vgbe energy journal 7 (2022) - International Journal for Generation and Storage of Electricity and Heat

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Emission footprint analysis of dispatchable gas-based power generation technologies er quantity of NO X emissions compared to the other species under investigation (see Figure 10 and Figure 11). However, because of the small characterization factor of CO and the relatively low PM emissions of both considered technologies, these two species do not impact the HTP significantly., the characterization factors for the different species are shown in Toluene equivalents. In this rating, the HCHO emissions are quantified as the most dangerous of the considered species in terms of human toxicity. Moreover, in [41], a characterization factor for ammonia of 7.5 is given as well. At this point, it should be mentioned that ammonia is required for the operation of the SCR catalytic converter and, depending on the necessary NOX reduction rate and consequently the amount of ammonia used, ammonia emissions can occur, which then also has an environmental impact. However, the available data on ammonia emission is limited; therefore, this effect cannot be illustrated at this point of the study. The results of the HTP calculation are shown in F i g u r e 1 3 . The figure illustrates that the HTP results are mainly driven by the quantity of HCHO and NO X emissions. Although NO X emissions do not have the strongest toxic effect, their impact on the HTP results is predominant due to the higher quantity of NO X emissions compared to the other species under investigation (see Figure 10 and Figure 11). However, because of the small characterization factor of CO and the relatively low PM emissions of both considered technologies, these two species do not impact the HTP significantly. As the GT’s specific NO X and HCHO emissions are higher than the correspondent RICE configuration’s emissions, the GTs HTP exceeds the value for RICE in both scenarios. However, only the SC-GT stands out in this comparison, while for RICE and the CC-GT configurations, comparable values for the HTP can be observed. This is due to the higher electrical efficiency of the CC-GT, which compensates for the higher specific emissions of the relevant species. Moreover, when EAT is applied to GT power plants, their HTP impact is significantly reduced. 5 Summary and outlook In this study, gas-based power generation technologies, i.e., RICE and GT, were investigated with regard to their emission behavior and corresponding regulations. As regulations and scientific publications commonly employ different units and reference oxygen contents in the exhaust for quantifying emissions from GT and RICE, i.e., ppmvd or mg/Nm³, a direct comparison between technologies is typically not possible. To overcome this limitation, the present study presents the emissions in an apples-to-apples metric, i.e., mg/kWh el . Subsequently, the major regulations for NO X and CO emissions were analyzed and compared in the apples-to-apples metric. Converted to mg/ kWh el , it becomes visible that the stricter regulatory frameworks (EU BAT conclusions, 13 th BImSchV, EPA) result in comparable NO X emission limits for SC-GT and SC- RICE, while the limits for CC-GT are much stricter compared to the CC-RICE limits. Regarding CO emissions, the emission limits can be reasonably regarded as technologyneutral with a few exceptions, e.g., exemplary EPA permits and EU BAT conclusions. To investigate the emission behavior of the two technologies for different power plant configurations and operation regimes, this study introduces a modeling approach for the emission calculation of GT and RICE power plants. In a first step, the part-load behavior of the electric efficiency and the most important emission species were derived from publicly available data. In a second step, the single GT or RICE models were aggregated to a power plant configuration using an EXCEL-based model environment. While a single-cycle GT and the corresponding number of 10-MW el RICE were considered in a “peaking” scenario, a combinedcycle GT and the