1

Slipstream pilot plant demo of a amine-based post-combustion capture technology for CO2 capture from coal-fired power plant flue gas

DOE funding award DE-FE0007453

Project Kick-off MeetingDOE-NETL, Pittsburgh, PANovember 15, 2011

2

Project Fact Sheet

Scaled-up slipstream Pilot PCC Technology Demonstration — Selected by DOE for funding— Contract sign-off in Nov. 2011— Pilot plant incorporates BASF‘s novel

amine based solvent technology and BASF & Linde process enhancements

Project essentials— Location: 880 MWel Gaston Power plant (operated by Southern Co.) in Wilsonville, AL— Site of the National Carbon Capture Center— Capacity: Up to 6250 Nm3/h flue gas from coal fired power plant (30 t/d CO2)— CO2 purity 99+ vol % (Dry basis)— Project start: November 2011—Project Duration: 4 years— Partners: Linde LLC, Selas Fluid Processing Corp., Linde Engineering Dresden, BASF, DOE-NETL, EPRI, Southern Company (Host site)— Project Cost: $18.8 million— DOE funding: $15 million

Reco

vere

d CO

2

Deso

rber

Was

te W

ater

FLUE GAS FEED

Abso

rber

Pres

crub

ber

Condenser

Filter*

Reboiler STEAM

CO2-

Lean

Flu

egas

Make-up Water

Interstagecooler

NaOHTank

Solvent Tank

Make Up

Solvent*

NaO

H

Condensate

Provided by Southern/NCCC

(Existing unit)

FLUE GAS RETURN

Make-up

Water

Cooling Water In

CW

CW

CW

CW

CW

To C

W H

X

From

CW

HX

Cooling Water Out

Mak

e-up

Wat

er

Lind

e-BA

SF P

ILO

T PL

ANT

–N

CCC/

Sout

hern

PO

WER

PLA

NT

Inte

rfac

e w

ith T

ie In

Poi

nts

El. Power Supply

Drain*

Reco

vere

d CO

2

Deso

rber

Was

te W

ater

FLUE GAS FEED

Abso

rber

Pres

crub

ber

Condenser

Filter*

Reboiler STEAM

CO2-

Lean

Flu

egas

Make-up Water

Interstagecooler

NaOHTank

Solvent Tank

Make Up

Solvent*

NaO

H

Condensate

Provided by Southern/NCCC

(Existing unit)

FLUE GAS RETURN

Make-up

Water

Cooling Water In

CW

CW

CW

CW

CW

To C

W H

X

From

CW

HX

Cooling Water Out

Mak

e-up

Wat

er

Lind

e-BA

SF P

ILO

T PL

ANT

–N

CCC/

Sout

hern

PO

WER

PLA

NT

Inte

rfac

e w

ith T

ie In

Poi

nts

El. Power Supply

Drain*

3

Overall Objective

— Demonstrate Linde-BASF post combustion capture technology by incorporating BASF’s amine-based solvent process in a 1 MWel slipstream pilot plant and achieving at least 90% capture from a coal-derived flue gas while demonstrating significant progress toward achievement of DOE target of less than 35% increase in levelized cost of electricity (LCOE)

Specific Objectives

— Complete a techno-economic assessment of a 550 MWel power plant incorporating the Linde-BASF post-combustion CO2 capture technology to illustrate the benefits

— Design, build and operate the 1MWel pilot plant at a coal-fired power plant host site providing the flue gas as a slipstream

— Implement parametric tests to demonstrate the achievement of target performance using data analysis

— Implement long duration tests to demonstrate solvent stability and obtain critical data for scale-up and commercial application

Project Objectives

4

CO2 removal rate (90 %)low amine emissions

50 ppm – 2 % CO2

S < 4 – 10 ppm

Treated gas specification

of highest priorityη 7-10% points

not a key issueEnergy efficiency

N2, O2, H2O, CO2, (SOx) NOxCH4, C2H6, …, CO2, H2S, COS, CxHy,S, H2OGas composition

up to 120 mio scf/hrup to 60 mio scf/hrFlowrate

30 – 150 mbars1 – 40 barsCO2 partial pressure

1 bara50 – 100 barsPressure

Flue gasNG/LNG

large volume flows @ low pressuresolvent stability

overall power plant efficiency lossesemissions of solvent

BASF Gas Treatment GroupPost combustion CO2 capture: Challengescompared to CO2 removal in NG/LNG plants

