Pilot plant for CO capture and H2 production · 421 312 259 327 277 263 335 911 1.391 1.595 1.371 1.293 1.129 1.150 1.130 0 500 1.000 1.500 ... ELCOGAS Environmental Permit ELCOGAS

PUERTOLLANO IGCC: Pilot plant for CO2 capture and H2 production

Francisco García-PeñaEngineering – R&D Director

ELCOGAS

2

INDEX

INTRODUCTION

R&D INVESTMENT PLAN. Lines

CO2 capture and H2 co-production pilot plant

3

INTRODUCTION. The Elcogas company

Spanish company established in April 1992 to undertake the

planning, construction, management and operation of

a 335 MWeISO IGCC plant located in Puertollano (Spain)

Puertollano IGCC Power Plant

Repsol YPF Refinery

ENCASUR (open cast coal mine)

Enel, SpA4,32%

Siemens Project Ventures GmbH

2,53%Hidrocantábrico Explotación de Centrales SAU

4,32%

Electricité de France

International, S.A.31,48%

Endesa Generación, S.A.

40,99%

Krupp Koppers GmbH0,04%

Iberdrola Generación, S.A.

12,00%

Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico, S.A.

4,32%

4

Process description

Air Separation Unit

N2 O2

Compressed air

Waste N2

Cooling tower

Hot combustion gasCondenser

G

Flue gas to stack

SteamHeat Recovery

Steam Generator

STEAM TURBINE

135MWISO

GAS TURBINE

200 MWISO

GGasifier

SlagSulfur (99.8%)

Sulfur Recovery

Quench Gas

O2Air

Clean Syngas

Raw Gas

Coal - N2

HP Boiler

MP Boiler Waterwash

Coal PetCoke

Limestone

Coal

preparation

Fly ash

Claus Gas

HP Steam

MP Steam

FiltrationSulfur

Removal

Tail Gas

Waterto treatment

Puertollano IGCC power plant description

5

Power output and emissionsGAS

TURBINE(MW)

STEAMTURBINE

(MW)

GROSSTOTAL(MW)

NETTOTAL(MW)

POWEROUTPUT

182.3 135.4 317.7 282.7

GROSS NETEFFICIENCY(LHV) 47.12% 42.2%

EMISSIONS g/kWh mg/Nm3 (6% Oxygen)SO2 0.07 25NOx 0.40 150

Particulate 0.02 7.5

COAL PET COKE FUEL MIX(50:50)Moisture (%w) 11.8 7.00 9.40Ash (%w) 41.10 0.26 20.68C (%w) 36.27 82.21 59.21H (%w) 2.48 3.11 2.80N (%w) 0.81 1.90 1.36O (%w) 6.62 0.02 3.32S (%w) 0.93 5.50 3.21LHV (MJ/kg) 13.10 31.99 22.55

Main Design Data

Actual average Design Actual average DesignCO (%) 59.26 61.25 CO (%) 59.30 60.51H2 (%) 21.44 22.33 H2 (%) 21.95 22.08CO2 (%) 2.84 3.70 CO2 (%) 2.41 3.87N2 (%) 13.32 10.50 N2 (%) 14.76 12.5Ar (%) 0.90 1.02 Ar (%) 1.18 1.03

H2S (%) 0.81 1.01 H2S (ppm) 3 6COS (%) 0.19 0.17 COS (ppm) 9 6

HCN (ppm) 23 38 HCN (ppm) - 3

Raw Gas Clean GasRaw and clean gas data

The design fuel is a mixture 50/50 ofcoal/petcoke

Puertollano IGCC power plant description

6

Operational data

IGCC, NGCC and Total yearly production

9

1.1621.527 1.435

744

836

622

321343

301 452421 312 259 327

277263

335

911

1.3911.595

1.371 1.293 1.129 1.150 1.130

0

500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

year

GW

hIGCC GWh NGCC GWh

752

1,171

1,5331,712

1,938

1,6721,744

1,550 1,4621,389

1,489

1,8031,698

1st 5 years: Learning curve2003: Major overhaul Gas Turbine findings2004 & 2005: Gas turbine main generation transformer isolation fault2006: Gas turbine major overhaul & candle fly ash filters crisis2007 & 2008: ASU WN2 compressor coupling fault and repair MAN TURBO2010: No operation due to non-profitable electricity price (30-40 days).

