integrated gasification combined cycle - western … gasification combined cycle ... wyoming coal...

Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle

Gasification and IGCC: Status and Readiness

Wyoming Coal Gasification SymposiumCasper, Wyoming

February 28, 2007

Elaine Everitt, Project Manager – Gasification & Fuels Division National Energy Technology Laboratory, US Department of Energy

Wyoming Coal Gasification Symposium, Casper, Wyoming, February 28, 2007

Presentation Outline

• Why the Interest in Gasification• Status of Gasification

Technology• Clean Coal Demonstrations • FutureGen• Systems Studies


Why the Interest in Gasification?• Continuing high price of fuels

− Natural gas for home heating and industrial uses− Highway transportation fuels (gasoline and diesel)

• Excellent environmental performance of IGCCs for power generation

• Growing environmental community view of IGCCs as best technology option for coal systems

• Gasification is baseline technology for H2, SNG, fuels from coal and capture of CO2 for sequestration

• Consolidation of IGCC development companies• Uncertainty of carbon management requirements and

potential suitability of IGCC for CO2 controls


Gasification

A Commercial Reality Sarlux

Polk Wabash

Buggenum


Sulfur By-Product

Sulfur By-Product

Fly Ash By-ProductFly Ash

By-Product

Slag By-Product

Slag By-Product

Gasification-Based Energy Production System Concepts


History of IGCC Plants in the U.S.

• Southern California Edison− 100 MWe Cool Water Coal Gasification

Plant (1984-1988)• Dow Chemical's Louisiana Gasification

Technology Inc (LGTI) Project− 160 MWe (1987-1995)

• Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project− 262MW – Coal/Coke (1995 - present)

• Tampa Electric Polk Power Station− 250MW - Coal/Coke (1996 - present)

• Valero (Premcor) Delaware City− 160 MW - Pet Coke

http://www.princeton.edu/~hotinski/Resources/NETL_tampa_gasification_large.jpg


Cumulative Worldwide GasificationCapacity and Growth

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

PlannedOperating

MWth Syngas

Planned

Operating


Gasification by Primary Feedstock

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

MW

th S

ynga

s

Coal Petroleum Gas Petcoke Biomass/Waste

Planned

Operating


Gasification by Product

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

MW

th S

ynga

s

FT liquids Chemicals Power Gaseousfuels

Not specified

Planned

Operating


Summary of Gasification Projects

• 160 commercial projects -- in operation/ constructions/design

• 450 gasifier vessels in 28 countries• 68,000 MW thermal energy• 430 million normal cubic meter per day of

syngas • 770,000 barrels of oil equivalent energy per

day


US Gasification Development Coast to Coast, and North to South

• American Electric Power OH, WV• Agrium/Blue Sky AK• Baard Generation OH• BP/Edison Mission CA• Cash Creek Generation KY• Clean Coal Power IL• DKRW WY• Duke/Cinergy IN• Energy Northwest WA• Erora Group IL• Excelsior Energy MN• First Energy/Consol OH• Leucadia National LA

• Madison Power IL• Mountain Energy ID• NRG Energy DL• Orlando Util/Southern FL• Otter Creek MT• Power Holdings IL• Rentech MS• Royster Clark/Rentech IL• Southeast Idaho ID• Steelhead Energy IL• Synfuel OK• WMPI PA• Xcel Energy CO

Courtesy of Burns and Roe

Most large projects are for power, but also substitute natural gas and liquid fuels.


Operating IGCC Projects

Total IGCC Megawatts – 3,880 MWTotal Experience, Operating Hours on Syngas = Almost 1,000,000 hours


Clean Coal Technology Demonstrations


IGCC Technology in Early CommercializationCompleted Clean Coal Projects

• Wabash River − 1996 Powerplant of the Year Award*− Achieved 77% availability **

• Tampa Electric− 1997 Powerplant of the Year Award*− First dispatch power generator− Achieved 90% availability **