corresponding number of 20-MW el RICE were considered in a “baseload” scenario. In addition to the emission behavior during part-load operation, the ignition and startup phase, as well as an additional penalty for the transient operation were considered. Since exhaust gas aftertreatment systems (SCR and OC) in RICE plants are commonly applied, both were included for the calculation of RICE with a constant conversion efficiency of 90 %. For the GT, however, no EAT was considered. Finally, the major emission species were calculated for both technologies in two operational scenarios, i.e., peaking and baseload operation. For better comparison of the technologies, the apples-to-apples metric of mg/kWh el was used again. The plant performance for each operating scenario was calculated leveraging a load profile derived from real plant data. Due to frequent load changes and startup processes, the emission results indicate that peaking operation can result in higher average emission values in comparison to the full-load value associated with the related technology. This finding is especially evident in the CO emission results of the GT, as CO increases drastically at partial load. For the remaining emission species considered in the present study, the part load emission value does not increase as significantly as for CO emissions. Therefore, the influence of the operating regime on the results of the remaining emission species is negligible. However, RICE require EAT for NO X (SCR), CO, and HCHO (both OC) to comply with strict emission limits, e.g., the German regulation 13 th BIm- SchV. To comply with the stricter NO X limit, the CC-GT must also be equipped with EAT. Since CC-GT currently in operation are typically not equipped with EAT, they will significantly exceed the stricter emission limits despite comparable absolute emissions with RICE. In SC operation, NO X emissions of GT surpass the corresponding RICE emissions. However, SC-GT NO X emissions are within the limit value implied by strict emission legislation, e.g., 13 th BImSchV. The calculated CO emissions show that GTs have lower emissions than RICE in both scenarios. The 13 th BImSchV limit value is complied with by a wide margin by all the configurations considered. Finally, the emission data for each species were examined regarding their environmental impact. The Global Warming Potential (GWP) and the Human Toxicity Potential (HTP) were applied as comparative indicators. As the efficiency drives the CO 2 emissions, the CC-GT has the lowest impact on climate change of the considered technologies. This finding is further backed by the fact that there are no significant CH 4 emissions during gas turbine operation. The efficiency advantage of the SC-RICE compared to the SC-GT is partly (using the GWP 100 ) or fully (using the GWP 20 ) compensated by the CO 2 -equivalent emissions of the RICE’s CH 4 emissions. Regarding the HTP, the emission species with the highest impacts are NO X and HCHO. As the GT configurations have higher NO X and HCHO emissions in both scenarios, the impact on Human Toxicity is higher in comparison to the RICE configurations commonly built with EAT. While the CC-GT without EAT has a comparable HTP to both RICE configurations, the SC-GT stands out with the highest HTP in this comparison. However, EAT with an average conversion rate of 90 % under all operating conditions is necessary for the RICE to achieve the calculated HTP. The methodology applied in the present study employs a holistic comparison between two technologies with the same inputs and outputs on an apples-to-apples basis. Moreover, the present study does not solely focus on thermodynamic performance but also leverages a detailed analysis of the emissions associated with the electricity supply through both technologies. Going a step further, the emissions are aggregated into different damage pathways and impact categories which summarize the environmental impact of other emissions species. In such a way, a comprehensive thermodynamic and ecologic analysis of both technologies in different operating scenarios is allowed. In further studies, the methodology can be improved by using more detailed transient and part-load characteristics for the emissions of the considered GT and RICE. Moreover, full-load emission values of new stateof-the-art engines and “engines in operation” need to be distinguished. Additionally, the heat-up phase and degradation of the EAT systems should also be modelled to account for the conversion efficiency of the catalysts more precisely during plant start and transient operation. Potential ammonia emissions due to SCR operation should be 42 | vgbe energy journal 7 · 2022
