CASTOR, CESAR and the Esbjerg CO Capture Pilot Plant - Zero
CASTOR, CESAR and the Esbjerg CO Capture Pilot Plant - Zero
CASTOR, CESAR and the Esbjerg CO Capture Pilot Plant - Zero
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>Esbjerg</strong> Power Station 23 rd October 2009<br />
<strong>CASTOR</strong>, <strong>CESAR</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Esbjerg</strong> <strong>CO</strong> 2 <strong>Capture</strong> <strong>Pilot</strong> <strong>Plant</strong><br />
Jacob Nygaard Knudsen - Project manager <strong>CO</strong> 2 capture pilot plant
<strong>CASTOR</strong> Project: Objectives <strong>and</strong> Main Data<br />
<strong>CASTOR</strong> – <strong>CO</strong> 2 from capture to storage<br />
4-year European integrated project (Feb 2004 – Jan 2008)<br />
<strong>CASTOR</strong><br />
Budget: ~16 M€ (EU funding: 8.5 M€)<br />
Objectives<br />
Reduce <strong>the</strong> cost of <strong>CO</strong> 2 post-combustion capture<br />
Contribute to <strong>the</strong> feasibility & acceptance of <strong>the</strong> geological storage concept<br />
Validate <strong>the</strong> concept on real site(s)<br />
<strong>Pilot</strong> plant testing for capture<br />
Detailed studies of future storage projects<br />
Doc. info<br />
2
<strong>CASTOR</strong> Consortium<br />
R&D<br />
IFP (FR)<br />
TNO (NL)<br />
SINTEF (NO)<br />
NTNU (NO)<br />
BGS (UK)<br />
BGR (DE)<br />
BRGM (FR)<br />
GEUS (DK)<br />
IMPERIAL (UK)<br />
STUTTGARTT U. (DE)<br />
TWENTE U. (NL)<br />
OGS (IT)<br />
Oil & Gas<br />
STATOILHYDRO (NO)<br />
GDF (FR)<br />
REPSOL (SP)<br />
ENITecnologie (IT)<br />
ROHOEL (AT)<br />
Co-ordinator : IFP<br />
Power Companies<br />
DONG Energy (DK)<br />
VATTENFALL (SE/DK)<br />
E.ON (DE/UK)<br />
ELECTRABEL (BE)<br />
RWE (DE)<br />
PPC (GR)<br />
POWERGEN (UK)<br />
Manufacturers<br />
ALSTOM POWER (FR)<br />
DOOSAN BAB<strong>CO</strong>CK (UK)<br />
SIEMENS (DE)<br />
BASF (DE)<br />
GVS (IT)<br />
Doc. info<br />
3
<strong>CASTOR</strong> Project Overview<br />
<strong>CASTOR</strong> – <strong>CO</strong> 2 from <strong>Capture</strong> to Storage<br />
EU integrated project under FP-6<br />
SP1 (budget: 0.75 M€)<br />
Strategy for <strong>CO</strong> 2<br />
Reduction<br />
SP2 (budget: 10.3 M€)<br />
<strong>CO</strong> 2 Post-Combustion<br />
<strong>Capture</strong><br />
SP3 (budget: 3.8 M€)<br />
<strong>CO</strong> 2 Storage<br />
Performance<br />
& Risk Assessment<br />
Studies<br />
WP2.5<br />
Process Validation in <strong>Pilot</strong> <strong>Plant</strong><br />
Doc. info<br />
4
<strong>CASTOR</strong> <strong>Pilot</strong> <strong>Plant</strong> Objectives<br />
The test facility shall<br />
Prove long-term stable operation on coal flue gas<br />
Act as a test facility for dedicated tests (e.g. test of novel solvents)<br />
Provide information about<br />
Operation costs<br />
Maintenance costs<br />
Reliability<br />
Operation flexibility<br />
Environmental issues<br />
Engineering experience<br />
Doc. info<br />
5
<strong>Esbjerg</strong> Power Station (ESV)<br />
<strong>Esbjerg</strong> Power Station<br />
400 MW e pulverized bituminous coal<br />
High dust SCR deNO x plant<br />
3 zones cold-sided ESP<br />
Wet limestone FGD (saleable gypsum)<br />
