ultra-clean, efficient, reliable power · 2 + co 3 = h 2 o + co 2 + 2e-1/2o 2 + co 2 + 2e-co 3 =...
TRANSCRIPT
Ultra-Clean, Efficient, Reliable Power
Electrochemical Membrane for CO2 Capture and Power Generation
No. DE-FE0007634
Hossein Ghezel-Ayagh FuelCell Energy, Inc.
2012 NETL CO2 Capture Technology Meeting
July 9, 2012 Pittsburgh, PA
FuelCell Energy, Inc.
Premier developer of stationary fuel cells with >40 years of experience
Headquarters and R&D in Danbury, CT (USA), manufacturing facility in Torrington, CT (USA)
Delivering Direct FuelCell® (DFC®) power plants for On-Site Power and Utility Grid Support
Over 80 Direct FuelCell plants generating power at more than 50 sites globally
Established commercial relationships with major distributors in the Americas, Europe, and Asia
1.4 MW plant at a municipal building
2.4 MW plant owned by an Independent power producer
600 kW plant at a food processor
11.2 MW plant - largest fuel cell park in the world
Delivering ultra-clean baseload distributed generation globally
Manufacture Sell (direct & via partners) Install Services
Electrochemical Membrane (ECM) Technology
CH4 + 2H2O 4H2 + CO2
ANODE CATALYST
CATHODE CATALYSTCATHODE
ELECTROLYTE
INTERNAL REFORMING
H2 + CO3= H2O + CO2 + 2e-
1/2O2 + CO2 + 2e- CO3=
ANODE
NATURAL GAS/BIOGAS
CO3=
e-
e-
STEAM
FLUE GAS
HEAT
CO2 DEPLETED GAS
CAPTURED CO2,H2, H2O
CH4 + 2H2O 4H2 + CO2
ANODE CATALYST
CATHODE CATALYSTCATHODE
ELECTROLYTE
INTERNAL REFORMING
H2 + CO3= H2O + CO2 + 2e-
1/2O2 + CO2 + 2e- CO3=
ANODE
NATURAL GAS/BIOGAS
CO3=
e-
e-
STEAM
FLUE GAS
HEAT
CO2 DEPLETED GAS
CAPTURED CO2,H2, H2O
Net Result • Simultaneous Power Production and CO2 Separation from Flue Gas of an Existing Facility
• Excess Process Water Byproduct • Complete Selectivity towards CO2 as Compared to N2
(CO2/N2 Selectivity = ∞)
The driving force for CO2 separation is electrochemical potential of fuel on the anode side versus pressure differential across the membrane
ECM Assembly
ECM Stack Four-Stack Module Enclosed Module
ECM Module Assembly
Planar Electrochemical Membrane Assemblies Are Stacked and Incorporated into MW-scale Modules.
ECM is a modular technology: • Ease of scale up and transport • Suitable for incremental phased applications to almost any type
of CO2-emitting plant
DE-FE0007634 Project Outline
Demonstrate the ability of FCE’s electrochemical membrane (ECM)-based system
to separate ≥ 90% of the CO2 from a simulated PC flue-gas stream and to compress the CO2 for sequestration or beneficial use
Demonstrate that the ECM system is an economical alternative for post-combustion CO2 capture in PC-based power plants, and that it meets DOE objectives for incremental cost of electricity (COE)
FuelCell Energy Inc. (FCE) System design, GAP analysis, ECM fabrication, and bench-scale testing of an 11.7 m2 area electrochemical membrane system for CO2 capture.
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) Test effects of flue gas contaminants on ECM.
URS Corporation Review ECM-based system design, equipment and plant costing, and flue gas clean-up system design.
Overall Project Objectives:
Project Participants:
Project Performance Dates: 10/01/2011 to 12/31/2014 Funding: Government Share = $2,434,106, FCE Cost Share = $758,527
CEPACS System Block Flow Diagram Combined Electric Power and Carbon-dioxide Separation (CEPACS) System Concept
Implementation for 550 MW Reference PC Plant (Case 9)*
* Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants, Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity, Revision 2, DOE/NETL-2010/1397, November 2010.