5

Technology Development Path

proof of concept under„synthetic“ conditions

- comparision of solvents- validate simulation models

litmus test for new processunder real conditions

test of complete CCS-chaincapture, compression, transport, storage/EOR

Mini Plant0.015 MWel0.01 mt CO2 / hr

Pilot Plant (Niederaussem*)0.45 MWel0.3 mt CO2 / hr

Demo Plant50 - 250 MMWel34 - 170 mt CO2 / hr

Commercial Plant500 - 1100 MWel340 - 750 mt CO2 / hr

solvent screening- screening methods

Laboratory

Advanced design and new materialsaimed at emissions reductionand capex reduction in the large scale

Pilot Plant (Current) 1 - 1.5 MWel0.8 - 1.2 mt CO2 / hr

Safe, reliable, and economicaloperation in compliance withregional and national regulations

Dev

elop

men

tPat

h

Acknowledgement: * Partner and power plant owner/operator: RWE

6

0102030405060708090

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 1 3 14 15 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 20 2 1 2 2 2 3 24 25 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 30 3 1 3 2 3 3 34 35 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 40 4 1 4 2 4 3 44 45 4 6 4 7 4 8 4 9 50 5 1 5 2 5 3 54 55 5 6 5 7 5 8 59 60 6 1 6 2 6 3 6 4 65 6 6 6 7 6 8 69 70 7 1 7 2 7 3 7 4 75 7 6 7 7 7 8 79 80 8 1 8 2 8 3 8 4 85 8 6 8 7 8 8 89 90 9 1 9 2 9 3 9 4 95 9 6 9 7 9 8 99 1 0 0 10 1 10 2 1 03 1 0 4 1 0 5 10 6 1 07 1 08 1 0 9 1 1 0 11 1 11 2 1 13 1 1 4 1 1 5 11 6 11 7 1 18 1 19 1 2 0 12 1 12 2 1 23 1 2 4 1 2 5 12 6 12 7 1 28 1 29 1 3 0 13 1 13 2 1 33 1 3 4 1 3 5 13 6 13 7 1 38 1 39 1 4 0 14 1 1 42 1 43 1 4 4 1 4 5 14 6 14 7 1 48 1 4 9 1 5 0 15 1 1 52 1 53 1 5 4 1 5 5 15 6 15 7 1 58 1 5 9 1 6 0 16 1 1 62 1 63 1 6 4 1 6 5 16 6

screened solvents

cycl

ic c

apac

ity /

Nm

3 /t

MEA

Phase EquilibriaPhase Equilibria KineticsKinetics

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Loading

Abs

orpt

ion

rate

MEAtested solvent

Losses/StabilityLosses/Stability

60

70

80

90

100

0 100 200 300 400 500 600time [h]

cont

ent o

f am

ine

tested solvents

MEA

BASF Gas Treatment GroupBASF Gas Treatment Group

Wide range of solvents screened

7

4,0

4,5

5,0

5,5

6,0

6,5

7,0

7,5

8,0

8,5

9,0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200circulation rate

spec

. Ene

rgy

Dem

and

MEA optimum

constant feed gas conditions70 % CO2 removal rate

Verification of the screening results

Identification of options for an improved solvent

BASF Gas Treatment GroupBASF Gas Treatment Group

Mini plant – BASF site in Ludwigshafen

8

Niederaussem* pilot plant key results

>90% carbon capture rate achieved

>20% improvement in specific energy compared to MEA

New BASF solvent is very stable compared to MEAAcknowledgement: * Pilot project partner RWE

2,6

2,8

3,0

3,2

3,4

3,6

3,8

4,0

2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000Solvent circulation rate

Spe

cific

ene

rgy

cons

umpt

ion

[GJ/

mtC

O2]

OASE blue

MEA

- 20 %

Optimum MEA

Optimum OASE blue

duration of operation

tota

l con

tent

of c

arbo

nic

acid

sMEA

New BASF Development

duration of operation

tota

l con

tent

of c

arbo

xilic

acid

s

~ 5,000 hrs

MEAOASE® blue

90 % capture rate

9

Solutions for Large Scale PCC Plant (1100 Mwel Power)Design challenges

Lower number of trains results in bigger size of components, e.g.

