2019jan - IECM Amine-Based CO2 Capture PDF
2019jan - IECM Amine-Based CO2 Capture PDF
2019jan - IECM Amine-Based CO2 Capture PDF
Amine-based Post-Combustion
CO2 Capture
Amine-based Post-Combustion
CO2 Capture
Prepared by:
For
U.S. Department of Energy
National Energy Technology Laboratory
P.O. Box 880
1. Introduction 5
1.1. Technology Options for CO2 Capture ......................................................................... 5
1.2. Post-combustion amine-based absorption of CO2 from flue gases .............................. 6
1.3. Model Configuration Options ...................................................................................... 7
6. References 57
Figure 5. Flow Sheet for CO2 Capture from Flue Gases using Amine-based System ................................................ 11
Figure 9. Capital Costs by Steam Cycle Type vs. Net Power Output .......................................................................... 55
Figure 10. Revenue Required by Steam Cycle Type vs. Net Power Output ................................................................ 55
Figure 11. Capital Costs by Coal Type vs. Net Power Output .................................................................................... 56
Figure 12. Revenue Required by Coal Type vs. Net Power Output ............................................................................ 56
Figure 13. Capital Cost vs. Net Power Output with and without CCS ........................................................................ 57
Figure 14. Revenue Required vs. Net Power Output with and without CCS .............................................................. 57
Table 1. Comparison of Technology Options for CO2 Separation and Capture ...........................................................6
Table 2. Protreat Parameter Ranges (total number of simulation runs: 1983) ............................................................ 15
Table 3. Removal Efficiency of Acid Gases Due to MEA Solvent (90% CO 2 removal) .......................................... 19
Table 5. MEA Capital Cost Model Parameters and Nominal Values ......................................................................... 32
Table 6. MEA O&M Cost Model Parameters and Nominal Values ........................................................................... 33
Table 9: Set Parameters > CO2 Capture > CO2 Capture System Process > Config Menu .......................................... 38
Table 10: Set Parameters > CO2 Capture > CO2 Capture System Process > Performance Menu .............................. 39
Table 11: Set Parameters > CO2 Capture > CO2 Capture System Process > Capture Menu ...................................... 39
Table 12: Set Parameters > CO2 Capture > CO2 Capture System Process > CO2 Storage Menu ............................... 39
Table 13: Set Parameters > CO2 Capture > CO2 Capture System Process > Retrofit Cost Menu .............................. 40
Table 14: Set Parameters CO2 Capture > CO2 Capture System Process > Capital Cost Menu .................................. 40
Table 15: Set Parameters > CO2 Capture > CO2 Capture System Process > O&M Cost Menu ................................. 40
Table 16: IECM Parameters Changed for Case 1 - Supercritical Plants without CO2 Capture ................................... 45
Table 17: IECM Parameters Changed for Case 2 - Supercritical Plants with CO2 Capture ....................................... 47
Table 18: IECM Parameters Changed for Case 3 - Supercritical Plants without CO2 Capture ................................... 49
Table 19: IECM Parameters Changed for Case 4 - Supercritical Plants with CO2 Capture ........................................ 51
• Anand B. Rao and Edward S. Rubin. A Technical, Economic and Environmental Assessment of
Amine-based CO2 Capture Technology for Power Plant Greenhouse Gas Control. Prepared by
Carnegie Mellon University for the National Energy Technology Laboratory. Pittsburgh, PA 15213,
October 2002.
• Anand B. Rao. Details of a Technical, Economic and Environmental Assessment of Amine-based
CO2 Capture Technology for Power Plant Greenhouse Gas Control. Prepared by Carnegie Mellon
University for the National Energy Technology Laboratory. Pittsburgh, PA 15213, October 2002.
• Michael B. Berkenpas, Karen Kietzke, Hari Mantripragada, Sean McCoy, Edward S. Rubin, Peter L.
Versteeg, and Haibo Zhai. IECM Technical Documentation Updates, Vol. IV. Prepared by Carnegie
Mellon University for the National Energy Technology Laboratory. Pittsburgh, PA 15213, November
2009.