7ELCOGAS power plant emissions in NGCC & IGCC modes (2010)

Natural gas (NGCC)

Coal gas (IGCC)

Natural gas (mg/Nm 3 at 6% O2 dry)

4,229,2

291,7250,0

4,212,5

169,3

7,9 0,8050

100150200250300350

SO2 Particles NOx

EEC 88/609ELCOGAS Environmental PermitELCOGAS 2010 average

Coal gas (mg/Nm3 at 6% O2 dry)

50

400

650

500

200

5

200

1,0639,3

116,3

0100200300

400500600700

SO2 NOx Particles

EU Directive 88/609/EECEU Directive 2001/80/EEC

ELCOGAS Environmental PermitELCOGAS 2010 average

Operational data

8

Note: Net energy variable costs (average 2010)

Fuel mode FuelConsume (GJPCS)

Production (GWh)

Heat rate (GJPCS/GWh)

Fuel cost (€/GJPCS)

Partial cost (€/MWh)

Total cost (€/MWh)

GT Natural gas 68.777 3,79 18.150 8,12 147,43 147,43

NGCC Natural gas 84.005 8,38 10.021 8,12 81,40 81,40

NGCC + ASU Natural gas 1.725.092 153,19 11.261 8,12 91,48 91,48

Natural gas 616.828 10.467 8,12 85,03

Coal 145.769 2.474 3,39 8,37

Petocke 455.056 7.722 2,34 18,06

NG auxiliar consumption 265.814 218 8,12 1,77

Coal 2.914.823 2.390 3,39 8,09

Petocke 9.104.375 7.465 2,34 17,46

IGCC 1.219,61 27,32

NGCC+ASU+Gasifier (by flare)

58,93 111,46

Costs

Operational data

9

CO2 emission reduction using fossil fuels

H2 production by gasification of fossil fuels

DIVERSIFICATION of raw fuels and products

Other ENVIRONMENTAL improvements

IGCC processes OPTIMISATION

DISSEMINATION of results

BASIS of the PUERTOLLANO IGCC R&D PLAN

Based on the opportunity that an IGCC plant represents

Contribution can be relevant in:

-- climate change mitigation

-- energy supply reliability

MAIN LINES OF THE R&D PLAN


10

Battery of co-gasification tests undertaken with olive oil waste (orujillo)

Test Month/Year

orujillo dosage ratio in weight%

orujillo tonnes (t)

Test duratio

n (h)2007- 2009 1 -2 % 1.572,84 800,3

2008 4 % 652,14 154March 2009 6 % 395,86 64,4June 2009 8 % 383,90 46Sept. 2009 10 % 656,68 62

