Top Banner

Click here to load reader

Fourth Annual Conference on Carbon Capture & Sequestration · PDF fileFourth Annual Conference on Carbon Capture & Sequestration ... Hilton Alexandria Mark Center, Alexandria...

Jul 05, 2018

ReportDownload

Documents

lekhanh

  • Fourth Annual Conference on Carbon Capture & Sequestration

    Developing Potential Paths Forward Based on the Knowledge, Science and Experience to Date

    Capture and Separation- Oxyfuel Combustion

    CO2 Compression Units for Oxy-Fuel CombustionKourosh E. Zanganeh, Ahmed Shafeen, Carlos Salvador, Murlidhar Gupta, and Bill

    Pearson

    Fossil Fuels and Climate Change Group,CANMET Energy Technology Center, Natural Resources Canada, 1 Hannel Drive, Ottawa, ON, K1A 1M1, Canada

    May 2-5, 2005, Hilton Alexandria Mark Center, Alexandria Virginia

  • Outline

    Fuel combustion and CO2 capture pathways Oxy-fuel Combustion CO2 compression and capture processes

    Once-through process Autorefrigeration (Fluor process) Novel CETC process

    Pretreatment and moisture separation Process modeling and simulation Results Conclusions

  • Capture Pathways

    Air-combustion

    Coal

    NG

    Biomass

    Petcoke

    Gasification

    Oxy-combustion

    CO2 Capture

    Power & Heat

    CO2 (>90 bar) Transport for

    Storage

    O2

    CO2 Capture

    Combustion Power & Heat

    Power & Heat

    CO2 Capture & Compression

    Flue gas

    5-15% CO2 @ 1 bar

    Syngas

    20-40% CO2

    Flue gas

    >80% CO2 @ 1 bar

    CO2

    CO2

    CO2 (~20 to 50 bar)

    H2

    CO2 Compression

    CO2 Compression

    > 99%@ 1bar

    Pump

  • Schematic of Oxy-Fuel Combustion for Power or Heat Generation

    Recycled Flue Gas

    Air SeparationUnit

    O2

    Gas Purification

    Fossil fuelcombustion

    Power or Heat

    N2

    StorageCO2

    Compression

    1/5 exit gas volume relative to airCO2 at 80-98% by volume

    Other pollutants and/or water

    For process heaters, furnaces and boilers

  • An Idealized Thermodynamic Path of Compression, Cooling, and Pipeline Operations

    for CO2

    Mohitpour M., Golshan H., and Murray A., Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach, New York, American Society of Mechanical Engineers Press, 2000

  • CO2 Phase Diagram

    http://www.acpco2.com/index.php?lg=en&pg=2121

  • Conventional Multistage Compression

  • Autorefrigeration Separation of Carbon Dioxide (Fluor Process)

    PretreatmentModule

    Vent Module

    PumpingModule

    Expander &Separator

    Module

    2nd StageCompression

    Module

    1st StageCompression

    Module

    ToAtmosphere

    (Stack Flue Gas)

    CO2 Product Stream

    Stream 1 Stream 5

    Stream 8

    Stream 3

    Stream 4

    Stream 7

    Stream 6Stream 2Feedgas

    (Extract Energy)

    (Extract Energy)

    (H2O) (H2O)

  • Novel CETC Process

    Proprietary process Some process simulation results will

    be presented Comparison between the results:

    CETC Compression process versus Fluor Autorefrigeration/separation process

  • Assumptions for Simulation

    Same baseline design conditions Inlet pressure and temperature

    1 bar, 40 0C Vent pressure and temperature

    6 bar; above dew point Product pressure and temperature

    Optimum pressure is derived from the simulation at -5 0C

  • Feed Gas Composition

    Properties Unit Compressor InletFeed gas-1 Feed gas-2 Feed gas-3

    Temperature 0C 40 40 40Pressure bar 1 1 1Flow Rate kg/hr 181.0 181.0 181.0Composition

    CO2 - 0.7443 0.800 0.8467H2O - 0.0667 0.070 0.0667O2 - 0.0335 0.030 0.0304N2 - 0.1355 0.0845 0.0519SO2 - 0.0012 0.005 0.0014Ar - 0.0183 0.010 0.0024NO - 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005NO2 - 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

    Mole Fraction Mole Fraction Mole Fraction

  • Pretreatment and Moisture Separation The extent of pretreatment depends on:

    Design considerations( ice formation, corrosion, metal properties, etc.)

    Cost (cleaning cost, additional energy penalty, material cost, etc.)