Nation’s first commercial-scale IGCC plants, each

achieving > 97% sulfur removal > 90% NOx reduction

*Power Magazine ** Gasification Power Block

http://www.netl.doe.gov/coalpower/gasification/pubs/images/04540211.jpg


Wabash River Clean Coal ProjectA Case Study for Cleaner Air

0

1

2

33.1

0.1

0.8

Emis

sion

s, P

ound

s pe

r M

illio

n B

TUs

BEFORECCT

BEFORECCT

AFTERCCT

SO2

NOx

AFTERCCT

0.15

The Wabash River Plant in Terre Haute, Indiana, was repowered with gasification technology


Tampa Electric (TECO) Clean Coal ProjectA Case Study for Cleaner Air

OlderCoalPlant

SO2

NOx0.5

0

1.0Em

issi

ons

(Pou

nds

per M

illio

n Bt

us)

1.5

2.0

2.5

OlderCoalPlant

FleetAvg.

FleetAvg.

TECOCCTPlant

TECOCCTPlant

2.07

0.6 to 1.21.2

0.47

0.07(15ppm)0.1

TECO’s coal-to-gas plant in Polk County, FL,is the pioneer of a new type of clean coal plant.


Active Clean Coal IGCC Projects• Demonstration of a 285-MW Coal-based Transport

Gasifier − Southern Company Services, Inc.− In Orange County, Florida − 285 MW (net) of electricity using sub-bituminous coal

• Mesaba Energy Project − Excelsior Energy Inc. − On Minnesota’s Mesaba Iron Range− Installed capacity of 531 MW. − Expected to be in service in 2010


285-MWe Transport Gasification ProjectStatus

• All contracts with the Major Participants are in place− EPC subcontract with KBR for Gasifier Island− Commercialization Agreement between Southern

Company and KBR− GE contract for CT supply and syngas testing− All contracts between Orlando Utilities Commission and

Southern Company• Including ownership, capacity purchase and O&M

Conceptual Image


285-MWe Transport Gasification ProjectStatus

• OUC's Need for Power Application was approved by the Florida Public Service Commission on 5/24/06

• FEED is complete; received vendor quotes

• Comment period for EIS closing this month; ROD to follow

• Detailed design and equipment procurement will begin in April of 2007


CCPI Mesaba Energy ProjectStatus

• 606 MWe (net) IGCC• Excelsior Energy Inc.• $2.1 billion ($36 million federal

cost share)• Status

− Draft Environmental Impact Statement due April 2007

− Project definition and preliminary engineering design underway

− Applications for pre-construction site environmental permits under review by Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC)

− Power Purchase Agreement request under review by MPUC


FutureGen


FutureGen

• Pioneer advanced hydrogen production from coal

• Emit virtually no air pollutants• Capture and permanently

sequester carbon dioxide• Integrate operations at full-

scale – a key step to proving feasibility

World’s first near-zero emission, coal-based power plant to:


FutureGen Participants

• Other Participating Countries•India•China

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://datatag.web.cern.ch/datatag/images/DoE-logo.jpg&imgrefurl=http://datatag.web.cern.ch/datatag/images/&h=534&w=540&sz=121&hl=en&start=2&tbnid=zV3sGRlf2g_hFM:&tbnh=131&tbnw=132&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddoe%2Blogo%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

http://www.xstrata.com/

http://www.eon-us.com/


Coal-Fired IGCC

Refinery

CO2 Pipeline

Oil

Pip

elin

e Electricity

Hydrogen Pipeline

Enhanced Oil Recovery Geologic Sequestration

and / or

Coal-Fired IGCC

Refinery

CO2 Pipeline

Oil

Pip

elin

e Electricity

Hydrogen Pipeline

Enhanced Oil Recovery Geologic Sequestration

and / or

FutureGen Concept


FutureGen Will Use Cutting-Edge Technologies

• Can accommodate technology innovations with minimal modifications − Emerging from national or international R&D pipelines− Module and full-scale tests− Over life of project

• Some emerging new technologies− Membrane-based O2 and H2 separation− High-efficiency hydrogen turbines− High-throughput gasifiers− Monitoring systems− Fuel-cells FutureGen will be a global

showcase of very best technology options for coal-based systems with near-zero carbon emissions

FutureGenFutureGen will be a global showcase of very best technology options for coal-based systems with near-zero carbon emissions