These prior reports were sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology
Laboratory under Contract Nos. DE-FC26-00NT40935 and DE-AC26 -04NT4187, and by a cooperative
agreement between Carnegie Mellon University and the National Science Foundation (SBR-9521914).
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the
authors alone and do not reflect the views of any government agency.
Polypropelene
Selexol Pressure Swing Ceramic Based
Rectisol Temperature Swing Systems
Other Washing
Pure Oxygen
Combustion-based Pulverized Coal
Gasification-based Gas Turbines
Absorption Absorber and Suitable for dilute CO2 The heat of solvent
stripper sections streams (typical flue gas regeneration is very high
(Chemical)
from power plants)
Chemical solvent Significant solvent losses
(e.g. MEA, HPC) Operates at ordinary T & P due to acidic impurities in
the gas stream
Commercially available,
proven technology
Absorption Absorber and Less energy required Requires high operating
stripper sections pressure
(Physical) Solvents are less
Physical solvent susceptible to the Works better with gas
(e.g. Selexol) impurities in the gas streams having high CO2
stream content
Adsorption Adsorber bed(s) Very high CO2 removal is Requires very high
possible operating pressures
Costly
Membranes Membrane filter(s) Upcoming, promising Requires very high
technology operating pressures
Space efficient May require multiple
units and recycling due to
lower product purity
Very costly
2. The CO2 capture system maybe designed so as to capture CO2 from the additional flue gas as
well. In this case, the secondary flue gas stream (after cooling and NOx removal, if required)
maybe merged with main flue gas stream, before it enters the CO2 capture system. If the NG fuel
contains H2S, the secondary flue gas may have to be treated for SOx removal as well. The basic
purpose of the auxiliary NG boiler is to provide the steam required for sorbent regeneration.
With higher amount of flue gas to be treated (and more CO2 to be captured), the amine-system
would require more steam and thus a bigger auxiliary NG boiler would be required (which means
more secondary flue gas!). An optimal size of auxiliary NG boiler maybe determined by an
iterative calculation procedure, so that it matches the sorbent regeneration steam requirement of
the CO2 capture system treating the total flue gas. Thus, the CO2 capture level is maintained to
the originally desired level, but it often requires substantially big auxiliary NG boiler facility.
This may not be always practically feasible (space constraints for retrofit applications, fuel
In terms of the configuration of the CO2 capture system shown in Figure 3, the user can make the
following choices as well
Direct contact cooler: The default setting in IECM chooses to include a DCC to cool the flue gas before
it enters the amine system. The temperature of the flue gas affects the absorption reaction (absorption of
CO2 in MEA sorbent is an exothermic process favored by lower temperatures). Also, the volumetric flow
rate of the flue gas stream, which is a key determinant of the sizes of various equipments (direct contact
cooler, flue gas blower, absorber), is directly related to the flue gas temperature. Hence lower flue gas
temperature is desired. The typically acceptable range of flue gas temperature is about 50-60 oC. If the
flue gas is coming from wet sulfur scrubber, additional DCC may not be required. But in case of flue gas
from NG-fired boiler, which often does not pass through a sulfur scrubber, DCC is a must.
Choice of sorbent: At this time, MEA is the default sorbent used in the system and the nominal values of
various parameters are based on a process simulation model that uses MEA. As always, the users can
9000
8000
.
7000
m to n CO2/d ay
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
S le ip n e r W e s t 5 0 0 M W C o a l-
EOR F e r tiliz e r Soda Ash F o o d -g r a d e G a s fie ld , based
N o rw a y P o w e r p la n t
MEA CO 2 product
Storage
MEA
Exhaust makeup
Gas Flash
Cooler Cooler
Absorber
lean - cool
Fan Regenerator
HEx *
rich - cool rich -hot
Figure 5. Flow Sheet for CO2 Capture from Flue Gases using Amine-based System
The CO2 product is separated from the sorbent in a flash separator, and then taken to the drying and
compression unit. It is compressed to very high pressures (about 2000 psig) so that it is liquefied and
easily transported to long distances to the designated storage or disposal facility.