    Application (EOR, Storage, ECBM, etc)

  • Feed Gas Inlet Temperature to 1st StageTemp Vs Moisture remained in Line

    00.5

    11.5

    22.5

    33.5

    44.5

    5

    -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

    Inlet Temp ( 0C)

    Moi

    stur

    e (k

    g/hr

    % Moisture remaining with increased Cooling

    00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

    11.1

    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

    Cooling Energy Demand (kW)

    Fina

    l moi

    stur

    e/In

    itia

    Moi

    stur

    e

    -25-20-15-10-50510152025303540

    Inle

    t Tem

    pera

    ture

    (0 C)

    Moisture remain/Initial Moisture Cooling Temperature

  • Process Modeling and Simulation

    Process Modeling Both processes were modeled in HYSYS Same initial feed gas characteristics and final product

    conditions. Product CO2 purity equal or above 95%

    Processes Optimization CO2 recovery Energy requirement Stage pressure and recycle ratio

  • Comparison of Results

    0.4

    0.5

    0.6

    0.7

    0.8

    Ener

    gy re

    quire

    men

    t (kW

    -hr/k

    g)

    Fluor Process CETC Process

    Feed Gas 1 Feed Gas 2 Feed Gas 3

    60

    70

    80

    90

    100

    CO 2

    reco

    very

    rate

    (%)

    Fluor Process CETC Process

    Feed Gas 1 Feed Gas 2 Feed Gas 3

    40

    60

    80

    100

    120

    2nd

    Stag

    e Pr

    essu

    re (b

    ar)

    Fluor Process CETC Process

    Feed Gas 1 Feed Gas 2 Feed Gas 3

    80

    85

    90

    95

    100

    Purit

    y (%

    )

    Fluor Process CETC Process

    Feed Gas 1 Feed Gas 2 Feed Gas 3

  • Fluor Process at Different Optimized 2ndStage Pressure

    0.4

    0.5

    0.6

    0.7

    0.8

    0.9

    Ener

    gy re

    quire

    men

    t (kW

    -hr/k

    g)

    Optimized Fluor Process Optimized CETC Process Fluor w /CETC pressure

    Feed Gas 1 Feed Gas 2 Feed Gas 340

    60

    80

    100

    120

    2nd

    Stag

    e Pr

    essu

    re (b

    ar)

    Fluor Process CETC Process

    Feed Gas 1 Feed Gas 2 Feed Gas 3

    80

    85

    90

    95

    100

    Purit

    y (%

    )

    Optimized Fluor Process Optimized CETC Process Fluor w /CETC pressure

    Feed Gas 1 Feed Gas 2 Feed Gas 3

    0

    20

    40

    60

    80

    100

    CO 2

    reco

    very

    rate

    (%)

    Optimized Fluor Process Optimized CETC Process Fluor w /CETC pressure

    Feed Gas 1 Feed Gas 2 Feed Gas 3

  • Impurities Distribution in Vent Stream

    60

    70

    80

    90

    100

    F luo r Process C ET C Process

    F eed Gas 1 F eed Gas 2 F eed Gas 3

    0

    2

    4

    6

    8

    10

    F luor Process CETC Process

    Feed Gas 1 Feed Gas 2 Feed Gas 3

    50

    60

    70

    80

    90

    100

    F lu o r Pro ce ss C ET C Pro ce ss

    F eed G as 1 F eed G as 2 F eed G as 3

    0

    2

    4

    6

    8

    10

    F luor Process CET C Process

    Feed Gas 1 Feed Gas 2 Feed Gas 3

  • Impurities Distribution in Product Stream

    0

    10

    20

    30

    40

    50

    60

    70

    80

    90

    100

    F luor Process CET C Process

    Feed Gas 1 Feed Gas 2 Feed Gas 3

    0

    10

    20

    30

    40

    50

    60

    70

    80

    90

    100

    F lu o r Pro ce ss C ET C Pro ce ss

    F eed G as 1 F eed G as 2 F eed G as 3

    0

    10

    2 0

    3 0

    4 0

    5 0

    6 0

    7 0

    8 0

    9 0

    10 0

    F lu o r P ro ce ss C E T C P ro ce ss

    F eed G as 1 F eed G as 2 F eed G as 3

    0

    10

    2 0

    3 0

    4 0

    5 0

    6 0

    7 0

    8 0

    9 0

    10 0

    F lu o r P ro c e s s C E T C P ro c e s s

    F eed G as 1 F eed G as 2 F eed G as 3

  • Conclusions Many factors impact the design of a CO2 compression

    unit for oxy-fuel combustion The impact of impurities in the process design is an

    open area for research The once-through CO2 compression process is well

    established and easy to implement. Autorefrigeration process performance is superior to

    the once-through compression process Process simulation results shows that CETC process

    offers significant improvement over Autorefrigerationprocess. Improved energy efficiency at product purity above 95% Lower liquid product pressure before the pumping module Higher recovery rates

Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.