FutureGen Candidate Sites Announced


FutureGen Project Schedule

BP- 0 BP- 4BP- 3BP- 2BP- 1 BP- 5

Dec. 2, 2005

Jan 31, 2007

January, 2008

July, 2009

July, 2012July, 2016

July, 2018

Siting, NEPA, and Permitting

Project Structuring

&Conceptual

Design

Phase 2CooperativeAgreement

Negotiations

PreliminaryDesign

Final Design

Facilities Construction

PlantStart-Up

&Shakedown

Initial Full Scale Plant Operations Full Scale Plant Operation Continues

Site MonitoringLimitedCooperativeAgreementAwarded

Full ScopeCooperativeAgreementAwarded

NEPA RODJuly, 2007

Final Site SelectionLong Lead Time OrdersSeptember, 2007


Systems Studies

IGCC Power PlantCurrent State-of-the-Art


Study Matrix

PlantType

ST Cond.(psig/°F/°F)

GTGasifier/

BoilerAcid Gas Removal/

CO2 Separation / Sulfur RecoveryCO2

Cap

Selexol / - / ClausSelexol / Selexol / Claus 90%

MDEA / - / ClausSelexol / Selexol / Claus 88%1

Sulfinol-M / - / Claus

IGCC

1800/1050/1050 (non-CO2

capture cases)

1800/1000/1000(CO2 capture

cases) Selexol / Selexol / Claus 90%Wet FGD / - / Gypsum

Wet FGD / Econamine / Gypsum 90%Wet FGD / - / Gypsum

Wet FGD / Econamine / Gypsum 90%

- / Econamine / - 90%NGCC 2400/1050/950 F Class HRSG

3500/1100/1100 Supercritical

2400/1050/1050 SubcriticalPC

Shell

CoPE-Gas

GE

F Class

GEE – GE EnergyCoP – Conoco Phillips

1 CO2 capture is limited to 88% by syngas CH4 content


Design Basis: Coal Type

Illinois #6 Coal Ultimate Analysis (weight %)As Rec’d Dry

Moisture 11.12 071.725.061.41

Chlorine 0.29 0.33Sulfur 2.51 2.82

Ash 9.70 10.91Oxygen (by difference) 6.88 7.75

100.0 100.0HHV (Btu/lb) 11,666 13,126

Carbon 63.75Hydrogen 4.50

Nitrogen 1.25


Environmental Targets

PollutantIGCC1 PC2 NGCC3

SO20.0128

lb/MMBtu0.085

lb/MMBtu< 0.6 gr S /100

scf

NOx 15 ppmv (dry) @ 15% O2

0.07 lb/MMBtu

2.5 ppmv @ 15% O2

PM 0.0071 lb/MMBtu

0.017 lb/MMBtu Negligible

Hg > 90% capture 1.14 lb/TBtu Negligible

1 Based on EPRI’s CoalFleet User Design Basis Specification for Coal-Based IGCC Power Plants2 Based on BACT analysis, exceeding new NSPS requirements3 Based on EPA pipeline natural gas specification and 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart KKKK


Technical Approach

1. Extensive Process Simulation (ASPEN)All major chemical processes and equipment are simulatedDetailed mass and energy balancesPerformance calculations (auxiliary power, gross/net power output)

1. Extensive Process Simulation (ASPEN)All major chemical processes and equipment are simulatedDetailed mass and energy balancesPerformance calculations (auxiliary power, gross/net power output)

2. Cost EstimationInputs from process simulation (Flow

Rates/Gas Composition/Pressure/Temp.)Sources for cost estimation

Parsons Vendor sources where available

Follow DOE Analysis Guidelines

2. Cost EstimationInputs from process simulation (Flow

Rates/Gas Composition/Pressure/Temp.)Sources for cost estimation

Parsons Vendor sources where available

Follow DOE Analysis Guidelines


Study Assumptions• Capacity Factor = Availability

− IGCC capacity factor = 80% w/ no spare gasifier− PC and NGCC capacity factor = 85%

• GE gasifier operated in radiant/quench mode• Shell gasifier with CO2 capture used water injection for

cooling (instead of syngas recycle)• Nitrogen dilution was used to the maximum extent

possible in all IGCC cases and syngashumidification/steam injection were used only if necessary to achieve approximately 120 Btu/scf syngasLHV

• In CO2 capture cases, CO2 compressed to 2200 psig and delivered to the fenceline as sequestration-ready


