1 / 16

CARBON DIOXIDE CAPTURE (CC) OPTIONS FOR ENERGY INTENSIVE INDUSTRIES Dr. Avinash N. Patkar Head- Corporate Environment

CARBON DIOXIDE CAPTURE (CC) OPTIONS FOR ENERGY INTENSIVE INDUSTRIES Dr. Avinash N. Patkar Head- Corporate Environment & Safety Group The TATA Power Company Ltd. (TPC) International Workshop on Carbon Capture and Storage in Power Sector: R&D Priorities in India New Delhi, INDIA

urit
Download Presentation

CARBON DIOXIDE CAPTURE (CC) OPTIONS FOR ENERGY INTENSIVE INDUSTRIES Dr. Avinash N. Patkar Head- Corporate Environment

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. CARBON DIOXIDE CAPTURE (CC) OPTIONS FOR ENERGY INTENSIVE INDUSTRIES Dr. Avinash N. Patkar Head- Corporate Environment & Safety Group The TATA Power Company Ltd. (TPC) International Workshop on Carbon Capture and Storage in Power Sector: R&D Priorities in India New Delhi, INDIA January 23, 2008

  2. THE TATA POWER COMPANY LIMITED Wind Thermal Hydro 1) Trombay (1,330 MW) 2) Jojobera (428 MW) 3) Belgaum (81 MW) 1) Khopoli (72 MW) 2) Bhivpuri (75 MW) 3) Bhira (300 MW) 1) Supe (17 MW) 2) Nagar (45 MW)

  3. ELECTRICITY USE AND CO2(PER CAPITA, 2005) kWh per person CO2 (tons/yr) per person

  4. Fuel Small (S) Medium (M)Large (L) S/M/L Size, MW Coal 1.20 1.05 1.00 100/250/500 Lignite 1.32 1.23 1.28 75/125/250 N. Gas 0.43 0.42 0.43 50/75/100 1: Central Electric Authority of India Database (2006). See reference for assumptions. AVERAGE CO2 EMISSIONS (MT/MWh)1: INDIA

  5. REDUCING CO2 EMISSIONS – STEPS Prepare a CO2 and GHG Emissions Inventory. Improve efficiency by energy audits and rehabilitating old, inefficient plants. Higher efficiency technologies (Super-Critical and IGCC) for new plants. Renewable energy – Hydro, wind, solar, bio-energy, ocean and geo-thermal. Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS).

  6. PFD FOR MEA CO2 CAPTURE (CC) SYSTEM

  7. Supplier/ Solvent Loss,  Solvent Cost  Steam Used Solvent kg/ton CO2 $/kg $/ton CO2 kg/kg CO2 Many/MEA 1.0 to 3.0 1.25 1.20 to 2.50 2.0 Fluor/MEA+ 2.0 1.50 2.30 2.3 MHI/KS-1* 0.35 3.00 1.55 1.5 1: US EPA (2006); +: With Inhibitors *: Hindered Amines AMINE BASED COMMERCIAL SOLVENTS1

  8. Parameter Sub Critical Super Critical Net Thermal Eff., % 34.8 41.9 Net Heat Rate, Kcal/kWh 2,490 2,070 Coal Used tons/hr 200.7 166.9 Gross Power, MW 541 543 Capital Investment, $/ kW 1,387 1,575 COE, cents/kWh 5.2 4.3 1:Sub-bituminous coal; High Heating Value (HHV) = 4,800 kcal/kg (as received). 2: EPA, 2006: With a SCR system (NOx < 15 ppmv) and a limestone FGD (SO2 < 10 ppmv). 3: Costs are + 30%, US Dollars. December 2004. BUDGET ESTIMATES FOR NEW PLANT (500 MW): WITHOUT CC 1,2,3

  9. Parameter Sub Critical Super Critical Net Thermal Eff., % 26.1 31.5 Net Heat Rate, Kcal/kWh 3,110 2,590 Coal Used tons/hr 261.5 208.6 Gross Power, MW 670 673 Capital Investment, $/ kW 1,997 2,270 COE, cents/kWh 7.8 4.3 1:Sub-bituminous coal; HHV = 4,800 kcal/kg (as received). CO2 Removal = 85%. 2: EPA, 2006: With a SCR system (NOx < 15 ppmv) and a limestone FGD (SO2 < 10 ppmv). 3: Costs are + 30%, US Dollars. December 2004. 4:IPCC, 2005 (TS.3): CC system - More energy (24%); higher capital (44%) and higher COE (42%) than baseline. These are the lower values of a range given. BUDGET ESTIMATES FOR NEW PLANT (500 MW): WITH CC 1,2,3,4

  10. Degradation of MEA due to O2, SO2, NOx Losses to flue gas and leakage: Solvent costs High solvent regeneration energy required Corrosion of vessels, packing, piping High capital costs (+ ~ 44% for new) High operating costs (+ ~ 24% for new) High Cost of Energy (+ ~ 42% for new) Retrofit could be almost double as expensive PROBLMES WITH MEA SYSTEMS

  11. Solvents with higher CO2 loading (kg/kg) Solvents that will resist O2, SO2, NOX Packing with higher surface area (250 m2/m3) Packing with lower gas DP at high gas velocity (3 m/sec) and high L/G ratio (60 m3/m2.hr) (NH4)2CO3: Alstom and Powerspan (in USA) K2CO3: U. of Texas, Austin, TX, USA Penalty Targets: Energy < 10%; Cost < 20% R&D WORK WITH CC SOLVENT SYSTEMS

  12. PFD FOR OXY-FUEL COMBUSTION

  13. Advantages Concentrated SO2, NOx and CO2 Absorption systems will be much smaller A 30 MW demo plant is planned by Vattenfall Disadvantages Higher energy for pure O2 than MEA system Difficult to retrofit Pilot scale work so far (< 1 MW) REVIEW OF OXY-FUEL COMBUSTION

  14. More efficient membranes for pure O2 system More efficient adsorbents for pure O2 system Optimization of combustion and CC Defined system for SO2 and NOx control A 10 MW pilot plant is planned by B&W A 30 MW demo plant is built by Vattenfall R&D WORK ON OXY-FUEL COMBUSTION

  15. CONSTRAINTS ON CC TECHNOLOGIES: 2008 Amine CC capital investment will be ~1.9 Crore/MW (~44% of power plant); Parasitic energy would be ~ 24% of gross output and COE will be ~42% higher as of Jan. 2008! More for Oxy-Fuel CC. High Investment and energy penalty Technologies at pilot/demo scale CC technologies for coal-fired power plant are in pilot (1-5 MW) or demo (10-30 MW) scale; Thus uncertainty in scale-up to 500 MW Sequestration/Reuse Uncertainty Limited CO2 reuse in Gas/Oil/Methane Recovery; Costs of compression/liquification and transport No global consensus, Limits long-term loans and raises interest rates: Limited global financing Regulatory uncertainty

  16. For copies of this presentation, please send an e-mail to: apatkar@tpc.co.in Any Questions?

More Related