– Absorption column: diameter ca.18 m, height ca. 75 m on site fabrication required

– Pipes ducts and valves: diameters up to 7 meters

– Plot : ca. 100 m x 260 m

Compressor sectiontwo lines per train

flexible turn down operation

Optimizing CAPEX by reduced number of trains - 2 process trains selected

- reduced plot space

10Fußzeile 10

Concepts for a Large Scale PCC Plant Key elements of plant costs

Main challenges

— Large equipment size requires new concepts

— Required plot area is very significant

— Alternative materials needs to be assessed

— New equipment arrangements needed

— FIeld fabrication

— Large pipe and duct

Linde studies to address challenges

— Scaling to a very large single train

— Optimize equipment arrangement (flue gas blower, pre-cooler, absorption columns sump etc)

— Develop new column construction materials

— Optimize machinery options

Total plant cost distribution

Engineering and supervision

Equipment incl. columns(w/o blowers & compressors)

Blowers & compressors

Bulk Material

Civil

Construction

11

Project Budget

$3,802,860$766,259$2,464,707$571,894Cost Share

$18,802,860$3,619,856$12,323,536$2,859,468Total Project

$15,000,000$2,853,597$9,858,828$2,287,575DOE Funding

TotalBudget Period 3

Feb 2014 – Oct 2015

Budget Period 2

Feb 2013 – Jan 2014

Budget Period 1

Nov 2011 – Jan 2013Source

Cost share commitments:

Linde: $3,212,121

BASF: $493,360

EPRI: $97,379

12

Project Timeline

Task # TITLE

Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

1 Program Management

Budget Period 1

2 Techno-Economic Evaluation

3 Pilot plant optimization and basic design

4 Pilot plant system design and engineering

5 Pilot plant cost and safety analysis

Go - No GoDECISION

Budget Period 2

6 Supply of plant equipment and materials

7 Plant construction and commissioning

Mechanical completion of pilot plant

Budget Period 3

8 Start-up and initial operation

9 Parametric testing

10 Long duration continuous operation

11 Final economic analysis and commercialization plan

Project Closeout

2012 2013 2014 2015

13

Key Project Milestones

● Budget Period 1 (Nov. 1, 2011 – Jan. 31, 2013)

— Project kick-off meeting with DOE-NETL (11/15/2011)

— 550 MWel power plant with integrated carbon capture techno-economics report (Dec. 31, 2011)

— Optimal design parameters identified and pilot plant design completed (April 30, 2012)

— Host site agreement (Sep. 30, 2012)

— Pilot plant engineering and equipment sizing complete for cost assessment (Oct. 31, 2012)

— Development and submission of bid packages (Nov. 30, 2012)

— Completed pilot plant costs based on vendor quotes (Dec. 31, 2012)

● Budget Period 2 (Feb. 1, 2013 – Jan. 31, 2014)

— Pilot plant equipment and modules shop fabrication completed (June 30, 2013)

— Completed ES&H assessment (Dec. 31, 2013)

— Mechanical completion of pilot plant and start-up enabled (Jan. 31, 2014)

● Budget period 3 (Feb. 1, 2014 – Oct. 31, 2015)

— Pilot plant operations validated and ready for testing (April 30, 2014)

— Performance validated against targets (Oct. 31, 2014)

— Long term operability and solvent stability demonstrated (July 31, 2015)

— Technology advantages demonstrated/Ready for commercial (Oct. 31, 2015)

14

Project Team and Organization

Program Manager:K. Krishnamurthy, Linde LLC

Partner Lead Contacts:I. Clausen – BASFR. Rhudy – EPRIL. Kogan – SFPC

T. Stoffregen – Linde Eng.F. Morton – Host Site (NCCC)

Contract AdministratorC. Nussgruber - Linde LLC

Power PlantAdvisory Board

(TBC)

Santee CooperSouthern Co.