TOTAL 3.661,42 1.126,7

Diversification of raw fuels and products. Biomass co-gasification

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

14/0

6/20

09 7

:12

14/0

6/20

09 1

2:00

14/0

6/20

09 1

6:48

14/0

6/20

09 2

1:36

15/0

6/20

09 2

:24

15/0

6/20

09 7

:12

15/0

6/20

09 1

2:00

15/0

6/20

09 1

6:48

15/0

6/20

09 2

1:36

16/0

6/20

09 2

:24

16/0

6/20

09 7

:12

16/0

6/20

09 1

2:00

16/0

6/20

09 1

6:48

16/0

6/20

09 2

1:36

17/0

6/20

09 2

:24

17/0

6/20

09 7

:12

17/0

6/20

09 1

2:00

17/0

6/20

09 1

6:48

17/0

6/20

09 2

1:36

18/0

6/20

09 2

:24

18/0

6/20

09 7

:12

18/0

6/20

09 1

2:00

18/0

6/20

09 1

6:48

18/0

6/20

09 2

1:36

19/0

6/20

09 2

:24

19/0

6/20

09 7

:12

19/0

6/20

09 1

2:00

19/0

6/20

09 1

6:48

19/0

6/20

09 2

1:36

20/0

6/20

09 2

:24

20/0

6/20

09 7

:12

20/0

6/20

09 1

2:00

20/0

6/20

09 1

6:48

%

0

20.000

40.000

60.000

80.000

100.000

120.000

140.000

160.000

180.000

200.000

Nm

3/hCO clean gas (%)

H2 clean gas (%)

% Orujillo

clean gas flow (%)

gasifer load (%)

Load during %8 olive oil waste

co-gasification test

Biomass selection criteria:

Size < 25 mmHumidity < 12 %Price < 150 €/tAvailability in large quantities Critical parameter forthe biomass selection

was the behavior on the ELCOGAS grinding system.

Olive oil waste storage area


11

Step 1: Syngas production from Gasification

Fly ash Char Cl-

CN-

SH2 COS CO2 N2 …

Carbon compound + O2 + H2O CO + H2 + Impurities400-1600ºC10-40 bar

GASIFICATIONCO2 CAPTURE &

H2PURIFICATION PROCESS

SECONDARY PRODUCTION H2:

WATER-GAS REACTION

PREPARATIONCO2

H2

Step 3: “Shifting” or water-gas reaction

Step 4: H2 and CO2 separation H2 CO2&

CO + H2O CO2 + H2

Step 2:Conditioning fly ash removal, particles and sulphur comp.

CO2 capture using pre-combustion technology involves H2 generation

CO2 capture and H2 production (pre-combustion)R&D INVESTMENT PLAN. Lines

To demonstrate the feasibility of capture of CO2 and production of H2 in an IGCC that usessolid fossil fuels and wastes as main feedstock.

To obtain economic data enough to scale it to the full Puertollano IGCC capacity insynthetic gas production.

TARGETS

Project of pilot plant in an existing IGCC of Puertollano (pre-combustion technology)is part of a Spanish national initiative, “Advanced technologies of CO2 conversion, captureand storage” and it is coordinated with other related projects:

Project # 2 is to explore oxyfuel combustion to be applied in the construction of a pilotplant (20-30 MW) to be built in El Bierzo, NW of Spain. CIUDEN

Project # 3 is to study and regulate geological storage in Spain. IGME

Project # 4 is to study public awareness of CCS technologies. CIEMAT

PARTICIPANTS & BUDGETELCOGAS – UCLM – Ciemat – INCAR CSIC 14.5 M€ (initially 18.5 M€)

COORDINATION

PSE-CO2 project : CO2 Capture Pilot Plant

13

Puertollano IGCC power plant and pilot plant location

PRENFLO Gasifier

Coal preparation

Sulphur Recovery

Combined Cycle

New CO2capture pilot

plant

ASU

Pilot plant general view

IGCC power plant general view


14

Pilot plant diagram process

CLEAN GAS2% of total flow (3,600 Nm3/h)

22,6 bar130ºC

60,5 %CO22,1% H2

Tail gas1,3 bar

MP STEAMSHIFT Reactor CO2 & H2

separation(Chemical, aMDEA)

CO + H2O → CO2 + H2PIL

OT

PLA

NT

40%

CO2¿H2S?100 t/d

Raw H2 (80% of purity)

H2 rich gas 37,5 % CO250,0 % H23,0 % CO

HYDROGENPURIFICATION

(PSA)

COMBINED CYCLE

COAL + COKE

GASIFICATIONRaw gas FILTRATION

SYSTEM

Clean gas PURIFICATION

& DESULPHURATION

183.000 Nm3/h

Recycle compressor

Pilot plant size: 1:50 ~ 14 MWtPure H2 (2 t/d)

