1 / 20

On/Off Operation of Carbon Capture Systems in the Dynamic Electric Grid Rochelle Group Research Review January 11, 2

On/Off Operation of Carbon Capture Systems in the Dynamic Electric Grid Rochelle Group Research Review January 11, 2008. Stuart Cohen Graduate Research Assistant Department of Mechanical Engineering: Thermal Fluid Systems Division The University of Texas at Austin. Outline.

winola
Download Presentation

On/Off Operation of Carbon Capture Systems in the Dynamic Electric Grid Rochelle Group Research Review January 11, 2

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. On/Off Operation of Carbon Capture Systemsin the Dynamic Electric Grid Rochelle Group Research ReviewJanuary 11, 2008 Stuart Cohen Graduate Research Assistant Department of Mechanical Engineering: Thermal Fluid Systems Division The University of Texas at Austin

  2. Outline • Background and limitations of current techno-economic analyses of CCS • My proposal to investigate CCS within the electric grid • Illustration of grid dynamics and implications of on/off operation of CO2 capture • Summary of Research Objectives

  3. Typical Techno-Economic Analyses take 2 forms: Bottom Up Approach: Plant Level Analysis • Static Plant Performance Specifications • CO2 Removal Efficiency, (%) • Plant Output (MW) • CO2 Capture Energy • (MWh/tCO2) • Economic Assumptions • Equipment Costs ($) • Fuel Costs ($) • Discounting Rate (%) • Economic Indicators • Cost of Electricity ($/MWh) • CO2 Removal Cost ($/tCO2) • Total Plant Cost ($/kW) • Local Environmental Effect • Plant CO2 Emissions (ton)

  4. Typical Techno-Economic Analyses take 2 forms: Top Down Approach: Macro-scale Energy Analysis • National Electricity Market Trends • Projected Population Growth • Consumer Energy Use • Behavior • Input Parameters of Interest • Cost of each Energy • Technology ($/MWh) • CO2 Market Value ($), Date • of Application, Growth Rate • Effects on Energy Use • US Energy Consumption • US Energy Mix • Market Penetration of CCS • Global Environmental Effect • US CO2 Emissions (ton)

  5. These Analyses have Several Strengths… • Macro-scale Energy Analyses • Demonstrate qualitative long term effects • Demonstrate macroeconomic tradeoffs • Consider interactions between energy sources • Consider regional variation in energy use • Single Plant Analyses • Detailed technology assessment • Demonstrate plant level tradeoffs

  6. But Also Several Limitations • Macro-scale Energy Analyses • Ignore dynamics of plant dispatch • Limited detail of plant performance • Single Plant Analyses • Use static plant performance parameters • Site and technology specific • Ignore varying electricity demand • Do not consider interactions between energy supply technologies

  7. Proposal • Take an intermediate approach between single plant and macro-scale energy analyses • Study the feasibility and effects of turning CO2 capture systems on and off in response to electric grid dynamics • Optimize the performance, economics, and environmental effects of turning CO2 capture on and off under a given electricity supply/demand scenario

  8. Grid Level Analysis • Market Based Economic Indicators • Cost of Electricity ($/MWh) • CO2 Removal Cost ($/tCO2 ) • Total Plant Cost, ($/kW) • Environmental Effect • CO2 Emissions – Plant and • Grid (ton) • Variable Performance Specifications • CO2 Removal Efficiency (%) • Plant Output (MW) • Economic Assumptions • Equipment Costs ($) • Fuel Costs ($) • Grid Parameters • Electricity Demand (MW vs. Time) • Dispatch Options and Costs ($/MWh) • Market Value of CO2 ($)

  9. My Hypotheses • Turning CO2 capture on and off in response to grid supply/demand can lessen the cost of implementing CCS • Optimal practices can be determined from grid supply/demand scenarios • The flexibility of Post-Combustion capture using chemical absorption favors such practice

  10. Electricity Demand throughout the Day Natural Gas Total Coal Capacity Nuclear Coal Source: ERCOT Reliability/Resource Update 2006

  11. Using On/Off CO2 Capture During Peak Load Capture Turned Off Natural Gas Total Coal Capacity Nuclear 30% Coal Capacity Coal

  12. Capture Turned Off August 17 January 2 Capture Turned Off Source: ERCOT

  13. August 17 January 2 Capture Off Capture On Source: ERCOT

  14. Hourly Variation in Wind and Load: 15000MW Wind in TX Scenario Total Load Load minus Wind Capture Turned Off 30% Coal Capacity Wind Generation Source: 2007 GE Wind Analysis for ERCOT

  15. 30% Coal Capacity Peak Load Capture Turned Off Source: ERCOT

  16. Source: ERCOT and ICE

  17. My Work Will • Analyze the effects of on/off CO2 capture operation under several electricity supply/demand scenarios • Incorporate knowledge of amine absorption systems into grid level analysis of CO2 capture • Investigate technical limitations of on/off operation at a system level

  18. Overall Research Goals • Determine performance, economic, and environmental tradeoffs of on/off CO2 capture • Determine optimal operation of CO2 capture for a given electricity supply/demand scenario • Provide industry with a tool to help guide the implementation and use of CO2 capture systems • Determine technical feasibility of on/off CO2 capture at the system level

  19. Bottom Line • CO2 Capture is expensive, BUT • Dynamic electricity supply/demand provides an opportunity for using on/off operation to lower CO2 capture costs

  20. Thank you. Questions? Comments?

More Related