Doc. info<br />
6
<strong>CASTOR</strong> <strong>Pilot</strong> <strong>Plant</strong> Specifications<br />
<strong>Pilot</strong> plant erected <strong>and</strong> commissioned during 2005<br />
Design of pilot plant based on a commercial <strong>CO</strong> 2<br />
production plant (MEA)<br />
<strong>Pilot</strong> plant operates on a slip stream taken directly<br />
after <strong>the</strong> wet FGD<br />
Design flue gas conditions: ~47°C saturated,
<strong>CASTOR</strong> <strong>Pilot</strong> <strong>Plant</strong> Flow Diagram<br />
Cooling water circuit<br />
Wash section<br />
Treated<br />
flue gas<br />
<strong>CO</strong> 2 Out<br />
Make up water<br />
Condensate<br />
Reclaimer<br />
Reboiler<br />
Steam<br />
Flue gas from<br />
power plant<br />
ABSORBER<br />
Rich MEA<br />
MEA/MEA heat<br />
exchanger<br />
Mechanical filters<br />
STRIPPER<br />
Lean MEA<br />
Doc. info<br />
8
<strong>CASTOR</strong> <strong>Pilot</strong> <strong>Plant</strong><br />
Cooling water circuit<br />
Wash section<br />
Treated<br />
flue gas<br />
<strong>CO</strong> 2 Out<br />
Make up water<br />
Condensate<br />
Reclaimer<br />
Flue gas from<br />
power plant<br />
ABSORBER<br />
Rich MEA<br />
MEA/MEA heat<br />
exchanger<br />
STRIPPER<br />
Lean MEA<br />
Reboiler<br />
FLUE GAS<br />
5000 m 3 /h Steam<br />
(0.5% of full load)<br />
SO 2 < 10 ppm<br />
NO x < 65 ppm<br />
Particles < 10 mg/Nm 3<br />
Temperature ~ 47°C<br />
(saturated)<br />
Mechanical filters<br />
Doc. info<br />
9
<strong>CASTOR</strong> <strong>Pilot</strong> <strong>Plant</strong><br />
Cooling water circuit<br />
Wash section<br />
Treated<br />
flue gas<br />
<strong>CO</strong> 2 Out<br />
Make up water<br />
Condensate<br />
Reclaimer<br />
Reboiler<br />
Steam<br />
Flue gas from<br />
power plant<br />
ABSORBER<br />
MEA/MEA heat<br />
exchanger<br />
STRIPPER<br />
Doc. info<br />
Rich MEA<br />
Mechanical filters<br />
Lean MEA<br />
Absorber<br />
Total height: 34.5 m & Diameter: 1.1 m<br />
Sump + 4 beds + 1 wash section<br />
10
<strong>CASTOR</strong> <strong>Pilot</strong> <strong>Plant</strong><br />
Cooling water circuit<br />
Wash section<br />
Treated<br />
flue gas<br />
<strong>CO</strong> 2 Out<br />
Make up water<br />
Condensate<br />
Reclaimer<br />
Reboiler<br />
Steam<br />
Flue gas from<br />
power plant<br />
ABSORBER<br />
MEA/MEA heat<br />
exchanger<br />
STRIPPER<br />
Rich MEA<br />
Mechanical filters<br />
Lean MEA<br />
Cleaned Flue Gas <strong>and</strong> <strong>CO</strong> 2 Product<br />
are returned to <strong>the</strong> power plant's flue gas duct<br />
Doc. info<br />
11
<strong>CASTOR</strong> <strong>Pilot</strong> <strong>Plant</strong> Test Programme<br />
Four test campaigns have been conducted in <strong>CASTOR</strong>:<br />
1000 hours using st<strong>and</strong>ard solvent ”30%-wt. MEA” (Jan. – Marts 2006)<br />
1000 hours using st<strong>and</strong>ard solvent ”30%-wt. MEA” (Dec. 2006 – Feb. 2007)<br />
1000 hours using novel solvent ”<strong>CASTOR</strong> 1” (April – June 2007)<br />
1000 hours using novel solvent ”<strong>CASTOR</strong> 2” (Sep. – Dec. 2007)<br />
Doc. info<br />
12
Outline of Test Campaigns<br />
Test 1 – Parameter variation<br />
