Transcript Q1 Report

CARBON DIOXIDE CAPTURE (CC)
OPTIONS FOR ENERGY INTENSIVE
INDUSTRIES
Dr. Avinash N. Patkar
Head- Corporate Environment & Safety Group
The TATA Power Company Ltd. (TPC)
International Workshop on Carbon Capture
and Storage in Power Sector: R&D Priorities in
India
New Delhi, INDIA
January 23, 2008
1
THE TATA POWER COMPANY LIMITED
Thermal
Hydro
Wind
1) Trombay (1,330 MW)
2) Jojobera (428 MW)
3) Belgaum (81 MW)
1) Khopoli (72 MW)
2) Bhivpuri (75 MW)
3) Bhira (300 MW)
1) Supe (17 MW)
2) Nagar (45 MW)
2
ELECTRICITY USE AND CO2 (PER CAPITA, 2005)
Energy Use and CO2 Emission Per Person
25
20
15
10
5
Ch
ina
In
d
Au ia
s tr
ali
a
zil
Br
a
ld
W
or
US
Ru
ssi
a
Eu
ro
pe
Ja
pa
n
Ca
n
ad
a
0
kWh per person
CO2 (tons/yr) per person
3
AVERAGE CO2 EMISSIONS (MT/MWh)1: INDIA
Fuel Small (S) Medium (M) Large (L)
Coal
S/M/L Size, MW
1.20
1.05
1.00
100/250/500
Lignite 1.32
1.23
1.28
75/125/250
N. Gas 0.43
0.42
0.43
50/75/100
1: Central Electric Authority of India Database (2006). See reference for assumptions.
4
REDUCING CO2 EMISSIONS – STEPS
Prepare a CO2 and GHG Emissions Inventory.
Improve efficiency by energy audits and rehabilitating old, inefficient plants.
Higher efficiency technologies (Super-Critical and IGCC) for new plants.
Renewable energy – Hydro, wind, solar, bio-energy, ocean and geo-thermal.
Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS).
5
PFD FOR MEA CO2 CAPTURE (CC) SYSTEM
6
AMINE BASED COMMERCIAL SOLVENTS1
Supplier/
Solvent
Solvent Loss,
kg/ton CO2
 Solvent Cost 
$/kg
$/ton CO2
Steam Used
kg/kg CO2
Many/MEA
1.0 to 3.0
1.25
1.20 to 2.50
2.0
Fluor/MEA+
2.0
1.50
2.30
2.3
MHI/KS-1*
0.35
3.00
1.55
1.5
1: US EPA (2006); +: With Inhibitors *: Hindered Amines
7
BUDGET ESTIMATES FOR NEW PLANT (500 MW):
WITHOUT CC 1,2,3
Parameter
Sub Critical
Net Thermal Eff., %
34.8
Net Heat Rate, Kcal/kWh
2,490
Coal Used tons/hr
200.7
Gross Power, MW
541
Capital Investment, $/ kW 1,387
COE, cents/kWh
5.2
Super Critical
41.9
2,070
166.9
543
1,575
4.3
1: Sub-bituminous coal; High Heating Value (HHV) = 4,800 kcal/kg (as received).
2: EPA, 2006: With a SCR system (NOx < 15 ppmv) and a limestone FGD (SO2 < 10 ppmv).
3: Costs are + 30%, US Dollars. December 2004.
8
BUDGET ESTIMATES FOR NEW PLANT (500 MW):
WITH CC 1,2,3,4
Parameter
Sub Critical
Net Thermal Eff., %
26.1
Net Heat Rate, Kcal/kWh
3,110
Coal Used tons/hr
261.5
Gross Power, MW
670
Capital Investment, $/ kW 1,997
COE, cents/kWh
7.8
Super Critical
31.5
2,590
208.6
673
2,270
4.3
1: Sub-bituminous coal; HHV = 4,800 kcal/kg (as received). CO2 Removal = 85%.
2: EPA, 2006: With a SCR system (NOx < 15 ppmv) and a limestone FGD (SO2 < 10 ppmv).
3: Costs are + 30%, US Dollars. December 2004.
4: IPCC, 2005 (TS.3): CC system - More energy (24%); higher capital (44%) and
higher COE (42%) than baseline. These are the lower values of a range given.
9
PROBLMES WITH MEA SYSTEMS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Degradation of MEA due to O2, SO2, NOx
Losses to flue gas and leakage: Solvent costs
High solvent regeneration energy required
Corrosion of vessels, packing, piping
High capital costs (+ ~ 44% for new)
High operating costs (+ ~ 24% for new)
High Cost of Energy (+ ~ 42% for new)
Retrofit could be almost double as expensive
10
R&D WORK WITH CC SOLVENT SYSTEMS
•
•
•
•
Solvents with higher CO2 loading (kg/kg)
Solvents that will resist O2, SO2, NOX
Packing with higher surface area (250 m2/m3)
Packing with lower gas DP at high gas velocity
(3 m/sec) and high L/G ratio (60 m3/m2.hr)
• (NH4)2CO3: Alstom and Powerspan (in USA)
• K2CO3: U. of Texas, Austin, TX, USA
• Penalty Targets: Energy < 10%; Cost < 20%
11
PFD FOR OXY-FUEL COMBUSTION
12
REVIEW OF OXY-FUEL COMBUSTION
Advantages
• Concentrated SO2, NOx and CO2
• Absorption systems will be much smaller
• A 30 MW demo plant is planned by Vattenfall
Disadvantages
• Higher energy for pure O2 than MEA system
• Difficult to retrofit
• Pilot scale work so far (< 1 MW)
13
R&D WORK ON OXY-FUEL COMBUSTION
•
•
•
•
•
•
More efficient membranes for pure O2 system
More efficient adsorbents for pure O2 system
Optimization of combustion and CC
Defined system for SO2 and NOx control
A 10 MW pilot plant is planned by B&W
A 30 MW demo plant is built by Vattenfall
14
CONSTRAINTS ON CC TECHNOLOGIES: 2008
High Investment
and energy
penalty
Amine CC capital investment will be ~1.9 Crore/MW
(~44% of power plant); Parasitic energy would be
~ 24% of gross output and COE will be ~42%
higher as of Jan. 2008! More for Oxy-Fuel CC.
Technologies at
pilot/demo scale
CC technologies for coal-fired power plant are in
pilot (1-5 MW) or demo (10-30 MW) scale; Thus
uncertainty in scale-up to 500 MW
Sequestration/Reuse
Uncertainty
Limited CO2 reuse in Gas/Oil/Methane Recovery;
Costs of compression/liquification and transport
Regulatory
uncertainty
No global consensus, Limits long-term loans and
raises interest rates: Limited global financing
15
Any Questions?
For copies of this presentation, please send an
e-mail to:
[email protected]
16