CCT-an Overviewcarboncap-cleantech.com/Capacity Leverage Programme1...Boiler Capital Cost Base 0-9% Higher Plant Capital Cost Base 1-6% Higher Non-Fuel O&M Base 0-2% Higher Fuel Cost

CCT- an Overview

Presentation titlePage 2


Market for New Coal Power Plant Technology


The Bigger market


Regional power capacity and electricity demand in the BLUE Mapscenario for India, 2050



Types of Clan Coal Technology In practice

Coal is India’s dominant fuel. The country is in urgent need for CCT todevelop its economy in an environmental benign way. After some years ofstudy and exploration, India has developed its own categories of CCT, whichinclude the following technologies:

· Coal preparation technology;· Coal water mixture technology;· Coal briquetting technology;· Coal gasification technology;· Coal liquefaction technology;· Fuel cell technology;· Pressurized fluidized bed combustion (PFBC);· Atmospheric circulating fluidized bed combustion (ACFBC);· Integrated gasification combined cycles (IGCC);· Coal bed methane (CBM) exploitation and utilization;· Flue gas desulfurization (FGD);· Utilization of fly ash and coal refuse;· Pollution control measures for industrial boilers and kilns.


Status of Clean Coal Technology


Market for New Coal Power Plant Technology

Hybrid and Advanced Systems

Hybrid combined cycles are also under development. They combine the best features of both

gasification and combustion technologies, using coal in a two-stage process. The first stage gasifies

the majority of the coal and runs a gas turbine, the second stage combusts the residual ‘char’ to

produce steam. Efficiencies greater than 50% are possible (World Coal Institute, 2002: 26).


Technology of Future


Technology of Future- kalina Cycle

In low gas temperature heat recovery systems such as dieselengine exhaust or fired heater exhaust,the energy recovered fromthe hot gas stream is more significant and Kalina cycle outputincreases by 20-30 %.The main reason for the improvement isthat the boiling of ammonia-water mixture occurs over arange of temperatures,unlike steam and hence the amount ofenergy recovered from the gas stream is much higher. SeeFigure below,where a 550 F gas temperature source is shownwith say a cold end fluid temperature of 100 F. 70 % ammonia-water mixture at 500 psia by virtue of its varying boiling point,isable to "match" or run parallel to the gas temperature line whilerecovering energy and hence the exit gas temperature can be aslow as 200 F.The steam-water mixture at 500 psia,on the otherhand,due to pinch,approach point limitations and a constantboiling point of 467 F,cannot cool the gases below about 500F.Only about 15-20 % of the energy is recovered,compared to100% in Kalina


Gasification and Micro turbines- DPS

C:\Documents and Settings\shuvendu.bose\My Documents\energy\CCT\Product_Catalog_ENGLISH_LR[1].pdf


Some Weird thoughts

► How good are we in Utilization?► Are we costing our losses to optimize?► Are we responsible and penalized for losses/rewarded for

gains?


Is India really looking for CCT? – A critical Question


► Part -2


Pulverized Coal Technology

Conditions Net Energy Efficiency

Heatrate HHV

Subcritical 2,400 psig 35% 9,751 Btu/kWh

Supercritical 3,500 psig 37% 9,300 Btu/kWh

Advanced Supercritical

->4,710 psig 42% 8,126 Btu/kWh

Ultra-Supercritical

5,500 psig 44% 7,757 Btu/kWh

Source: Supercritical Plant Overview


Subcritical vs. Supercritical

Subcritical SupercriticalHeatrate Efficiency 34-37% HHV 36-44% HHVBoiler Capital Cost Base 0-9% Higher

Plant Capital Cost Base 1-6% Higher

Non-Fuel O&M Base 0-2% Higher

Fuel Cost Base LowerControlled Emissions Base Lower- Higher

Efficiency

US Operating Units 1,338 Units 117 Units

Source: Supercritical Plant Overview


EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT FORECAST

CONVENTIONAL Vs IGCC ( Courtesy BHEL)

60

55

50

45

40

35

301990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Year of commercial use

Net

The

rmal

Effi

cien

cy (%

)

Ceramic gasturbine

566 Co 600 Co 623 Co1300 Co 1500 Co

540 Co650 Co1184 Co

IGCC (15 C Amb)IGCC (Indian Condition)

Super Critical PC Power Plant (15 C Amb.)o

Super Critical PC Power Plant (Indian Condition)o

Sub Critical PC Power Plant (Indian Condition)


Features of IGCC Technology

Efficiency:

TechnologyGross

Efficiency,LHV%

Net Efficiency,

LHV%

IGCC

(according to gasification process)

ELCOGAS-Entrained flow, dry-fed 47,1% 42,2%

SHELL (dry feeding) 48,3% 43,1%

TEXACO (no integrated) 51,6% 41,2%

E-GAS TM 44,5% 39,2%

PC, pulverised coal (with FGD, ESP and low NOx burners)

Subcritical (165 bar, 5400C) 37,5% 36,0%

Supercritical (240 bar, 5650C) 41,1% 39,6%

AFBC 37,5% 36,0%

NGCC, gas turbine F technology 57,3% 56,0%


Features of IGCC TechnologyEnvironment:

Technology Emissions g/kWh By-products / solid waste

g/kWh(*)SO2 NOX Particles

CO2

IGCC

(according to gasification process / gas turbine)

ELCOGAS/ SIEMENS V94.3

0.07 0.40 0.02 727

Slag: 210 Fly ash: 2.0

Sulphur: 4.0

SHELL / SIEMENS V94.2 0.10 0.05 0.02 712

TEXACO / GE 7F 0.13 0.35 0.02 745

E-GAS TM / GE 7F A 0.14 0.37 0.02 783

PC Subcritical ηnet=36.0%

FGD (90%), LNB (50%),

2.50 2.30 0.30 852 Fly ash: 25.0 Gypsum

(FGD): 19.6

Supercritical ηnet=39.6% FGD (95%), SCR (95%), ESP (99.2%)

2.15 1.10 0.27 774 Fly ash: 25.0 Gypsum

(FGD) : 18.8

AFBC 1.40 0.80 0.10 852 Fly ash –gypsum-

limestone: 52.9

NGCC, ηnet=56.0% 0.007 0.54 0.02 350



1. SOx , NOx and Particles:

SOx , NOx and particulate emissions are comparable to or less

than those obtained in a combined cycle using Natural Gas

(NGCC).