IGCC Power Plant

Current State-of-the-Art


Current TechnologyIGCC Power Plant

Emission Controls:PM: Water scrubbing and/or candle filters to get 0.0071 lb/MMBtuNOx: N2 dilution to ~120 Btu/scf LHV to get 15 ppmv @15% O2

SOx: AGR design target of 0.0128 lb/MMBtu; Claus plant with tail gas recycle for ~99.8% overall S recovery

Hg: Activated carbon beds for ~95% removalAdvanced F-Class CC Turbine: 232 MWeSteam Conditions:

1800 psig/1050°F/1050°F (non-CO2 capture cases) 1800 psig/1000°F/1000°F (CO2 capture cases)


SOx: AGR design target of 0.0128 lb/MMBtu; Claus plant with tail gas recycle for ~99.8% overall S recovery

Hg: Activated carbon beds for ~95% removalAdvanced F-Class CC Turbine: 232 MWeSteam Conditions:

1800 psig/1050°F/1050°F (non-CO2 capture cases) 1800 psig/1000°F/1000°F (CO2 capture cases)


GE Energy Radiant

Coal

Water

High Pressure

Steam

Radiant Syngas Cooler

Radiant Quench Gasifier

SyngasScrubber

Saturated Syngas 398OF

Quench Chamber

2,500OF

1,100OF

419OF

Coal

Water

High Pressure

Steam

Radiant Syngas Cooler

Radiant Quench Gasifier

SyngasScrubber

Saturated Syngas 398OF

Quench Chamber

2,500OF

1,100OF

419OF

Coal Slurry63 wt.%

95% O2

Slag/Fines

Syngas 410°F, 800 PsiaComposition (Mole%):H2 26%CO 27%CO2 12%H2O 34%Other 1%H2O/CO = 1.3

Design: Pressurized, single-stage, downward firing, entrained flow, slurry feed, oxygen blown, slagging, radiant and quench cooling

Note: All gasification performance data estimated by the project team to be representative of GE gasifier

To Acid Gas Removalor

To Shift


ConocoPhillips E-Gas™

Coal Slurry63 wt. %

Stage 2

95 % O2Slag

Quench

Char

Slag/Water Slurry

Syngas Syngas1,700°F, 614 psia

Composition (Mole%):H2 26%CO 37%CO2 14%H2O 15%CH4 4%Other 4%H2O/CO = 0.4

(0.22)

(0.78)

Stage 12,500oF

614 Psia

To Fire-tube boiler

Design: Pressurized, two-stage, upward firing, entrained flow, slurry feed, oxygen blown, slagging, fire-tube boiling syngas cooling, syngas recycle

Note: All gasification performance data estimated by the project team to be representative of an E-Gas gasifier


To Shift


Shell Gasification

Syngas350°F, 600 Psia

Composition (Mole%):H2 29%CO 57%CO2 2%H2O 4%Other 8%H2O/CO = 0.1

DryCoal

Design: Pressurized, single-stage, downward firing, entrained flow, dry feed, oxygen blown, convective cooler

Soot Quench& Scrubber

95% O2HP Steam

Convective Cooler

Gasifier2,700oF

615 psia

650oF

Steam

Source: “The Shell Gasification Process”, Uhde, ThyssenKrupp TechnologiesSyngasQuench2

Notes: 1. All gasification performance data

estimated by the project team to be representative of Shell gasifier.

2. CO2 capture incorporates full water quench instead of syngas quench.


To Shift


IGCC Performance ResultsNo CO2 Capture

GE Energy E-Gas ShellGross Power (MW) 770 742 748

Auxiliary Power (MW)

Base Plant Load 23 25 21

Total Aux. Power (MW) 130 119 112

Heat Rate (Btu/kWh) 8,922 8,681 8,306

Air Separation Unit 103 91 90

Gas Cleanup 4 3 1

Net Power (MW) 640 623 636

Efficiency (HHV) 38.2 39.3 41.1

Note: Revised technical performance as of January 2007. Final report release date: April 2007


IGCC Power PlantWith CO2 Capture


Current TechnologyIGCC Power Plant with CO2 Scrubbing


SOx: Selexol AGR removal of sulfur to < 28 ppmv H2S in syngasClaus plant with tail gas recycle for ~99.8% overall S recovery

