1

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION MITIGATION THROUGH AMINE BASED CARBON DIOXIDE CAPTURE IN COAL FIRED ELECTRICITY

GENERATION PLANTS

Tanuja Bhattacharjeest104547

Fos- Energy

Prof. Sivanappan Kumar (Chairperson) Dr. Animesh Dutta (Co-chairperson) Dr. Brahmanand Mohanty Dr. Mithulananthan Nadarajah

2

OutlineOutline of the presentation • Introduction Introduction

– Over view of CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) and its role in emission mitigation

– Target of GHG stabilization - when to take action for mitigation?– Emission mitigation- where the actions need to take place?

• Study descriptionStudy description– Research gap and specific objective– Methodology

• Results of the studyResults of the study• Highlights Highlights

This presentation highlights highlights

•the need to deploy CCS (Carbon capture and storage) for GHG emission mitigation in developing countries

•the scope of utilizing MEA (mono ethanolamine) technology for coal fired power plants

3

CCS- for GHG emission for GHG emission mitigationmitigation

Long term emission mitigation

Changes

• source of energy

• process of transformation

Source: IPCC, 2005

Why CCS ?

Compatibility Maturity Capacity

Courtesy: CO2CRC

4

Source: GTSP, 2007

CO2 remains in the

atmosphere for 80 to 200 years

Today / Tomorrow ??

Allowable increase 20C=> 450 ppm CO2 conc.

Source: IPCC, 2005

GHG emission mitigation – target and time of actiontarget and time of action

Time of action-

Source: GTSP, 2007

5

• Coal is largest source (40%) of emission from fossil fuel and attractive option for CCS

• 60% of world’s coal production is in Asia (IEA, 2006)- China 1st, India 3rd

• Growth of coal production by 2.2% per year to 2020-main contribution by developing countries of Asia

World CO2 emission, 2004-2030 source: EIA, 2007

Global distribution of large stationary sources of CO2 Source: IEA GHG, 2002

CCS- needs to shift the research paradigmneeds to shift the research paradigm

6

Research gap

• Lack of information - regional emission inventory and mitigation potential-sector wise

• Performance – most of the works consider highest limit of CO2 removal and ignore suitable integration strategy

• Lack of extensive research on existing plants

1. To estimate the CO2 emission reduction potential using MEA system for coal fired power plants in Thailand, Vietnam, India and Bangladesh.

2. To study net emission reduction benefit of MEA based CO2 capture system.

3. Identify cost effective level of CO2 capture using MEA

system for two coal power plants

Focus of this

presentation

Objectives

7

Result 1: CO2 emission in 2008

Result 2: CO2

emission in 2020

Result 3: CO2 emission mitigation

potential in 2020

Results 4: cost performance of

different group of power plant

Methodology(Objective 1)

8

Result 1 –CO2 Emission in 2008

Present installed capacity (GW) and share of fuel

Emission from coal fired power plants, 2008

9

Country

Growth of electricity generation capacity

(%)

TOTAL

Growth of electricity generation capacity

(%)

COAL

India 6 6

Thailand 5 6

Vietnam 11 17

Bangladesh 8 25

choice of CoaCoall is

driven by fuel availability and

price

Power development plan- influence of CoaCoall

CO2 Emission from coal power plants, 2020

Result 2 –CO2 Emission in 2020

10

Observations

0

1

2

3

4

5

India Others (Thailand, Vietnam,Bangladesh)

1990-2008

2008-2020

Cumulative emisison (MtCO2) during 1990-2020 due to coal fired electricity generation

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

Em

issi

on M

tCO

2

xxxx

Obs. 2: Cumulative emission, 1990-2020

Obs. 1: Trend of emission, 1990-2020

Obs. 4: Comparative Growth of installed capacity , India and others 1990-2020

1.5 GtCO2/yr by 2020

Obs. 3: EmissionsCoal fired power: Other

large point sources 3:2

2ppm CO2

in atm

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Inst

alle

d c

apac

ity

GW

vv

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Em

issi

on M

tCO

2/yr

..nnn

Installed capacity GWEmission MtCO2

11

Result 3- Emission mitigation potential using MEA technology

Emission mitigation potential

PC technology, age/ year of operation, Size

Total coal fired capacity

Compatible capacity to be integrated

with amine system

12

Results 4- cost performance of different groups of power plants

1. Identify plant size, coal type, technology, coal price

2. Differentiate in retrofit and capture ready option

3. 10 cases formed to compared the performance; India 4 cases, Thailand 3 cases, Vietnam 2 cases, Bangladesh 1 case