Emission footprint analysis of dispatchable gas-based power generation technologies considered as well. Furthermore, a more comprehensive range of damage metrics needs to be applied to the emission values to sharpen the environmental footprint analysis. Life cycle emissions should also be taken into account, as these are commonly used as a reference, for example in the EU taxonomy regulation. Moreover, the utilization of alternative, CO 2 -neutral fuels should also be investigated with regard to their ecological impact using the shown methodology. Literature [1] European Commission; 2022; A European Green Deal. Available online at: https:// ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities- 2019-2024/european-green-deal/. [2] European Commission; 2022; EU taxonomy for sustainable activities. Available online at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/businesseconomy-euro/banking-and-finance/ sustainable-finance/eu-taxonomy-sustainableactivities_en. [3] Bundesministerium der Justiz; 2021; Verordnung über Großfeuerungs-, Gasturbinen- und Verbrennungsmotoranlagen (13. BImSchV). [4] European Commission Joint Research Centre; 2017; Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for Large Combustion Plants; EUR 28836 EN. [5] International Finance Cooperation – World Bank Group; 2017; Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines – Air Emissions and Ambient Air Quality – Small Combustion Facilities Emissions Guidelines. [6] European Parliament and Council; 2015; Directive on the limitation of emissions from certain pollutants into the air from medium combustion plants (2015/2193). [7] Bundesministerium der Justiz; 2019; Verordnung über mittelgroße Feuerungs-Gasturbinen- und Verbrennungsmotoranlagen (14. BImSchV). [8] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Available online at: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ rblc/index.cfm?action=PermitDetail. ProcessInfo&facility_id=28587&PROCESS _ID=112432 ; accessed: March 2022. [9] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Available online at: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ rblc/index.cfm?action=PermitDetail. ProcessInfo&facility_id=28854&PROCESS _ID=113890 ; accessed: March 2022. [10] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Available online at: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ rblc/index.cfm?action=PermitDetail. ProcessInfo&facility_id=28704&PROCESS _ID=113037 ; accessed: March 2022. [11] Nielsen, M.; Illerup, J.; Birr-Petersen, K.; 2008; Revised emission factors for gas engines including start/stop emissions. NERI Technical Report No. 672. [12] Miller, W.; Johnson, K.; Peng, W.; Yang, J.; 2020; Local Air Benefits by Switching from Diesel Fuel to LNG on a Marine Vessel. California Air Resources Board CARB. [13] Anderson, M.; Salo, K.; Fridell, E.; 2015; Particle- and gaseous emissions from a LNG powered ship. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015. [14] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: CAMD’s Power Sector Emission Data Guide Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/ airmarkets/camds-power-sector-emissiondata-guide; accessed: March 2022. [15] Lechner, Christof & Seume, Joerg; 2003; Stationäre Gasturbinen. DOI:10.1007/978- 3-662-10016-5. [16] Kawasaki Heavy Industries: Kawasaki Gas Turbine Generator Sets; Available online at: https://global.kawasaki.com/en/energy/ pdf/Green_Brochure.pdf; accessed: March 2022. [17] Aune, R.; Wright, C.; Hollaway, M.; Evaluation of the next generation of fracturing fleets: Tier IV Diesel, Tier IV Dual Fuel and Electric; Available online at: https://www. libertyfrac.com/wp-content/uploads/ 2020/01/The-Next-Generation-of-Fracturing-Fleets-A-Liberty-ESG-Evaluation.pdf ; accessed: March 2022. [18] Seydel, C.; 2015; Performance Influences of Hydrogen Enriched Fuel on Heavy-Duty Gas Turbines in Combined Cycle Power Plants. V003T08A002. 