EPRI

US DOE NETLProgram ManagerAndrew P. Jones

Task 1 – Program ManagementLinde LLC Lead

Task 2 – Techno-Economic Evaluation

Linde LLC Lead

Task 3 – Pilot Plant Design Optimization

and Basic DesignBASF/Linde Eng. Lead

Task 4 –Pilot Plant System Design and

Engineering SFPC Lead

Task 5 – Pilot Plant Cost and Safety

AnalysisSFPC Lead

Task 6 – Supply of Plant Equipment

SFPC Lead

Task 7 – Plant construction

and commissioningSFPC Lead

Task 8 – Start-up and Initial operation

BASF/Linde Eng. Lead

Task 9 – ParametricTesting

Linde LLC Lead

Task 10 – Long Duration Continuous

OperationLinde LLC Lead

Task 11 – Final Economics and

Commercialization Linde LLC Lead

15

Success Criteria at Decision Points

1.Slipstream pilot plant testing and data analysis successfully completed. Results show the benefits of the PCC technology with the novel amine-solvent as predicted or better.

10/31/2015Project Closeout

1.Pilot plant construction has been completed.2.Process and safety checks have been performed successfully and plant ready to start up and operate.

1/31/2014Mechanical completion of pilot plant

1.Techno-economic evaluation completed and accepted by DOE-NETL. It demonstrates benefits of the proposed development.2.Cost estimates and schedule for the pilot plant meet targets.

12/31/2012Go – No Go decision to build pilot plant

Success CriteriaDateDecision Point

16

Risk Management (2)

• Control and simplify scope to focus on key technology validation needs• Go/No Go decision set to address significant cost escalation

MediumLow-MediumAdditional project complexity due to unforeseen requirements on safety, environment, etc. or significant cost escalation

• Have initiated discussion with various stakeholders • Follow up and find middle ground/options to resolve impact on overall project schedule

Medium-HighMediumSchedule impact due to conflict with other projects (e.g. MTR membranes) scheduled at the NCCC site

Management Risks:

Risk Management (Mitigation and

Response Strategies)

Impact (Low, Moderate,

High)

Probability (Low,

Moderate, High)

Description of Risk

17

Risk Management (1)

• Commitment from all participant to make project successful

MediumMediumAvailability of key individuals with past experience and know-how

Resource Risks:

• Joint meetings to understand issues and incorporate into design and control logic & operations

MediumLowIntegration with the other test units operating at NCCC

• Leverage overall team expertise • Leverage external partners know-how

MediumLow-MediumTesting of new materials and new process options

Technical Risks:

Risk Management (Mitigation and Response

Strategies)

Impact (Low, Moderate,

High)

Probability (Low, Moderate,

High)Description of Risk

18

Technical approach to optimize performance and reducecapex and opex for future commercial offering

● Select leading solvent (from development till date) for pilot plant design and plannedtesting. One potential additional solvent to be considered in 2014 when pilot plant in operation.

● Process testing and validation for lower capex & opex and for emission reduction:

— New absorber construction materials (e.g. Concrete columns with in-liner)

— Advanced absorber structured packing material

— Absorber intercooling without forced recirculation

— Optimized equipment arrangement (blower, sump, intercoolers)

— Advanced stripper design

— Optimized process parameters to reduce steam consumption (e.g. Regeneration pressure)

— Reduced emisson losses through optimized wash system

19Fußzeile 19

Task 3: Design SelectionSlipstream PCC Pilot Plant: Overall Process Schematic

PC Boiler I II III IV V

Coal AirWater

Steam Turbine

El. Power Generator CO2 Emission

~ 22 TPD / MWe

Ash Flyash

I - NOx Control; II - Air Heater; II - PM Control; IV - Hg Control; V - FGD; VI -

Stack

LINDE-BASF Pilot Plant

Host Site: 880MWel Gaston coal fired power plant, Wilsonville, AL (managed by Southern Co.). The facilities are part of the National Carbon Capture Center.

Power plant provides:steam for PCC regeneration,cooling water for all HX, and electrical power. Accepts flue gas return after