3.2. Methodology
A large number of process simulation runs have been conducted to cover a reasonable range of values for
the key parameters. The details are presented in the following sections.
3.2.1. ProTreat Simulation Runs for CO2 capture and separation from flue gas
The CO2 capture and separation system consists of a flue gas compressor, cooler, absorber, heat
exchangers, regenerator, sorbent circulation pumps etc. Many parameters were varied in the ProTreat
model. Table 2 summarizes the parameters that were changed and the ranges for each parameter.
Table 2. Protreat Parameter Ranges (total number of simulation runs: 1983)
The following set of parameters related to the design/configuration of the CO2 capture system were held
constant:
• Absorber height: 40 ft
• Absorber packing: Rasching rings, metallic, 1-inch packing size
• Inlet flue gas pressure: 3 psi
• Solvent pumping pressure: 30 psi
• Number of trays in regenerator: 24 (tray spacing = 2 ft, weir height = 3 inches)
Acid gas removal efficiency (%) MEA loss (mole MEA/mole acid gas)
NO NO = 0 nMEA, NO = 0
Temperature of the flue gas entering the CO2 capture system (Tfg,in)
The desirable temperature of the flue gas entering the CO2 capture system is about 45-50 deg C. If a
direct contact cooler is installed upstream of CO2 capture system, then this temperature level may be
achieved. Else, this is same as that obtained from the base plant.
The temperature of the flue gas affects the absorption reaction (absorption of CO2 in MEA solvent is an
exothermic process favored by lower temperatures). Also, the volumetric flow rate of the flue gas stream,
which is a key determinant of the sizes of various equipments (direct contact cooler, flue gas blower,
absorber), is directly related to the flue gas temperature.
•
Nominal MEA loss ( m MEA, nom)
MEA is a reactive solvent. In spite of dilution with water and use of inhibitors, a small quantity of MEA
is lost through various unwanted reactions, mainly the polymerization reaction (to form long-chained
compounds) and the oxidation reaction forming organic acids and liberating ammonia. In general, this
nominal loss of MEA is estimated as about 1.5 kgMEA/ mton CO2.
It is also assumed that 50 % of this MEA loss is due to polymerization:
• •
m MEA, polym = = 50% of m MEA, nom)
and the remaining 50% of the MEA loss is due to oxidation to acids:
• •
m MEA, oxid = 50% of m MEA, nom).
•
Caustic Consumption in Reclaimer ( m NaOH )
Caustic (in the form of NaOH) is added in the reclaimer so that some of the MEA could be regenerated
•
from HSS. m NaOH is the quantity (mass) of caustic (as NaOH) consumed in MEA reclaimer per tonne of
CO2 captured. A typical value is about 0.13 kg NaOH/ mton CO2.
Reclaimed MEA
Caustic regenerates stoichiometric amount of MEA from the HSS in the reclaimer. Each mole of NaOH
regenerates 1 mole of MEA, and adds the corresponding Na salt of organic acid to the reclaimer bottoms.
•
n MEA, reclaimed = no. of moles of MEA reclaimed using caustic
•
= m NaOH / (Molecular Weight of NaOH)
•
= m NaOH / 40 (7)
•
Activated Carbon ( m act-C)
Activated carbon bed in the solvent circuit helps in removal of long chained/ cyclic polymeric compounds
formed from the degenerated MEA. Over a period of time (~3-6 months) the C-bed needs to be replaced
•
(the used bed is sent back to the the suppliers). m act-C is the average amount of activated carbon
consumed per tonne of CO2 captured. Typically, this consumption is estimated to be about 0.075 kg C/
tonne CO2.
