Benchmarking of selected technologies for … Standard Norge, 10 September 2015 Benchmarking of selected technologies for industrial-scale CO 2 capture in cement plants Lars-André

Workshop, Standard Norge, 10 September 2015

Benchmarking of selected technologies for industrial-scale CO2 capture in cement plants

Lars-André TokheimAssociate Professor at TUC & Project manager at Tel-Tek

Outline

1. Purpose of the benchmark study2. Approach3. Selected benchmarking results4. Sensitivity analysis

Purpose of the benchmark study• Compare technologies with regard to technical, economical and

environmental impacts – when applied to a cement kiln• Norcem Brevik as a case study• Technology providers (TP’s):

• About «industrial scale»:– Different technologies applied to a medium size cement plant– Not necessarily 85 or 90 % capture, could be for example 30 og

40 % capture – if this makes more sense from an economic, environmental and technical point of view

– Maturity Technology readiness level

MC = Membrane consortium: NTNU, DNV-GL and Yodfat

TP Technology

Aker Amine absorption

RTI Low-temperature capture using a solid sorbent

MC Membrane separation

Alstom High-temperature capture using a solid sorbent («Regenerative Carbonate Cycling» (RCC), i.e. Calcium Looping)

Cementkiln

system

CO2capture

plant

FuelsChemicals

Process waterCooling water

Pressurized airSteam

Uncleaned gasClean gas

Waste

Effluents

Byproducts

CO2Waste heat integration?

El. power

Fuel integration?

Byproduct integration?

EquipmentDynamics

In-streams

Space req.HSE aspects

Clinker

Approach: The system

El. power

Approach: Preconditions• Characteristics of uncleaned gas same as for Kiln #6 at Norcem

Brevik• CO2 stream:

– > 95 % CO2– Compression to 100 bar and ambient temperature– Guidance values for concentrations of other species

• CO2 capture ratio – three cases:1. 85 % without waste heat utilization2. 85 % with Norcem waste heat utilization3. x %, with Norcem waste heat as the only regeneration energy, x

defined by TP• Tel-Tek cost estimation

– Basis: Equipment units from TP’s– Adjust scope / equipment size when necessary– Same cost estimation method applied to all technologies

Basis for comparing technologies

TP SRD* [GJ/tCO2]Generic MEA 4.2 and 3.7Aker 2.7Alstom (calc.) 2.5RTI 2.4MC 0

Approach: Scope adjustment• Thermal energy

Coal-fired steam generation plant– Capture of additional

CO2– Equipment size

adjustment when required

– Potential change in pollutant concentrations not considered in the scale-up

• Same CO2 compression unit for all technologies

* SRD: Specific Regenerator Duty

Two cases calculated by Tel-Tek to compare

with «standard technology»

Cases

• Comparison:– Horizontal (different TP’s)– Vertical (different cases for a given TP)

Case (Generic MEA) Aker RTI MC Alstom

1: 85 % capture, no waste heat utilization (Yes) Yes Yes Yes NA

2: 85 % capture, utilizing waste heat for regeneration

Yes Yes NA Yes

3: Capture using only waste heat for regeneration, if possible

Yes(48 %)

Yes(30 %) NA

(Additional case reported)

70 % capture

NA: Not applicable according to TP

12  13  13  16  21 9  10 

24  21 9 

19  23 

31  27  23 24 

23 

17  17 

23 38 

32 

35 

12 

 ‐

  10

  20

  30

  40

  50

  60

  70

Capture cost (Coal price 500 NOK/ton and El price 0.5 NOK/kWh)

CAPEX [EUR/tCO2] OPEX [EUR/tCO2]

Cost comparison: Capture cost

OPEX > CAPEX

Cost annualization: 25 years, 8 % interest rate

20  20  17  16  21 11  13 

24  21 9 

19 31 

52 43 

31 24 

23 

22  21 

23 38 

32 

35  16 

 ‐

  10

  20

  30

  40

  50

  60

  70

  80Avoided cost (plant level) (Coal price 500 NOK/ton and El price 0.5 NOK/kWh)

CAPEX [EUR/tCO2] OPEX [EUR/tCO2]

Cost comparison: Avoided costTakes into account additional CO2 generated in the energy plant required for regeneration

23  22  18  18  23 12  14 

26  26 11 

24  28 

60 48 

34  27  26 24  23 

25 48 

40 

44 14 

 ‐  10  20  30  40  50  60  70  80  90

Avoided cost incl. power CO2 footprint (Coal price 500 NOK/ton and El price 0.5 NOK/kWh; El. power emission factor 500 gCO2/kWh)

CAPEX [EUR/tCO2] OPEX [EUR/tCO2]

Cost comparison: Avoided cost, including effect of power CO2 footprint

Takes into account additional CO2 generated in the energy plant required for regeneration + the CO2 footprint of electricity

Sensitivity analysis

Electricity footprint: 500 gCO2/kWh

Parameter Low value High valueEl. power price

NOK/kWh(€/kWh)

0.3(0.0375)

0.8(0.10)

Coal priceNOK/t(€/t)

300(37.5)

1000(125)

18  18  12  14  11 28 

33  37 27  26 

59 4 

 ‐

  20

  40

  60

  80

  100

Aker case1

Aker case2

RTI case 1 RTI case 2 MC 85R(higherperm.)

Alstomcase 2

Avoided cost incl. power CO2 footprint (Coal price 300 NOK/ton and El price 0.8 NOK/kWh; El. 

power emission factor 500 gCO2/kWh)

CAPEX [EUR/tCO2] OPEX [EUR/tCO2]

18  18  12  14  11 28 

45  37  36  33 59  15 

 ‐

  20

  40

  60

  80

  100

Aker case1

Aker case2

RTI case 1 RTI case 2 MC 85R(higherperm.)

Alstomcase 2

Avoided cost incl. power CO2 footprint (Coal price 1000 NOK/ton and El price 0.8 NOK/kWh; 

El. power emission factor 500 gCO2/kWh)

CAPEX [EUR/tCO2] OPEX [EUR/tCO2]

18  18  12  14  11 28 

35  20  27  24  27 27 

 ‐

  20

  40

  60

  80

  100

Aker case1

Aker case2

RTI case 1 RTI case 2 MC 85R(higherperm.)

Alstomcase 2

Avoided cost incl. power CO2 footprint (Coal price 1000 NOK/ton and El price 0.3 NOK/kWh; 

El. power emission factor 500 gCO2/kWh)

CAPEX [EUR/tCO2] OPEX [EUR/tCO2]

18  18  12  14  11 28 

22  20  18  17  27 16 

 ‐

  20

  40

  60

  80

  100

Aker case1

Aker case2

RTI case 1 RTI case 2 MC 85R(higherperm.)

Alstomcase 2

Avoided cost incl. power CO2 footprint (Coal price 300 NOK/ton and El price 0.3 NOK/kWh; El. 

power emission factor 500 gCO2/kWh)

CAPEX [EUR/tCO2] OPEX [EUR/tCO2]

Sensitivity analysis: Summary

Low coal priceLow coal and el-price

Low el-price High coal and el-price

Cost estimate comments

• The cost estimates are mainly based on equipment lists supplied by the technology providers

• The energy consumption of the less mature technologies (RTI, MC, Alstom) have not been verified in pilot plant tests

• The estimates of the less mature technologies are uncertain and may increase when the technology readiness level (TRL) increases

• A high TRL level reduces the risk of implementing a given technology

21.09.2015

Technology Readiness Level (TRL)

RTI: 4-5

Aker: 8

MC: 4-5

Pilot at Norcem?

Alstom: 3-4

www.CO2-lab.com