Hg: Activated carbon beds for ~95% removalAdvanced F-Class CC Turbine: 232 MWeSteam Conditions: 1800 psig/1000°F/1000°F


SOx: Selexol AGR removal of sulfur to < 28 ppmv H2S in syngasClaus plant with tail gas recycle for ~99.8% overall S recovery

Hg: Activated carbon beds for ~95% removalAdvanced F-Class CC Turbine: 232 MWeSteam Conditions: 1800 psig/1000°F/1000°F


Water-Gas Shift Reactor System

H2O/CO Ratio1

GE 1.3

E-Gas 0.4

Shell 1.5

Design: Haldor Topsoe SSK Sulfur Tolerant CatalystUp to 97.5% CO Conversion2 stages for GE and Shell, 3 stages for E-GasH2O/CO = 2.0 (Project Assumption)Overall ΔP = ~30 psia

775oF 450oF 500oF 450oF Cooling

Steam Turbine Output (MW)

0.9

2.4

1.0

Relative HP* Steam Flow

230Shell

230E-Gas

275GE

455oF

Steam Steam

H2O + CO CO2 + H2

*High Pressure Steam

1 Prior to shift steam addition


IGCC Performance ResultsGE Energy

CO2 Capture NO YES

CO2 Compression - 27

Energy Penalty1 - 5.7

Gross Power (MW) 770 745


Base Plant Load 23 23

121

18

189

556

10,505

32.5

Total Aux. Power (MW) 130

Heat Rate (Btu/kWh) 8,922

Air Separation Unit 103

Gas Cleanup/CO2 Capture 4

Net Power (MW) 640

Efficiency (HHV) 38.2

1CO2 Capture Energy Penalty = Percent points decrease in net power plant efficiency due to CO2 Capture

in ASU air comp. load w/o CT integration

Steam for Selexol

Includes H2S/CO2Removal in Selexol

Solvent


IGCC Performance ResultsGE Energy E-Gas Shell

CO2 Capture NO YES NO YES NO YES

CO2 Compression - 27 - 26 - 28

Energy Penalty1 - 5.7 - 7.6 - 9.1

Gross Power (MW) 770 745 742 694 748

26 21

90

1

112

636

8,306

41.1

109

15

176

518

10,757

31.7

23

121

18

189

556

10,505

32.5

693


Base Plant Load 23 25 19

Total Aux. Power (MW) 130 119 176

Heat Rate (Btu/kWh) 8,922 8,681 10,674

Air Separation Unit 103 91 113

Gas Cleanup/CO2 Capture 4 3 16

Net Power (MW) 640 623 517

Efficiency (HHV) 38.2 39.3 32.0

1CO2 Capture Energy Penalty = Percent points decrease in net power plant efficiency due to CO2 Capture


Schedule to Complete Study

• Performance Summary Due: 1/31/07− Updated performance results are included in this

presentation

• Cost Summary Due: 3/23/07• Draft Final Report Due: 4/16/07


IGCC Key PointsIGCC

• HHV efficiency = 38 – 41% (Supercritical PC is 39.1%)

IGCC with CO2 Capture• Reduces efficiency by 6 – 9 percentage points• IGCC efficiency with CO2 capture is 5-7 percentage points

higher than PC with CO2 capture and 11-12 percentage points lower than NGCC with CO2 capture

R&D can increase competitiveness and reduce costs• Reduced ASU cost (membranes)• Warm gas cleaning for sulfur removal• Improved gasifier performance

- carbon conversion, throughput, RAM


SummaryGASIFICATION− Stable, affordable, high-efficiency energy supply with a

minimal environmental impact

− Feedstock Flexibility/Product Flexibility

− Flexible applications for new power generation, as well as for repowering older coal-fired plants

BIG PICTURE

− Energy Security - -Maintain coal as a significant component in the US energy mix

− A Cleaner Environment (reduced emissions of pollutants)• The most economical technology for CO2 capture

− Ultra-clean Liquids from Coal -- Early Source of Hydrogen


Visit NETL Gasification Websitewww.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/gasification/index.html

integrated gasification combined cycle - western … gasification combined cycle ... wyoming coal...

Documents