where,
L = total sorbent flow rate (kmole/ hr)
G = total inlet flue gas flow rate (kmole/ hr)
(L/G) = total liquid (sorbent) applied per unit flue gas flow rate in absorber (ratio of molar flow rates)
Q = total sorbent regeneration heat requirement (GJ/ hr)
(Q/L) = total regeneration heat supplied per unit of sorbent flow (MJ/ kmole)
yCO2 = CO2 concentration in the inlet flue gas (mole %)
lean = lean sorbent CO2 loading (mole CO2/ mole MEA)
CO2 = CO2 capture efficiency (%)
C = MEA concentration in the sorbent (wt %)
Tfg,in = Temperature of the flue gas entering the CO2 absorber (deg C)
Tfg,out = Temperature of the flue gas leaving the CO2 absorber (deg C)
mwlean = Average molecular weight of the lean sorbent (kg/ kmole sorbent)
ecomp = Unit energy requirement for CO2 compression (kWh/ tonne CO2)
PCO2 = Desired CO2 product pressure (psig)
nCO2,inlet = Molar flow rate of CO2 in the inlet flue gas (kmole CO2/hr)
(MolWt)CO2 = Molecular weight of CO2 = 0.044 tonne/ kmole CO2
•
• Net loss of MEA = MEA makeup requirement = m MEA, makeup
= loss due to acid gas + loss due to
impurities
polymeriza tion
Gain in + loss with
+ loss due to fluegas exhaust
HSS formation − Reclaimer
Estimation of total sorbent circulation flow rate: From the performance equations, we find
L/G = f (yCO2, lean, CO2, C, Tfg,in), and L = G*(L/G)
Including the makeup MEA quantity gives the total sorbent flow rate (m3/hr)
•
Ltot,v = {G*(L/G)*mwlean + m MEA, makeup *(100/C)}*sorbent
• Waste generated from reclaimer:
MEA loss due
= MEA lost due to + Total qty of +
acid gases acid gases removed to oxidation
mwaste = Caustic added
MEA loss due to
+ HSS format n
+ to
− Gain in reclaimer Reclaimer
Considering (fw,waste) as the water content (% w/w) in the waste, the actual mass flow rate of waste is
obtained as:
Mwaste,total = mwaste/ fw,waste kg/hr
Typically, the reclaimer waste contains about 40% water.
• Activated carbon consumption
• •
m act-C = m act-C mCO 2 kg act-C/hr
• Caustic Consumption in Reclaimer
•
Typically, the value of m pw is about 0.114 tonne/hr per MW(net) (Smelster et al., 1991). Therefore, the
process water requirement is:
•
(Mpw) = m pw MWnet tonne/hr
• Cooling water requirement
If there is a direct contact cooler installed, the required flow rate of cooling water is estimated based on
the following assumptions
Specific heat of water, SHw = 4.2 kJ/kg oC
Specific heat of flue gas = SHfg (Generally, this is around 1.2 kJ/kg oC)
Temperature rise in the cooling water (once through system) = Tw
Drop in flue gas temperature = Tfg = (Tfg,i - Tfg) oF
where,
Steam requirement
LP steam is extracted from the power plant steam turbine (or secondary steam turbine) in order to provide
the sorbent regeneration heat in the reboiler. Based on the regeneration heat requirement and enthalpy of
regeneration steam, the flow rate of steam may be estimated as follows
From the performance equations,
(Q/L) = f(yCO2, lean, C )
Total regeneration heat requirement,
Q (MJ/ hr) = (Q/L)*(L)
Mass flow rate of steam,
msteam (tonne/hr) = Q / qsteam
The equivalent energy penalty due to regeneration steam requirement is (Eregen). Depending upon the CO2
capture system configuration (source of regeneration steam supply), Eregen has to be estimated in two
different ways.
Eregen = Q*FHE
2. In case of steam supplied from an auxiliary NG boiler,
where Qsolvent and Psolvent are expressed in gal/min and psi, respectively and,
Ecompr = ecomp*mCO2/comp
2. In case of CO2 compressors, which have higher capacity (~ 7200 tpd CO2), the number of
compressors required is calculated accordingly. If Nc is the total number of CO2 compressors
installed, then the number of compressors installed per train may be stated as (Nc/Nt).
