16.06.2013 Views

1. Introduction - Firenze University Press

1. Introduction - Firenze University Press

1. Introduction - Firenze University Press

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

The basis of comparison of each method from performance perspective can be the parameter named<br />

SPECCA (Specific Energy Consumption for CO2 Avoided). It expresses the additional fuel energy<br />

in MJ that is required to avoid 1 kg of CO2:<br />

where E is the CO2 emission rate, in kgCO2/kWhel, and the net electrical efficiency of the plants.<br />

The reference plant (REF) is referred to the corresponding NGCC plant without Carbon Capture.<br />

The net efficiency of the reference plant is REF=58.3% with specific CO2 emission rate<br />

EREF=354.3grCO2/kWh.<br />

Among the most important parameters for total plant specification are the operating parameters of<br />

the ATR and the WGS-MR. Table 4 summarizes the characteristics of the base case model for the<br />

three purification methods under investigation:<br />

Table 4. Base case results for the three purification methods (CCR=90%)<br />

It is clear from Table 4 that oxy combustion of the retained combustibles (namely CH4 that is not<br />

reformed, CO that is not shifted and H2 not recovered at the membranes) is the most efficient<br />

method for the CO2-rich gas treatment in terms of energy efficiency. However, the specific quantity<br />

of the produced H2 that enters the GT combustor is increased by 11% in the cases of cryogenic<br />

separation. In other words, for systems dedicated to H2 production, cryogenic separation methods<br />

are considered to be more efficient in terms of H2 production yield. Additionally, the oxygen<br />

demand is reduced by 10% in these cases, implying a smaller ASU. However, the more complex<br />

purification system compensates this feature. The high heat recovery rate in the oxy-combustion<br />

case results in the increased power production in the ST (c. 2% increase).<br />

3.2.1 Effect of Carbon Capture Rate (CCR)<br />

It should be mentioned that Carbon Capture Efficiency (CCE) does not coincide with the Carbon<br />

Capture Rate (CCR) of the total plant because it is independent of the final usage of the recovered<br />

gases. In this study, this stream is fed to the GT to be combusted. As a result, the CCR is also<br />

dependent on the recovered CH4 and CO.<br />

Figure 6 provides useful information about the effect of Carbon Capture Rate on the plant<br />

performance.<br />

152

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!