1 / 33

CO 2 Capture by Aqueous Absorption/Stripping

CO 2 Capture by Aqueous Absorption/Stripping. Presented at MIT Carbon Sequestration Forum VII By Gary T. Rochelle Department of Chemical Engineering The University of Texas at Austin October 31, 2006 rochelle@che.utexas.edu. Outline. Absorption/Stripping: THE technology

keefer
Download Presentation

CO 2 Capture by Aqueous Absorption/Stripping

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CO2 Capture byAqueous Absorption/Stripping Presented at MIT Carbon Sequestration Forum VII By Gary T. Rochelle Department of Chemical Engineering The University of Texas at Austin October 31, 2006 rochelle@che.utexas.edu

  2. Outline • Absorption/Stripping: THE technology • MEA: not a bad solvent alternative • Stripper Energy favored by greater DHabs • Mass Transfer Requires Fast Kinetics • MEA Makeup and Corrosion Manageable • Optimized systems approach 1.5 x ideal W • Critical Opportunities & Needs for R, D, D, & D • Now the time to plan Demo and Deployment

  3. Capture by Aqueous AbsorptionThe Critical Technology • For Coal Combustion • in “existing” power plants • that are an important, growing source of CO2. • Aqueous Absorption/Stripping is preferred • because it is tail-end technology

  4. TXU: an extreme example • Current TXU CO2 emissions • 60 MM ton/y from 16 plants • 11 x 800 MW fossil plants in the next 5 years • 100 million ton CO2/y • Good for Texas and TXU • Capacity for growth • Replace expensive gas-fired capacity • TXU capital from deregulation • Inconceivable in the next 5 years • IGCC, Oxycombustion • CO2 Capture by absorption/stripping • The prime market for retrofit CO2 capture

  5. Absorption/stripping = The technology • Near Commercial • Tail End Technology for Existing Plants • Oxycombustion and gasification are not. • Expensive in $$ and energy • By analogy to limestone slurry scrubbing • Expect significant evolutionary improvements • Do not expect major cost & energy reductions • Do not waste resources on step change R&D

  6. 150 atm CO 2 Disposal Well System for CO2Sequestration 10 atm stm Net Power 3 atm stm CaCO 3 Turbines Coal Boiler ESP FGD Abs/Str CaSO Flyash 4

  7. MEA Absorption/Simple Stripping Steam 3 atm CO2 DT=5oC H2O Rich Lean Absorb Strip 40°C 117°C 1 atm 2 atm 12% CO2 5% O2 7% H2O 40oC Purge to 30% MEA (Monoethanolamine) Reclaim SO2, HCl, NO

  8. Aqueous Abs/Str: Near commercial • 100’s of plants for treating H2 & natural gas • MEA and other amine solvents • No oxygen • 10’s of plants with combustion of natural gas • Variable oxygen, little SO2 • Fluor, 30% MEA, 80 MW gas, 15% O2 • MHI, KS-1, 30 MW, <2% O2 • A few plants with coal combustion • Abb-Lummus, 20% MEA, 40 MW • Fluor, 30% MEA, 3 small pilots • CASTOR, 30% MEA, 2.5 MW pilot • MHI, KS-1, <1 MW pilot

  9. Tail End Technology Ideal for Development, Demonstration, & Deployment • Low risk • Independent, separable, add-on systems • Allows reliable operation of the existing plant • Failures impact only Capture and Sequestration • Low cost & less calendar time • Develop and demonstrate with add-on systems • Not integrated power systems as with IGCC • Reduced capital cost and time • Resolve problems in small pilots with real gas • Demo Full-scale absorbers with 100 MW gas • Ultimately 500 MW absorbers

  10. Other Solutions for Existing Coal Plants • Oxy-Combustion • O2 plant gives equivalent energy consumption • Gas recycle, boiler modification for high CO2 • Gas cleanup, compression including air leaks • Coal Gasification • Remove CO2 and burn H2 in existing boiler • O2 plant, complex gasifier, cleanup, CO2 removal • H2 more valuable in new combined cycle • Neither is Tail end • Require higher development cost, time, and risk

  11. Practical Problems • Energy = 25-35% of power plant output • 22.5%, Low P stm, 30-50% of stm flow • 7%, CO2 Compression • 3.5%, Gas pressure drop • $42/tonne CO2 (0.7 MWh/CO2 x $60/MWhr) • Capital Cost $500/kw • Absorbers same diameter as FGD, 50 ft packing • Strippers somewhat smaller • Compressors • $20/tonne CO2 for capital charges & maint • Amine degradation/environmental impact • $1-5/tonne CO2