99,99% H2 @ 15 bar

/Acid)(Sweet


1515

Shifting unit

1

2

Shifting Unit (several suppliers):1. Desulphurization reactor2. Shifting reactors3. Heat exchangers: kettles

and shell&tube

CO2 Capture Unit

CO2 Capture Unit (Linde Caloric):1. Syngas absober – 12 m2. CO2 stripper – 16.5 m

1

2

PSA Unit

2

PSA Unit (Linde):1. Adsobers – 6.5 m2. Tail gas drum – 12.5 m3. Valve skid

Electrical and control building

3

3

2

1

Electrical/control building:1. Control room2. Electrical room

1

Pilot plant diagram process:3D view

16

Empresarios AgrupadosLinde-CaloricLindeConstrucciones Ocaña-CañasZeus ControlTécnicas ReunidasTécnicas Reunidas y Boreal-VilaJohnson MattheySidsa y CuñadoSAMSON, Tyco Valves and Controls y SAIDIGE PowerABB Process Automation DivisionHGL y MASAMEISA

Construction permit: December 2008Commissioning: May-October 20101st CO2 t captured: 13 September 2010End of sweet capture tests: February 2011End of programmed tests (within PSE-CO2): June 2011

Main suppliers

Mile

ston

es

EngineeringCO2 UnitPSA Unit

Civil workControl

ReactorsHeat exchangers

CatalystsPiping and fitting

ValvesElectrical components

On-line analysis systemMechanical erection

Electrical I&C erection


17

Shifting unit

Coal gas

IP saturated steam to feed

N2 (start-up)

IP steam

Desulphuration reactor

Shifting rectors

General view of Shifting Unit

Flow kg/h

Pbar

TºC

CO%

H2%

CO2%

H2O%

H2S%

COS%

Coal gasSweet 3,677 19.8 126 60.45 21.95 2.66 0.29 0.0 0.0

Sour 3,999 23.6 138 53.72 19.57 2.70 10.40 0,70 0,11

Shifted gas to separation unit

Sweet 8,732 17.3 274 1.68 28.37 21.34 43.26 0.0 0.0

Sour 8,705 21.1 277 1.40 28.39 21.53 42.73 0.74 0.0

IP saturated steam to feed

Sweet 5,055 34.0 243 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 0.0

Sour 4,706 34.0 243 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 0.0

Pilot plant diagram process (I)

Pre-heater

SHIFTED GAS TO SEPARATION UNIT

18

Separation unit

Flow kg/h Pbar

TºC

CO%

H2%

CO2%

H2O%

H2S%

COS%

Shifted gas to absorber

Sweet 5,318 15.9 45 2.9 49.7 37.3 0.7 0.0 0.0

Sour 5,318 19.7 45 2.46 49.7 37.69 0.62 0.51 0.0

Process condensated

Sweet 3,414 15.9 45 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 0.0

Sour 3,387 19.7 45 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 0.0

CO2 productSweet 4,185 1.5 40 0 0.18 95.32 4.47 0.0 0.0

Sour 4,295.5 1.55 40 0.01 0.21 94.02 4.47 1.27 0.0

H2 to PSASweet 481.7 15.2 40 4.63 79.37 0.5 0.48 0.0 0.0

Sour 457.3 19.1 40 4.02 80.44 0.5 0.39 0.0001 0.0

Rich H2 gasSweet 1,190.1 15.6 40 4.63 79.37 0.5 0.48 0.0 0.0

Sour 1,135.2 19.4 40 4.02 80.44 0.5 0.39 0.0001 0.0

LP Steam to reboiler

Sweet 4,763 4.1 144 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 0.0

Sour 4,797 4.1 144 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 0.0

General view of Separation Unit

Pilot plant diagram process (II)

YCO2 product Rich H2 gasLP steam

Y 40 %60 %

LP steam to reboiler

H2 to PSA

From shifting unit

Cooling stage

Absorber

CO2Stripper

CO2 separator

Syngas separator

Cond. Separator

Process Cond.