a) Optimisation of solvent flow rate (at 90% capture)<br />
b) Variation of reboiler steam input at optimum solvent flow<br />
c) Variation of stripper pressure (at 90% capture)<br />
Test 2 – 500 hours of continuous operation<br />
- Operation at ”optimised” conditions<br />
- Achieving 90% <strong>CO</strong> 2 capture (on average)<br />
- Quantification of solvent consumption <strong>and</strong> degradation<br />
- Characterisation of corrosion behaviour<br />
Test 3 – Miscellaneous tests<br />
- Absorber pressure drop measurements<br />
- Emission measurements<br />
- Etc.<br />
Doc. info<br />
13
Tests with MEA: Proving <strong>the</strong> concept<br />
The operation of <strong>the</strong> pilot plant with <strong>the</strong> st<strong>and</strong>ard solvent (30% MEA) for more than<br />
2000 hours has among o<strong>the</strong>rs demonstrated that:<br />
The amine based post combustion process is stable <strong>and</strong> reliable<br />
The process functions at <strong>the</strong> tail-end of a coal fired power plant<br />
More than 90% <strong>CO</strong> 2 capture can be achieved<br />
The energy consumption with <strong>the</strong> st<strong>and</strong>ard solvent is relatively high<br />
Doc. info<br />
14
2 nd MEA Test: Solvent Flow Rate Optimisation<br />
Specific steam consumption <strong>and</strong> <strong>CO</strong> 2 recovery at stripper<br />
pressure 0.85 bar g <strong>and</strong> flue gas flow ≈5000 Nm 3 /h<br />
4,0<br />
Steam consumption<br />
<strong>CO</strong>2 recovery<br />
100<br />
Steam consumption (GJ/ton <strong>CO</strong> 2 )<br />
3,8<br />
3,6<br />
3,4<br />
3,2<br />
90<br />
80<br />
70<br />
60<br />
<strong>CO</strong> 2 recovery (%)<br />
3,0<br />
50<br />
1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0<br />
Absorber L/G ratio (kg/kg)<br />
Doc. info<br />
15
2 nd MEA Test: 500 Hours of Continuous Operation<br />
Flue gas flow Steam consump. <strong>CO</strong>2 recovery<br />
6000<br />
100<br />
Flue gas & Steam (Nm<br />
3 /h wet, MJ/ton <strong>CO</strong> 2 )<br />
5000<br />
4000<br />
3000<br />
90<br />
80<br />
70<br />
60<br />
50<br />
40<br />
30<br />
% <strong>CO</strong> 2 recovery<br />
2000<br />
15-01-07 20-01-07 25-01-07 30-01-07 04-02-07 09-02-07<br />
20<br />
Average steam consumption: ≈3.7 GJ/ton <strong>CO</strong> 2 Average <strong>CO</strong> 2 capture: 88 %<br />
Doc. info<br />
16
2 nd MEA Test: Flue Gas Emissions<br />
Emission measurements have been conducted on flue gas <strong>and</strong> <strong>CO</strong> 2 exhaust streams:<br />
Very low emission of MEA <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r alkanolamines<br />
Detectable emissions of <strong>the</strong> more volatile degradation products: NH 3 (25 mg/Nm 3 ),<br />
acetaldehyde, acetone, formaldehyde<br />
Remaining acidic components in <strong>the</strong> coal flue gas (SO 2 , HCl) are quantitatively removed<br />
High purity of <strong>the</strong> produced <strong>CO</strong> 2 . Degradation products present in trace amounts<br />
Doc. info<br />
17
Development <strong>and</strong> Test of New Solvents<br />
In <strong>the</strong> <strong>CASTOR</strong> project, screening <strong>and</strong> validation procedures were set up for <strong>the</strong><br />
