (5 080 psi) • Expected pressure at start of CO2 injection: <30 bar (430 psi)
- 12. Page 12 • Engineering • Permits • Contracts • Finance Status ROAD ROAD remains ready to start construction as soon as the funding gap has been closed • Detail engineering of capture plant underway (FEED completed) • Some long lead suppliers chosen and components engineered • Pipeline route engineered and ‘flow assurance’ study completed • ‘Tie-ins’ (i.a. flue gas, steam) with power plant installed • Storage design complete, detail platform FEED ready to start • Capture supplier selected and EPC contract was ready to be signed • Contracts with power plant (utilities etc) ready for signature • Commercial contracts for transport (GDF Suez) and storage (TAQA) are agreed textually, and will be signed at FID • But, price validity has expired - reconfirmation once funding gap is closed • Permitting procedures finalized (beginning 2012) • Capture permits are definitive and irrevocable • Storage permits are definitive and irrevocable (TAQA) – Sept 2013 • Transport permits agreed, with publication pending • Very low CO2 prices have caused a financing gap compared to plan (>€100M) • Delay in CCS role-out and loss of confidence in EU low carbon energy policy has also weakened the strategic case for the demo • ROAD is still negotiating with potential funders, and there are new ideas that could lead to a positive decision this year
- 13. Page 13 11 5 1 1 7 7 13 11 1 12 6 74 10 28 14 1 7 1 7 1 7 3 9 Incoming streams 1 Cooling water 2 Power plant condensate 3 Steam for reboilers 4 Flue gas 5 Demin water 6 NaOH solution Outgoing streams 7 Cooling water 8 Power plant condensate 9 Water from reboilers 10 Flue gas 11 Excess DCC water 12 Sulphur removal purge 13 Reclaimer waste 14 Water in CO2 Schematic Diagram of Capture Plant Showing water interfaces (simplified)
- 14. Page 14 Cooling Water and Heat Integration MPP 3 CO2 Capture and Compression Section CO2 stripper overhead condenser 1 3 4 5 Main Cooling Water Pumps Discharge Pond Condensate from MPP3 A 2 Condensate to MPP3 B
- 15. Page 15 Overall Site Water Consumption Water Flows MPP3 without Carbon Capture Power Plant Drinking water 4 t/h Seawater 92 650 t/h Demin water 36 t/h Rainwater 4 t/h Combustion 155 t/h Freshwater 120 t/h Otherlosses8t/h Fluegas273t/h Seawater92688t/h
- 16. Page 16 Overall Site Water Consumption Water Flows MPP3 with ROAD Carbon Capture Drinking water 4 t/h Seawater 85 900 t/h Demin water 36 t/h Rainwater 4 t/h Combustion 155 t/h Freshwater 76 t/h Otherlosses8t/h Fluegas236t/h Seawater85938t/h Capture Plant Deminwater8t/h Seawater12200t/h Flue gas 63 t/h Reboilersteam/water Reboiler steam / water Reboilersteam/water Condensate for cooling Flue gas 26 t/h DCC water 44 t/h Otherlosses1t/h Seawater12200t/h Power Plant
- 17. Page 17 Overall Site Water Consumption Impact of ROAD CCS on MPP3 MPP3 only MPP3 + ROAD Change Change /MWh Seawater for cooling 92 650 98 100 +6% +12% Freshwater 120 76 -37% -33% Demineralized water 36 44 +22% +29% Fresh + Demin combined 156 120 -23% -19%
- 18. Page 18 Power Plant Freshwater 7 t/h Water Flows MPP3 and 100% Capture Drinking water 4 t/h Seawater 63 804 t/h Waste 7 t/h Rainwater 4 t/h Combustion 155 t/h Freshwater 0 t/h Otherlosses8t/h Fluegas115t/h Seawater63842t/h Capture Plant Seawater52100t/h Flue gas 273 t/h Reboilersteam/water Reboiler steam / water Reboilersteam/water Condensate for cooling 120 t/h DCC 188 t/h Otherlosses3t/h Seawater52100t/h Water treatment 68t/h Flue gas 115 t/h
- 19. Page 19 Overall Site Water Consumption Impact of 100% CCS on MPP3 MPP3 only MPP3 + 100% CCS Change Change /MWh Seawater for cooling 92 650 115 903 +25% +63% Freshwater 120 7 -94% -92% Demineralized water 36 0 -100% -100% Fresh + Demin combined 156 7 -96% -94%
- 20. Page 20 Conclusions The addition of the ROAD plant to MPP3 (which takes 23.4% of the flue gas) affects the water usage as follows: • Cooling water usage increases by 6%, (12% on a /MWh basis) • Total freshwater usage reduces by 23%, (19% on a /MWh basis) Extrapolating to 100% CCS on MPP3, the water usage would change as follows: • Cooling water usage increases by 25%, (63% on a /MWh basis) • Total freshwater usage reduces by 94%, (92% on a /MWh basis)
- 21. Page 21 Questions? Acknowledgements The ROAD project is co-financed by the Government of the Netherlands and the European Commission within the framework of the European Energy Programme for Recovery (EEPR). In addition, the Global CCS Institute is knowledge sharing partner of ROAD and has given financial support to the project. Water flows into and out of the CCS plant is based on Fluor design data, which is gratefully acknowledged.