  12. Analogy to CaCO3 slurry scrubbing • 1970 “Commercial” starting point • Only process “immediately” available • “Inappropriate” for government support • Starting point was “too expensive” • Environmentally messy, solid waste unattractive • Initial applications even more expensive • Cost decreased with experience • Alternative developments heavily funded • Regenerable FGD processes – too complex • Coal gasif/combined cycle – not tail end • Fluidized bed combustion – not tail end • 2006 Commercial Generic Process

  13. Aqueous Solvent AlternativesMEA is hard to beat • Stripper Energy Requirement • Mass Transfer Rates • Makeup and Corrosion

  14. Carbonate & Tertiary/Hindered Amines CO3= + CO2 + H2O↔ 2 HCO-3 20 kJ/gmol Carbonate Bicarbonatevery slow HO-CH2-CH2-N-CH2-CH2-OH ↔ MDEAH+ + HCO-3 ׀ CH3 60 kJ/gmol, slow Methyldiethanolamine (MDEA) CH3 ׀׀ HO-CH2-CH2-NH2 + CO2 ↔ AMPH+ + HCO-3 ׀ CH3 60 kJ/gmol, slow 2-Aminomethylpropanolamine (AMP, KS-1(?))

  15. CH2-CH2 HNNH CH2-CH2 Primary and Secondary Amines60-85 kJ/gmol, fast 2 HO-CH2-CH2-NH2 + CO2 ↔ HO-CH2-CH2-NH-COO- + MEAH+ Monoethanolamine (MEA) MEA Carbamate (MEACOO-) 2 NH3 + CO2 ↔ NH2-COO- + NH4+ Ammonia + CO2 ↔ +HPZ-COO- Piperazine (PZ)

  16. Components of Stripper Heat Duty (mol stm/mol CO2) Srxn = HCO2/HH2O

  17. Total Equivalent Work W = Weq + Wcomp Wcomp= RT ln (100 atm/(PCO2+PH2O)

  18. Mass Transfer with Fast Reaction CO2 + 2MEA = MEACOO- + MEAH+ [MEACOO-]i [MEA]b PG [MEA]i [MEACOO-]b Pi=H[CO2]i P*i P*b [CO2]*i [CO2]b Rxn Film Gas Film Liquid Film

  19. Mass Transfer with Fast Reaction

  20. Mass Transfer with Reaction in Wetted Wall Column

  21. Reagent Energy Properties

  22. MEA Makeup & Corrosion • Degradation • MEA Oxidizes to NH3, aldehydes, etc • MEA Polymerizes at Stripper T • Optimize operating conditions, add inhibitors • Reclaim by evaporation to remove SO4=, NO3-, Cl-, etc. • Volatility • Use Absorber Wash Section • Corrosion • Minimize Degradation • Add Corrosion inhibitors such as Cu++ • Use Stainless Steel, FRP

  23. Reagent Properties Affecting Makeup

  24. Flowsheet Enhancements • Absorber • Direct Contact Cooling & Intercooling • To get lower T • Split feed – to enhance reversibility • Stripper • Minimum exchanger approach T • Internal Exchange • Multistage Flash, Multieffect Stripper • Multipressure, Matrix, • Vapor Recompression

  25. Needs for Capture Deployment • Large Absorbers: different from FGD • Countercurrent Gas/liquid Distribution • 35 gal/mcf • Pressure drop • Capital cost of internals • Test and demonstrate at 100+MW • Steam integration • Control systems for load following • Test at 100+MW • Environmental impact & losses of solvent • Long term test at 1 MW

  26. Opportunities for Capture R&D • Better Solvents • Faster CO2 Transfer: Blends with PZ, etc. • Greater Capacity – MEA/PZ, MDEA/PZ • Oxygen scavengers/Oxidation inhibitors • Better Processes • Matrix, split feed • Reclaiming by CaSO4/K2SO4 Precipitation • Better contacting • Packing to get G/L area

  27. Deployment Schedule • 2007 - 0.5 MW pilot plant on real flue gas Demonstrate solvent stability & materials • 2008 - 5 MW integrated pilot plant Compressor/stripper concepts • 2010 – 100 MW Integrated module Energy integration and absorber design • 2012 – 800 MW full-scale on CaCO3 Energy, multitrain, operation • 2015 – Deployment on all plants

  28. Conclusions • Absorption/stripping is THE technology for existing coal-fired power plants • Expect 15-30% reduction in cost and energy • The solvent should evolve from MEA • High DH, fast rate, high capacity, cheap reagent • Process & contactor enhancements expected • Now time to plan technology demonstrations

More Related