Shiftedgas

19

PSA unit

General view of PSA unit

Flow Nm3/h

Pbar

TºC

CO%

H2%

CO2%

H2S%

COS%

H2 from separation unit

Sweet 1,431 15.2 40 4.63 79.37 0.5 0.0 0.0

Sour 1,412 19.1 40 4.02 80.44 0.5 0.0001 0.0

H2 productSweet 795 14.7 43 0.0004 99.99 0.0001 0.0 0.0

Sour 795.1 18.6 43 0.0004 99.99 0.0001 0.0 0.0

Tail gasSweet 636 1.3 35.9 10.42 53.58 1.13 0.0 0.0

Sour 616.9 1.3 35.7 9.2 55.23 1.14 0.0002 0.0

Rich H2 gas (40 % flow)

Tail gas

H2 product

Adsorbers

H2 fromseparation unit

Tail gas drum

Pilot plant diagram process (III)

20

Comparative : sweet vs sour (design data)

Sweet Sour

Global(shifting+amines)

C.G.E s+a 88,5 % 88,2 %

Thermal efficiency s+a 60,2 % 62,5 %

CO2 recovery 91,7 % 93,6 %

21

Block diagram. Control flexibility

CO2Syngas FC PC

FC

Shifting CO2

PSA

H2

FlareTail gas

Flare

Pure H2

FlarePC

PC

Flare

PC

Flare

PC

N2FCPC

22

Some Test results

41

41,5

42

42,5

43

43,5

44

1,1 1,2 1,3 1,4 1,5 1,6

vapor/gas rate

CO

2 co

mpo

sitio

n(%

)

9595,295,495,695,89696,296,496,696,89797,2

Tot

al C

O c

onve

rsio

n (%

)

CO2 composition

Total COconversion (%)

0123456789

10

75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110

T desorción (ºC)

% F

uga

CO

2

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

% F

uga

H2

Fuga CO2 Fuga H2CO2 leak H2 leak

% C

O2

leak

% H

2le

ak

Desortion T (ºC)

Shifting:

Coversion rate has to be reconsidered!

CO2-H2 separation:

Desortion temperature can be optimised

23

Test results

UNIT START

24

SHIFTING UNIT CONVERSION / TEMPERATURE (SWEET)

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

300 350 400 450 500 550 600

Temperature(ºC)

CO (%

)

Johnson Matthey Selection High temperature Fresh Potential (Johnson Matthey) Potential (High temperature)

20/01/11 17:24-28:35

JM simulation (01/10/10)

Real values(SWEET3 test)

JM - Fresh catalyst

FIRST REACTOR

SECOND REACTOR

STEAM GENERATOR

Conversion very close to theoric, although higher reactor outlet temperature.

The high conversion obtained in the first step (near 95%) will make considering a shifting process only with one step.


The inlet second reactor temperature is higher than expected

25

Expected vs. obtained compositions of main streams (SWEET)

i) All compositions are in % vol. (dry basis)ii) Analysis carried out by ELCOGAS Laboratory

Comparison of sweet & sour catalysts: sweet tests up to Feb 2011, sour tests up to June 2011

Optimization of steam/gas ratio at shifting unit

Optimization of energy balance

Real costs of CO2 capture and H2 production.