CO2 capture

Typical coal-fired power plant

Power Plant schematic Source: DOE-NETL FOA ‘403

Drain

Flue gas

DCC

Booster fan

20

Absorber

Treated flue gas

CO2

Reboiler

Desorber

Condenser

Make-up water

Solvent Tank

InterstageCooler

Steam

Task 3: Design SelectionNew components to be tested in the pilot plant

Fußzeile 20

Advanced emission

control system

Gravity Flow

Interstage Cooler

Advanced Column

Material

Optimized Blower

Concept

Optimized Energy

Consumption

High capacity

structured packing

test higher

desorber pressure

21

Task 3: Design SelectionPilot Plant Layout

Fußzeile 21

Optimized plant layout

to be investigated

22

Task 2. Techno-economic assessmentSpecifications & Computational platform

Computational Platform

UniSim Design Suite R390, integrated with

— Linde’s custom developed thermodynamic model for Illinois # 6 coal combustion

— BASF’s proprietary package for rigorous solvent performance predictions

Specifications and Design Basisidentical to DOE/NETL Report 2007/1281

— Coal Feed Characteristics

— Site Characteristics and Ambient Conditions

— Boiler Design and Steam Turbine Design

— Steam Cycle Conditions

— Environmental Controls and Performance

— Balance of Plant

— Economic Assumptions and Methodology

Absorber

Treated flue gas

CO2

Reboiler

Desorber

Condenser

Make-up water

Solvent Tank

InterstageCooler

Steam

23

Task 2. Techno-economic assessmentApproach

Model Calibration

— Match material and energy balances for DOE-NETL Cases # 9 & #10

— Determine adiabatic efficiencies of utilized steam turbines

— Develop reference scale factors for CAPEX assessment at the equipment level

— Verify entire methodology vs reported LCOE values for Cases 9 & 10

Model Application

— Modify model for BASF‘s novel amine based solvent technology and BASF & Linde process enhancements

— Include various process integration and heat recovery options

— Perform sensitivity analyses

— Goal: Minimize LCOE

24

Task 2. Techno-economic assessmentEnergy requirement for PCC

Normalized Utility Energy Requirements(wrt Net Power )

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

PP w/o PCC PP with PCC PP with Linde-BASFPCC

Power Plant PCC Plant CO2 Compression STEAM for PCC

Target range for Linde-BASF

PCC Technology

25

Task 2. Techno-economic assessmentLCOE Dependence on PCC Efficiency

ENERGY Requirement BreakdownPP w/o PCC

NET Power

Power Plant

ENERGY Requirement BreakdownPP with PCC

Power Plant

C O 2 C P

PC C Plant

N ET Power

STEA M f o r PC C

Incremental energy requirement (DOE Case# 10) for PCC:

~ 50 % of PP w/o PCC (DOE Case# 9)

26

Task 2. Techno-economic assessmentLCOE Dependence on PCC Efficiency

TPC Breakdown - PP w/o PCC

Coal etc

Boiler

FG CleanupPCC+CP

Other

ST + Cooling

TPC Breakdown - PP with PCC

Coal etc

Boiler

FG CleanupPCC+CP

Other

ST + Cooling

Total Plant Cost of PP with PCC(DOE Case# 10)

90+% above PP w/o PCC (DOE Case#9)

27

Task 2. Techno-economic assessmentLCOE Dependence on PCC Efficiency

LCOE Breakdown - PP w/o PCC

CAPEX - PP

FixedVariable

FUEL

LCOE Breakdown - PP with PCC

CAPEX - PP

CAPEX - PCCFixed

Variable

FUEL

TS&M

Major targets for LCOE reduction:

— Reduced energy for PCC

— Reduced CAPEX for PCC

— Reduced total energy by process integration and waste heat utilization

LCOE for PP with PCC (Case#10)

Currently: ~ 86 % above PP w/o PCC (Case#9)

Proposed: < 65 % above PP w/o PCC (Linde-BASF) with options for further reduction

28

Task 2. Techno-economic assessmentOptimization & Status

Techno-economics with Advanced PCC

— BASF‘s novel amine based solvent technology and BASF & Linde process enhancements

— Significantly reduced energy requirement

— Reduced PCC CAPEX and OPEX

— Integration options with Waste heat recovery

— Within PCC

— PCC & CO2 Compression

— PCC & Power Plant

— Optimization

— Minimization of LCOE

— Sensitivity analyses

— OPEX benefits versus CAPEX cost

Status

— Developed rigorous, integrated Unisimmodel for 550 MWe power plant with CO2

capture

— Model integrated with performance parameters of BASF‘s novel amine based solvent technology

— CAPEX and OPEX reduction options for PCC and CO2 plants being evaluated

— Rigorous process model being used for sensitivity analyses to highlight key areas for cost improvement

— Various process integration options being analyzed

29

Acknowledgement and Disclaimer

Acknowledgement: This presentation is based on work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE-FE0007453.

Disclaimer: “This presentation was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.”

30

Thank you for your attention!

DE-FE-0007453 Project Kick-off MeetingDOE-NETL, Pittsburgh, PANovember 15, 2011