selection of new solvent systems:<br />
30 solvent systems were initially selected for experimental characterisation based on<br />
literature review<br />
The 8 most promising solvent c<strong>and</strong>idates were selected for more detailed characterisation<br />
in bench scale<br />
Finally two solvents (<strong>CASTOR</strong> 1 <strong>and</strong> 2) were selected for tests in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Esbjerg</strong> pilot plant<br />
Doc. info<br />
18
Comparison of Regeneration Energies with MEA, <strong>CASTOR</strong> 1 & 2<br />
Specific steam consumption at stripper pressure 0.85-1.0 bar g ,<br />
flue gas flow ≈5000 Nm 3 /h <strong>and</strong> ≈90 % <strong>CO</strong> 2 recovery<br />
4,5<br />
MEA <strong>CASTOR</strong> 1 <strong>CASTOR</strong> 2<br />
Specific steam consumption (GJ/ton)<br />
4,3<br />
4,1<br />
3,9<br />
3,7<br />
3,5<br />
1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0<br />
Absorber L/G ratio (kg/kg)<br />
Doc. info<br />
19
Summary <strong>CASTOR</strong> 2 vs. MEA<br />
Improvements with <strong>CASTOR</strong> 2 compared to MEA<br />
Decreased regeneration energy 3.7 => 3.5 GJ/ton <strong>CO</strong> 2 (fur<strong>the</strong>r improvement is plausible)<br />
Increased <strong>CO</strong> 2 carrying capacity i.e. reduced pumping works<br />
Degradation rate significantly reduced<br />
Low corrosiveness<br />
... <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> drawbacks<br />
Possible loss of solvent by physical mechanisms (entrainment & evaporation)<br />
Cost of solvent<br />
Doc. info<br />
20
Implications: 600 MW e bituminous coal fired power plant<br />
Power plant without <strong>CO</strong> 2 capture:<br />
Advanced super critical boiler, 45.2 % electrical efficiency (LHV, net) => 769 g <strong>CO</strong> 2 /kWh e<br />
Power plant with MEA based <strong>CO</strong> 2 capture including compression to 110 bar:<br />
33.7 % efficiency (penalty 11.5 %-points) => 104 g <strong>CO</strong> 2 /kWh e (86% reduction)<br />
Power plant with <strong>CASTOR</strong> 2 based <strong>CO</strong> 2 capture including compression to 110 bar:<br />
35.2 % efficiency (penalty 10 %-points) => 99 g <strong>CO</strong> 2 /kWh e (87% reduction)<br />
<strong>CASTOR</strong> 2 offers about 1.5%-points improvement according to <strong>the</strong> st<strong>and</strong>ard MEA<br />
process, however <strong>the</strong> penalty is still significant<br />
Doc. info<br />
21
Conclusions<br />
Four 1000 hours test campaigns with MEA <strong>and</strong> novel solvents have been conducted<br />
at <strong>the</strong> <strong>CASTOR</strong> pilot plant in <strong>Esbjerg</strong>. The campaigns have indicated that:<br />
Stable operation on coal-derived flue gas is possible<br />
The impact of flue gas impurities can be h<strong>and</strong>led<br />
Regeneration energy with MEA: ≈3.7 GJ/ton <strong>CO</strong> 2 at 90 % <strong>CO</strong> 2 removal<br />
Small improvement in regeneration energy with <strong>CASTOR</strong> 2: ≈3.5 GJ/ton <strong>CO</strong> 2<br />
at 90 % <strong>CO</strong> 2 removal (fur<strong>the</strong>r improvement plausible)<br />
Efficiency penalty of power plant equipped with <strong>CO</strong> 2 capture ≈10 %-points<br />