10.1115/GT2015-42018. [19] Gülen, S.; 2019; Aeroderivative Gas Turbine. 10.1017/9781108241625.024. [20] Siemens Energy: We power the world with innovative gas turbines – Siemens Energy gas turbine portfolio; Available online at: https://assets.siemens-energy.com/siemens/assets/api/uuid:a42b9bc4-dc1e- 4205-a27e-afa3de31b6f3/familybrochuregasturbines-sev11-medium144dpi.pdf ; accessed: March 2022. [21] Pavi, R.; Moore, G.D.: Gas Turbine Emissions and Control (GE Power Systems); Available online at: https://www.ge.com/ content/dam/gepower-new/global/en_ US/downloads/gas-new-site/resources/ reference/ger-4211-gas-turbine-emissionsand-control.pdf; accessed: March 2022. [22] Winkler, Dieter & Geng, Weiqun & Engelbrecht, Geoffrey & Stuber, Peter & Knapp, Klaus & Griffin, Timothy. (2017). Staged combustion concept for gas turbines. Journal of the Global Power and Propulsion Society. 1. CVLCX0. 10.22261/CVLCX0. [23] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) Emission Control Technology for New Stationary Combustion Turbines. [24] International Council On Combustion Engines (CIMAC): CIMAC Position Paper – Methane and Formaldehydes Emissions of Gas Engines; Available online at: https:// www.cimac.com/cms/upload/Publication_ Press/WG_Publications/CIMAC_ WG17_2014_Apr_Position_Methane_and_ Formaldehyde_Emissions.pdf; accessed: March 2022. [25] Wien, S.; Beres, J.; Richani, B. (GE Energy): Air Emissions Terms, Definitions and General Information; 2005. [26] Siemens AG: A&WMA Annual Meeting – Siemens Small Power Presentation; Oct 19 2016; Available online at: https://wcsawma.starchapter.com/images/downloads/ Presentations_from_2016_Annual_Conference/overview_of_siemens_small_power_ generating_units.pdf; accessed: March 2022. [27] BAHR, D. W. (August 5, 2010). “GAS TUR- BINE COMBUSTION—Alternative Fuels and Emissions.” ASME. J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power. November 2010; 132(11): 116501.; https://doi.org/10.1115/ 1.4001927. [28] Lehtoranta, K.; Aakko-Saksa, P.; Murtonen, T.; Vesala, H.; Ntziachristos, L.; Rönkkö, T.; Karjalainen, P.; Kuittinen, N.; Timonen, H.; 2019; Particulate Mass and Nonvolatile Particle Number Emissions from Marine Engines Using Low-Sulfur Fuels, Natural Gas, or Scrubbers. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 3315–3322. DOI: 10.1021/acs. est.8b05555. [29] Stenersen, D.; Thonstad, O.; 2017; GHG and NO X emissions from gas fuelled engines. SINTEF ocean AS, OC2017 F-108 – Unrestricted. [30] Sommer, D.; Yeremi, M.; Son, J.; Corbin, J.; Gagné, S.; Lobo, P.; Miller, J.; Kirchen, P.; 2019; Characterization and Reduction of In- Use CH 4 Emissions from a Dual Fuel Marine Engine Using Wavelength Modulation Spectroscopy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 2892−2899. DOI: 10.1021/acs. est.8b04244. [31] Horgen, O.; 2012; Rolls-Royce Marine - The “Environship Concept”. System Solutions & Wave Piercing Technology, Rollce-Royce. [32] Ushakov, S.; Stenersen, D.; Einang, P.; 2019; Methane slip from gas fuelled ships: a comprehensive summary based on measurement data. Journal of Marine Science and Technology. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00773-018-00622-z. [33] Wärtsilä press release; 2020; Cutting greenhouse gas emissions from LNG engines. Available online at: https://www.wartsila. com/media/news/06-04-2020-cuttinggreenhouse-gas-emissions-from-lng-engines. [34] Environmental Protection Agency; 2021; Technology Transfer Network: Clean Air Technology Center - RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse. Available online at: https:// cfpub.epa.gov/rblc/index.cfm?action= Search.BasicSearch&lang=en. [35] Krivopolianskii, V.; Valberg, I.; Stenersen, D.; Ushakov, S.; Æsøy, V.; 2018, Control of the combustion process and emission formation in marine gas engines. Journal of Marine Science and Technology. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1007/s00773-018-0556-0. [36] Baas, H.; 2017; Abgasemissionen von Gasmotoren – Planertage 2017. Caterpillar. [37] Energy-Charts; 2022; Nettostromerzeugung aus Erdgas in Deutschland, Blockscharfe Erzeugung „Düsseldorf Lausward F“. Available online at: https://energycharts.info/charts/power/. [38] Myhre, G., D. Shindell, F.-M. Bréon, W. Collins, J. Fuglestvedt, J. Huang, D. Koch, J.-F. Lamarque, D. Lee, B. Mendoza, T. Nakajima, A. Robock, G. Stephens, T. Takemura and H. Zhang, 2013: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. [39] Climate Analytics; Why using 20-year Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) for emission targets is a very bad idea for climate policy – URL: https://climateanalytics.org/briefings/why-using-20-year-global-warmingpotentials-gwps-for-emission-targets-is-a- very-bad-idea-for-climate-policy/; Accessed: 2022-04-28. [40] European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability; Supporting Information to the Characterisation Factors of the ILCD Recommended Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods, 2013; DOI: 10.2788/60825, ISBN: 978-92-79-22727-1. [41] Hertwich, E.G.; Mateles, S.F.; Pease, W.S.; McKone, T.E.; An Update of the Human Toxicity Potential with Special Consideration of Conventional Air Pollutants, 2006, ISSN 1504-3681, URL - https://www.ntnu.no/c/ document_library/get_ file?uuid=a76b6602-6052-4a03-a48de1d274223eee&groupId=10370; Accessed; 2022-05-18. l vgbe energy journal 7 · 2022 | 43
Page 1 and 2: International Journal for Generatio
Page 3 and 4: Editorial Enlit selects Germany for
Page 5 and 6: vgbe Online-Seminar Basics Wasserch
Page 7 and 8: Ms Angela Langen Content vgbe Congr
Page 9 and 10: Abstracts | Kurzfassungen Analyse d
Page 11 and 12: MembersŃews Staudamm Vieux Emosso
Page 13 and 14: MembersŃews Seitens EnBW wird akt
Page 15 and 16: MembersŃews tur in Baden-Württem
Page 17 and 18: MembersŃews uns, aus Öl und Gas
Page 19 and 20: MembersŃews Die Kooperationspartn
Page 21 and 22: Industry News Company Announcements
Page 23 and 24: angestrebte Unabhängigkeit. Die Er
Page 25 and 26: Industry News Diese rasante Expansi
Page 27 and 28: News from Science & Research Anmeld
Page 29 and 30: News from Science & Research Man ve
Page 31 and 32: Power News Registration* & Programm
Page 33 and 34: Power News Anmeldung & Programm Sch
Page 35 and 36: mg [ ] mg [ ] Emission footprint an
Page 37 and 38: Emission footprint analysis of disp
Page 39 and 40: Emission footprint analysis of disp
Page 41 and 42: Work CH 4 in kg NO X in kg CO in kg
Page 43: Emission footprint analysis of disp
Page 47 and 48: vgbe Congress programme Subject to
Page 49 and 50: GET-TOGETHER TUESDAY, 13 SEPTEMBER
Page 51 and 52: Wasserstoffbasierte Hybridlösungen
Page 57 and 58: 11:10 V 04 11:40 V 05 12:10 V 06 12
Page 59 and 60: 14:00 V 22 14:30 V 23 15:00 V 24 V
Page 61 and 62: Künstliche Intelligenz, Darknet un
Page 63 and 64: Künstliche Intelligenz, Darknet un
Page 65 and 66: vgbe Fachtagung Brennstoffe, Feueru
Page 67 and 68: Eastern Europe - Energy security an
Page 69 and 70: Eastern Europe - Energy security an
Page 71 and 72: vgbe Fachtagung Stilllegung und Rü
Page 73 and 74: IEA - Empowering people to act Empo
Page 75 and 76: IEA - Empowering people to act Fig.
Page 77 and 78: Forum Technology: Kunststoff ersetz
Page 79 and 80: Forum Technology: DIN 28177: Erste
Page 81 and 82: Konferenzbericht: vgbe Fachtagung
Page 83 and 84: Konferenzbericht: vgbe Fachtagung
Page 85 and 86: Konferenzbericht: KELI 2022 Bild 2.
Page 87 and 88: Nuclear power plants: Operating res
Page 89 and 90: vgbe-Standard Thermal Nuclear Renew
Page 91 and 92: Media directory/Medienverzeichnis R
Page 93 and 94: vgbe energy news | People Personali
Page 95 and 96:
Books vgbe Seminar Chemie im Wasser
Page 97 and 98:
vgbe Events | Events vgbe Events 20
Page 99 and 100:
vgbe energy journal EDITORIAL SCHED
show all

vgbe energy journal 7 (2022) - International Journal for Generation and Storage of Electricity and Heat

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?