CEPACS system design produces: • Supercritical CO2 ( 90% Carbon capture from PC Plant) • Excess Process Water • Additional 441 MW of clean AC power @ 44.4% Efficiency (based on LHV Natural Gas)
CEPACS System Performance
• CEPACS System increases power output of Baseline PC plant by 80% • PC plant retrofitted with CEPACS system is 3 percentage points more efficient
than Baseline PC Plant without carbon capture
550,020 549,960
991,172
36.80%
26.20%
39.82%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
PC w/o CO2 cap PC w/ Amine CO2 cap PC + CEPACS
Net
Pla
nt E
ffic
ienc
y, H
HV
%
Net
Pla
nt P
ower
Out
put,
kW
CEPACS System Performance: Emissions and Water Usage
0.0858
0.0017 0.0006
0.07 0.07
0.01440.013 0.013
0.0039
10.7
20.4
8.9
0
5
10
15
20
25
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.10
PC w/o CO2 cap PC w/ Amine CO2 cap PC + CEPACS
Wat
er U
sage
, gpm
/MW
net
Emis
sion
s, lb
/MM
Btu
SO2
NOx
Particulate Matter
Water Usage
• PC plant retrofitted with CEPACS system emits <40% amount of CO2 per unit of electricity (MWhr) as compared to a PC plant retrofitted with Amine scrubber
• PC plant retrofitted with CEPACS system has lower emissions of NOx, SOx, and Hg than a PC plant retrofitted with Amine scrubber for CO2 capture
• CEPACS system produces excess process water, reducing the total plant water usage
$59.89
$14.22
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
PC w/ Amine CO2cap
PC + CEPACSCo
st o
f CO
2 Ca
ptur
ed, $
/ton
CEPACS System Economics
• PC plant retrofitted with CEPACS system can meet the DOE incremental COE target of 35%
• Cost of CO2 capture for PC plant retrofitted with CEPACS system is 4x lower than for Amine scrubber case
59.4
109.6
80.5
84.3%
35.5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
PC w/o CO2 cap PC w/ Amine CO2cap
PC + CEPACS
Incr
emen
tal C
OE
(Cas
e 1
Basi
s), %
COE,
mill
s/kW
h (2
007$
)
CO2 TS&M CostsCapital CostsFixed CostsVariable CostsFuel Costs
Future Project Work
Membrane Testing to Optimize System Performance
Evaluate Effects of Contaminants on ECM Performance
Detailed Thermo-Economics and GAP Analyses
Technical EH&S review to assess the environmental friendliness
Fabricate bench-scale 11.7m2 membrane module capturing carbon
dioxide and producing ~10kW Oxidant
OutPipe
Cathode OutManifold(Back)
Fuel TurnManifold
Corner ‘A’ Corner ‘D’Fuel OutManifold
CathodeIn
Face
Cathode (+)End PlateAnode (-)End Plate
FuelIn IIR
FuelOutPipe Voltage
LeadsThermalCoupleLeads
Base
OxidantOutPipe
Cathode OutManifold(Back)
Fuel TurnManifold
Corner ‘A’ Corner ‘D’Fuel OutManifold
CathodeIn
Face
Cathode (+)End PlateAnode (-)End Plate
FuelIn IIR
FuelOutPipe Voltage
LeadsThermalCoupleLeads
Base
10 kW ECM stack installed on a
base
Multiple button cells in furnace
each with individual gas
flow and electrical controls
250 cm2 ECM test cell
44 MW ECM cluster 930 ton CO2/day
Power Generation: ~1150 kWh/ton CO2
Summary & Commercialization Prospects
• ECM, derived from commercially proven Direct FuelCell® technology, provides a unique alternative for CO2 capture.
• ECM cost is coming down with the growth in manufacturing: > Growing annual production: From 4 MW
in 2003 to 56 MW in 2011.
• Utilization of ECM technology in large scale fuel cell systems demonstrates the viability of carbon capture for centralized PC and NGCC plants.
Hwaseong, South Korea 60MW system in Development
Fuel Cell Manufacturing Facility, Torrington, CT
Thank You!
Acknowledgement DOE/NETL support, with special thanks to: Jose Figueroa, Lynn Brickett, and Shailesh Vora