CO2 capture & H2 co-production pilot plant. Tests

Shifted gas CO2 H2 rich gas Pure H2

Design Lab Analysis Design Lab Analysis DesignLab

AnalysisE

Design Lab Analysis

H2 50.05 51.88 0.19 0.314 - 1.31 79.75 82.3 – 83.14 99.99 99.959- 99.995CO 2.92 1.85 0 0.053 - 0.07 4.65 2.86 - 3.78 4 ppm N/ACO

237.56 37.36 99.78 98.2 - 99.622 0.5 0.02 - 0.82 1 ppm N/A

N2 8.76 8.30 0.01 0.05 - 0.28 13.97 12.2 - 13.6 15 ppm 4 - 17 ppm

Ar 0.71 0.60 0.02 0.01 - 0.09 1.13 0.89 - 0.97 80 ppm 3 - 14 ppm


26

The main learning in project phase:● The finance delay: MICINN (Spanish Science & Research Minister) and JCCM(Regional Government). Delay in main equipment supply: more than 12-14 months. Detailed engineering: conditioned by suppliers. PP construction step: delay due to safety permits since it is installed in an operatingplant. Delay of commissioning: low availability of experimented personnel.

The main learning in commissioning & operation phases:● Investment costs: € 13 million● Unexpected reactivity: 95% CO conversion in first step of shifting unit

Estimated: 85% consider a shifting process with only one step.● CO2 and H2 design specifications: easily achieved● CO2 capture rate: 91.7%● Auxiliary consumption: lower than estimated in design● Integration of O&M in the existing IGCC: very easy

CO2 > 99 %H2 pure > 99.995 %


27

CO2 Capture Costs Comparison

1) Scaled up 100% Puertollano IGCC synthetic gas from the 14MWt pilot plant.2) Existing plant capture cost = f (investment costs and operational costs).

3) First ELCOGAS estimations show values of 25-30 €/ t CO24) Comparing to other studies

tonnesCO CapturedOPEXCAPEXCO€/t cost, capture CO2

22

Fuente: DOE/NETL CCS RD&D ROADMAP December 2010

30 forELCOGAS

retrofit


28

1015202530354045505560

27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

IGCC plant efficiency w ith CO2 capture, %

CO

2 co

st, €

/t C

O2

3.000 h

3.500 h

4.000 h

4.500 h

5.000 h

5.500 h

6.000 h

6.500 h

7.000 h

7.500 h

CO2 Capture Costs (SWEET). As IGCC retrofit


100 %Treated gas

33 %Net efficiency of power plant with CO2 capture

40 €/MWhElectricity price

0.92 Average load factor

6,500 hOperating hours (IGCC mode)

0.75Scale factor

0.5 %Bank fee

3.0 %Bank interest

25 Expected life

Data Variables

100 %Treated gas

33 %Net efficiency of power plant with CO2 capture

40 €/MWhElectricity price

0.92 Average load factor

6,500 hOperating hours (IGCC mode)

0.75Scale factor

0.5 %Bank fee

3.0 %Bank interest

25 Expected life

Data Variables

29

Minimum H2 prices depending on electricity price

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 50 100 150€/MWh

€/Kg

60.000 Kg/y 720h

120.000 Kg/y 1440 h

180.000 Kg/y 2160 h

420.000 Kg/y 5040 h

90.000 Kg/y 1080 h

Better to sell H2

Better to sell electricity

Minimum H2 price per fix cost of production (external personal and spares) depending on anual production hours.

Minimum pure H2 price depending on the electricity price


30

Pilot plant for CO2 capture and production of H2 and electricity with IGCC technology

Other activities: To be done after PSE as R&D platform: Water shift reaction catalyst optimization. Tests of

different catalyst

New processes to separate CO2-H2 CO2 different treatment processes

Improvement of integration efficiency between CO2separation processes and IGCC plant

ELCOGAS offers both the Puertollano IGCC and the Pilot Plant for CO2 capture and H2 production as

technical platforms to develop of process, equipments, components, or even pre-engineering of new plants

with CCS and Zero emissions

Pilot Plant beyond PSE project

Francisco García-PeñaEngineering – R&D Director

ELCOGAS [email protected]

Thank you for your attention

Documents

Pilot plant for CO capture and H2 production · 421 312 259 327 277 263 335 911 1.391 1.595 1.371 1.293 1.129 1.150 1.130 0 500 1.000 1.500 ... ELCOGAS Environmental Permit ELCOGAS