- 22. QUESTIONS / DISCUSSION Please submit your questions in English directly into the GoToWebinar control panel. The webinar will start shortly.
- 23. Please submit any feedback to: webinar@globalccsinstitute.com
Notas del editor
- Andy Purvis will introduce the session taking 5-10 minutes. Talk should last 30-35 minutes Currently 75 people are registered although not all will dial in (as of 8th Jan). Acknowledge Fluor Acknowledge Hette Mention Guido’s “Insights” report on the GCCSI websight – “How does carbon capture affect water consumption?”
- Electrabel Nederland is renamed to GDF SUEZ Energie Nederland Mention the involvement of the EU CCS Network, of which we are a member project.
- Both plants can operate without CCS. There is no permit requirements obligating either company to fit their power plant with CCS.
- Mention the seawater visible on both sides of this picture and the fact that this power station is direct seawater cooled.
- Emphasise the 23.4% - just under one quarter of full scale for this unit. Explain what is on the picture emphasising: Cooling water flow from right to left Flue gas enters the FGD at above 110oC to avoid acid condensation. It contains water from the moisture in the combustion air (minor), in the coal (typically 10%) and in the combustion of hydrogen in the coal. The amount of moisture is dependent on the coal specification. At the FGD it is quenched to about 50oC and saturated with water. This requires additional water, estimated at 120 t/h. This is sourced from a nearby freshwater lake. The stack is a wet stack operating at about 50oC. There is not gas/gas heat exchanger associated with the FGD.
- 13
- We looked at a range of integration options for the CW, steam and condensate, and this is the preferred configuration. The reasons why are: Use of the MPP3 main cooling water intake and pumps, and the discharge pond saved considerable capex and allowed the contruction to be within the limits of the existing MPP3 CW permit. By returning the CW to the discharge pond, instead of back into the inlet duct, we avoid heating the CW entering MPP3 – avoiding an efficiency penalty But this gives us a cap on the maximum cooling water flow (of about 100 000 t/h) or intake velocity limits can be exceeded. Maximum heat integration reduces CW flow through the efficiency benefit. Therefore we want to use condensate for cooling – this recovers the heat into the power system. But you need higher temperatures for condensate than is available in the main solvent cycle in the capture plant. Two areas for condensate heating were considered: CO2 stripper overhead condenser – accepted Main CO2 compressor – rejected as the higher CO2 temperature increases the energy for compression – net gain is too limited
- No detailed discussion on this, but note that: Demin water is piped into site from an external supplier and then polished for the power plant Freshwater is from a local reservoir and is close to drinking water quality (without the treatment) and is used only in the FGD. Most wastes are of a suitable quality that they can be added to the seawater, so seawater out is larger than seawater in and “other losses” are small. Note also that 155 t/h in the coal and formed in combustion. 273 t/h in the flue gas leaving, the difference is the water added by the FGD (118 t/h).
- Now we show the impact of the ROAD capture plant on the flows. Starting with the power station, items without a circle are unchaged from the previous page. Changes are: The ROAD project produces 44 t/h from the DCC which is used in the FGD, reducing the freshwater usage by MPP3 by the same amount. Thue the freshwater usage falls from 120 to 76 t/h. The steam and heat integration reduces the cooling required by MPP3 so the seawater cooling flows drop. As the flue gas has gone through the capture plant it was cooled, so there is less water in the flue gas leaving the plant. For the capture plant, we have covered: 44 t/h captured by the DCC Note that the reduction in water in the flue gas is a little less than this – 37 t/h. This is because the flue gas absorbs some water in the absorber / washing system. This is necessary to maintain the water balance in the absorber as demin water must be continuously added to (and purged from) the wash section to prevent the amine concentration building up in the wash section.
- As totals Note that most power plants do not have the freshwater and demin water intakes as separate streams. They take in freshwater and demineralise on-site as required. Thus is is better as a generalised result to consider frech+demin combined. This shows a substantial reduction. But of course the CW demand is significantly increased.
- Same as before except now there is too much DCC water for the FGD, so for the full-scale we have introduced a demin plant. The demin plant is fed mostly from surplus DCC water, but with a small external intake also. Points to note are: Water in the flue gas leaving the power plant is now lower than water due to combustion. Therefore we are actually making water from the coal+combustion process. No freshwater requirement at all – all FGD water is supplied by the DCC Surplus DCC can supply almost enough demin water for both the capture plant and the power plant. Only a small additional intake is required. If MPP3 were designed for minimum water usage, this could be eliminated altogether, we believe. Seawater consumption has transferred to the capture plant, with the total rising.
- The totals in table format. The cooling water demand rise is significant, points to note are: This arises not just because of the lower plant efficency with capture, but also because we cool the flue gas so far. This is why it is such a big effect This is not really water consumption as it is just pass-through. With seawater the environmental impact is very limited. However, on can ask how much water would need to be evaporated to give the same cooling (net loss from evaprative cooling towers). The answer is about 2% - so the extra seawater evaporated is 23253*0.02 = 465 t/h. On this measure, the increase in cooling water consumption is about 4 times the reduction in freshwater usage. Thus it is less doninant, but it still dominates. The use of water other than cooling water is almost eliminated. For coastal situations with access to seawater cooling, this can be a strong advantage.