Implications for fur<strong>the</strong>r work:<br />
Possible to develop solvents with greater chemical stability <strong>and</strong> that are less<br />
corrosive<br />
Possible to develop solvents with improved regeneration energy compared to<br />
MEA, however, difficult to obtain major improvements with solvent alone<br />
Doc. info<br />
22
<strong>CESAR</strong> Project Consortium<br />
<strong>CESAR</strong>: <strong>CO</strong> 2 Enhanced Separation And Recovery<br />
3-year EU project (2008 – 2011) in <strong>the</strong> 7 th Framework Programme<br />
Aim: To reduce <strong>the</strong> cost of <strong>CO</strong> 2 post-combustion capture<br />
R&D<br />
IFP (FR)<br />
TNO (NL)<br />
SINTEF (NO)<br />
NTNU (NO)<br />
POLYMEN (FR)<br />
CNRS (FR)<br />
U. KAISERSLAUTERN (DE)<br />
Oil & Gas<br />
STATOILHYDRO (NO)<br />
GDF (FR)<br />
Power Companies<br />
DONG Energy (DK)<br />
VATTENFALL (SE/DK)<br />
E.ON (DE/UK)<br />
ELECTRABEL (BE)<br />
RWE (DE/UK)<br />
PPC (GR)<br />
POWERGEN (UK)<br />
Manufacturers<br />
ALSTOM POWER (SE)<br />
DOOSAN BAB<strong>CO</strong>CK (UK)<br />
SIEMENS (DE)<br />
BASF (DE)<br />
Coordinator: TNO<br />
Doc. info<br />
23
Outline <strong>CESAR</strong> Project<br />
WP1<br />
Advanced separation processes<br />
Solvent selection<br />
Novel solvents<br />
High flux membrane contactors<br />
WP3<br />
Solvent process validation<br />
Qualification of solvents<br />
Solvent process validation in<br />
<strong>Esbjerg</strong> pilot plant<br />
Environmental impact<br />
WP2<br />
Process modeling & Integration<br />
Development of process models<br />
Integration studies<br />
European benchmark task force<br />
Doc. info<br />
24
<strong>CESAR</strong> Objectives of <strong>Pilot</strong> <strong>Plant</strong> Testing in <strong>Esbjerg</strong><br />
Evaluate <strong>the</strong> potential of advanced absorption/desorption process<br />
configurations in pilot-scale<br />
Determine <strong>the</strong> performance of novel solvents in realistic operation<br />
conditions for future full-scale application in coal-fired power plants<br />
Measure energy requirement <strong>and</strong> temperature levels for regeneration of <strong>the</strong><br />
novel solvents<br />
Monitor actual solvent degradation, losses <strong>and</strong> by-products, corrosion,<br />
fouling <strong>and</strong> emissions for novel solvents<br />
Doc. info<br />
25
<strong>CESAR</strong> <strong>Pilot</strong> <strong>Plant</strong> Modifications: Inter-cooler & Flash<br />
Absorber inter-cooler skid Flash vessel for vapour recompression<br />
26<br />
Doc. info<br />
Doc. info
<strong>CESAR</strong> <strong>Pilot</strong> <strong>Plant</strong> Test Programme<br />
Three test campaigns will be conducted in <strong>CESAR</strong>:<br />
2000 hours using st<strong>and</strong>ard solvent ”30%-wt. MEA” (March – July 2009)<br />
2000 hours using novel solvent ”<strong>CESAR</strong> 1” (Oct. – Dec. 2009)<br />
2000 hours using novel solvent ”<strong>CESAR</strong> 2” (Feb. – May 2010)<br />
Doc. info<br />
27
For fur<strong>the</strong>r information on <strong>CESAR</strong><br />
European project<br />
www.<strong>CO</strong>2cesar.eu<br />
Doc. info<br />
28
Change language