Comparison of COE ($/MWh) and Performance

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

I2 I1 V1 I3 T1 T3 T2 I4 V2 B

CO

E($

/MW

h)

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

31

33

Net

Eff

icie

ncy

% (

HH

V)

$/MWh $/MWh CO2 capture Efficiency %

•COE almost double

•COE is not equally affected

•COE not fully governed by Efficiency

13

Range of Capture cost($/ton)

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

I1 I2 I3 V1 T1 T2 I4 T3 B V2

Range of capture cost due to the uncertainties imposed to model, size, plant capacity factor etc

Emission mitigation potential 600 MtCO2/yr 65% of total emission from the same sector in 2020

Results 4- contd.

14

Conclusion

• Total CO2 emission (450 MtCO2/yr) from coal fired power generation (in India, Bangladesh, Thailand and Vietnam) would be double in 2020 (885 MtCO2)

• In 2020, around 600 MtCO2 /yr is possible to mitigate by MEA technology at a cost lower than $50/tCO2 of which half is possible to mitigate at 37-42 $/tCO2 which is highly competitive

• Raghuvanshi, 2005 estimated CO2 emission for India results 675 MtCO2/yr in 2020- within 7.5% variation from current study

• GTSP, 2007 presents cost of CO2 capture 25-55 $/tCO2- range of current study is within the range

Results- comparison with others’ work

15

Case studies: Bangladesh and Thailand

Varying CO2 capture level observation of

•Investment and energy penalty

•CO2 avoidance cost

•Using bypass option observation of the parameters

Case a Thailand 1800MW, Lignite coal

Case b, Bangladesh 250 MW, Bituminous coal

16

• Case ‘a’ can capture 903 tCO2 /hr (75%) bypassing 15% flue gas with 20% power drop (wrt. gross plant size) and 1.7 times increase in COE

• Case ‘b’ can capture 184 tCO2/ hr (80%) without bypass and with one third reduction in output with more than twice increase in COE

• Compared to case ‘a’, cost of CO2 capture ($/tCO2) is 30% more for case ‘b’, emission reduction potential is only one fifth, specific energy penalty in case ‘b’ is around 10-15 kWh/tCO2 higher than case ‘a’

Results- performance of two existing plant with CO2 capture

Comparison between case a and case b

17

Highlights

• Low rank coal would be in comparatively favorable position with CO2 capture compared to high rank coal

• Coal fired power plants can play vital role in GHG mitigation utilizing the opportunity CO2 capture in commercial manner

• One fifth on total CO2 emission is possible to mitigate in these countries using MEA technology only in coal fired power generation sector

18

emission and mitigation are going as usual…….. consequence….

Today 28GtCO2Ocean - 7.4 GTCO2

Forest- 5.5 GTCO2

Rest Rest ???? ???? (More than 5-10 GtCO2

need to be mitigated)

CCS- present potential 2.5 GtCO2……………… need to develop rapid deployment potential

Option 1

Option 2

19

emission and mitigation are going as usual…….. consequence….

Today 28GtCO2Ocean - 7.4 GTCO2

Forest- 5.5 GTCO2

Rest Rest ???? ???? (More than 5-10 GtCO2

need to be mitigated)

CCS- present potential 2.5 GtCO2……………… need to develop rapid deployment potential

Option 1

Option 2

Q n A Q n A

THANK YOUTHANK YOU

Is it acceptable ????

20

22

2030

Sukla, 2004

23

24

process overview

Power plant

25

26…………maximum allowable range of change in temperature => 2maximum allowable range of change in temperature => 200CC

27

28

AcronymsCCS- Carbon Capture and Storage COE-Cost of ElectricityDCC-Direct Contact CoolerEIA- Energy Information Administration ESP-Electrostatic PrecipitatorFGD-Flue Gas DesulphurizationGHG-Greenhouse GasGT- Gas TurbineGTSP-Global Energy Technology Strategy Program HHV-Higher Heating ValueIEA-International Energy AgencyIEA GHG- IEA Greenhouse Gas Research & Development Programme IECM-Integrated Environmental Control Model IGCC-Integrated Gasification Combined CycleIPCC-Intergovernmental Panel of Climate ChangeMEA-MonoethanolamineMTCO2- Million Ton of CO2O&M-Operation and MaintenancePC-Pulverized CoalPM- Particulate MaterialSCHR- Steam Cycle Heat Rate

29

World wide CCS project distribution

North America Australia Europe South America Africa Asia

Source: IEA GHG R&D Programme

32