2. Greenhouse effect gas CO2 :

CO2 emission is reduced by 20% in IGCC over conventional

boiler base power plant.

CO in syngas can be converted to CO2 and production of Hydrogen can

be increased. Thus CO2 can be captured directly using regular

commercial process at a higher pressure than extracting it from combustion gases

from conventional PC plant or NGCC plant.

3. Water consumption:

Specific consumption of water for the operation of IGCC plant is approx. half that of

conventional plant using gas cleaning system.



4. Other contaminants : Chlorine , Mercury, Heavy metals:

In IGCC operation,

Chlorine compounds are extracted from Gas by washing with water.

Heavy metals are almost entirely captured in the slag which is a vitrified, non

leachable, inert solid.

Mercury can be removed by absorption on a bed of active carbon for IGCC at a cost

of 1/12 that of PC power plant.

5. Solid by products:Sulphur is recovered in a pure elemental state or as sulphuric acid.

Solid waste (slag) can be disposed as by products for manufacturing of ceramic

material, fiber glass, filling roads, manufacturing of cements, roof tiles or bricks.


Features of IGCC TechnologyFuel-multiple choice:

IGCC / POX :

1. Fossil Fuel:-

Natural gas

Petroleum coal

2. Alternative fuels:-

Petroleum coke

Biomass and waste products

The security of supply of fuel, stability in prices of fuel and multiplicity in choice of fuel, IGCC

Technology has clear cut edge over other technology / process for power generation.



Global Situation:Owner/ Location Commissioning Net output. MW

Other productsFuel Combined

cycleGasification

Cool Water, USA 1984 120 MW Coal GE 107E Texaco

Nuon, Buggenum, Holland

1994 253 MW Coal/ Wastes and biomass

Siemens V94.2

Shell

Wabash River, Indiana, USA

1995 262 MW Coal/ pet-coke

GE 7F E-GasTM

Tempa Electric, Florida, USA

1996 250 MW Coal/ pet-coke

GE 7F Texaco

ELCOGAS, Puertollano, Spain

1997 282.7 MW Coal/ pet-coke

Siemens V94.3

Entrained flow

SUV, Versova Chec Republic

1996 350 MW, vapor Lignite 2 x GE 9E Moving bed, Lurgi

SVZ, Schwarze Pumpe, Germany

1996 40 MW, steam, methanol

Lignite/Wastes

GE 6B Noell

Sulcis, Sardinia, Italy 2006 450 MW Coal SHELL

Texaco El Dorado, Kansas, USA

1996 40 MW, steam Petcoke GE 6B Texaco



Global Situation:

Owner/ Location Commissioning Net output. MW Other products

Fuel Combined cycle

Gasification

Motiva, Delaware, USA

1996 240 MW, steam Petcoke 2 x GE 6FA Texaco

Shell Pernis, Rotterdam, Holland

1997 127 MW, H2, steam

Visbreaker reesidues

3 x GE 7FA Texaco

ISAB, Priolo, Italia 1999 510 MW Asphalts Siemens 2 x V94.2 K

Texaco

API, Falconara, Italy 2000 260 MW Visbreaker ABB 13E2 Texaco

SARLUX, Sardinia, Italy

2000 550 MW, H2m steam

Visbreaker residues

3 x GE 9E Texaco


IGCC Heatrate Penalty vs. Fuel Type

0 0

6

14

22

0

5

10

15

20

25

Petco

ke

Easter

n Bit

Illinoi

s Bas

in

Subbi

tum

inous

Lign

ite

Coal Type

% Heatrate Penalty



Investment Cost:

500

1997

1,500

0

1000

2000 2010 2015

$/kw

Forecast development evolution IGCC power plants costs ($/kw)


Features of IGCC TechnologyCost Comparison among IGCC, PC and NGCC Power plant:

IGCC PC sub critical

NGCC base

NGCC peak 1 NGCC peak 2

Output MW 590 500 506 506 506

Met efficiency, HHV % (LHV%)

41.0 (42.2) 35.0(36.0) 50.5(56.0) 48.7(54.0) 47.3(52.4)

Fuel cost €/kWh 1.31(0.55) 1.31(0.55) 3.56(1.50) 3.56(1.50) 3.56(1.50)

Investment cost €/kWh 1300 1186 496 496 496

Investment cts. €/kWh 2.63 2.40 0.96 1.17 1.91

O&M cts. €/kWh 0,71 0,68 0,32 0,33 0,39

Fuel cts. €/kWh 1.14 1.33 2.57 2.67 2.74

Electricity cost cts. €/kWh 4.48 4.41 3.85 4.17 5.04


Features of IGCC TechnologyCost Comparison among IGCC, PC and NGCC Power plant:

1.14 1.33

2.57 2.67 2.740.71 0.68

0.32 0.33 0.392.63 2.4 0.96 1.171.91

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

IGCC PC subcritical

NGCCbase

NGCCpeak 1

NGCCpeak 2

€/kW

h Investment cts. €/kWhO&M cts. €/kWhFuel cts. €/kWh

Coal price = 1.38 €/MMBtu

Gas price = 3.74 €/MMBtu