Different components of this system (Absorber, Regenerator, Flue gas blower etc.) are scaled, based on
the flow ate of the material being handled by that particular device, using 0.6 power law e.g., the cost of
absorber and flue gas blower is scaled on the basis of flue gas flow ate entering the CO2 system. The data
obtained from the Fluor Daniel report serve as reference numbers for this scaling exercise.
Actual value of scaling parameter per train (X) is calculated by dividing the magnitude of the scaling
parameter (obtained from the performance model) by the minimum number of equipments required (i.e.
product of minimum number of trains required and minimum number of equipments per train). e.g. if V
is the value of a parameter, then X is given as
V
X =
E n ,i • N min
So, different process areas using the same scaling parameter may have different value of X, depending
upon the value of En.
Each process area has a reference cost (Cref) based on the source sited before, and the corresponding value
of the scaling parameter (Xref). The cost of the equipment is calculated using the reference values and the
actual value of scaling parameter (X), based on the 6/10th rule which is commonly used in chemical
engineering costing. For example, in case of a particular process area (say, area 10), we have the
following cost:
C10, ref = Cost of equipment (area 10)
Scaling parameter = X10,ref
From the performance model, we have:the total quantity of the scaling parameter, Y. Now, as discussed
above,
Nmin = Minimum number of trains
En,10 = Number of equipment (10) per train
Minimum number of equipment installed, Z10,min = Nmin En,10
Total number of equipment installed, Z10 = Nt En,10
where,
Nt is the actual number of trains installed (including spares)
So, the actual flue gas flow rate per train,
X10 = Y/ Z10,min
The fixed O&M (FOM) costs include the costs of maintenance (materials and labor) and labor (operating
labor, administrative and support labor). These are estimated on the annual basis ($M/yr). The
mathematical model for the fixed cost is as follows
FOM = FOMlabor + FOMmaint + FOMadmin
FOMlabor = labor Nlabor 40(hrs/week) 52(weeks/yr)
FOMmaint = i (fmaint)i TPCi where i = process area
FOMadmin = fadmin (FOMlabor + fmaintlab FOMmaint)
The variable O&M (VOM) costs include:
Cost of MEA reagent (VOMMEA): The makeup MEA requirement estimated in the performance model
is transformed into dollar amount by using the unit cost of MEA, which is user controlled cost input
variable.
VOMMEA = MMEA,makeupUCMEA HPY
where, UCMEA is the unit cost of MEA.
Cost of inhibitor (VOMinhibitor): Addition of inhibitor makes it possible to use higher concentrations of
MEA solvent in the system with minimal corrosion problems. Inhibitors are special compounds that
come at a cost premium. The cost of inhibitor is estimated as 20% of the cost of MEA.
120
100
COE, with 90% CO2 Capture
COE ($/MWh)
80
COE, Ref. Plant
60
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
C-Tax ($/ tonCO2 emitted)
5. Parameter and Model Updates for Advanced Amine-based CO2 Capture System
Here are the updated cost factors. For the new version of the IECM, the base process performance
costs functions for all the pulverized coal power plant technologies were multiplied by a cost correction
factor based on information available in the NETL 2007 Baseline Report (NETL 2007). This cost
correction factor updates the costs of each technology. A summary table of the cost correction factors
applied to each technology is shown in Table 8.
Table 9: Set Parameters > CO2 Capture > CO2 Capture System Process > Config Menu
Table 11: Set Parameters > CO2 Capture > CO2 Capture System Process > Capture Menu
Table 12: Set Parameters > CO2 Capture > CO2 Capture System Process > CO2 Storage Menu
Table 14: Set Parameters CO2 Capture > CO2 Capture System Process > Capital Cost Menu
Table 15: Set Parameters > CO2 Capture > CO2 Capture System Process > O&M Cost Menu
1
The IECM calculates updated values based on other values supplied as inputs. These values may change with
different plant configurations.
2
For a more thorough explanation and for the calculation of Nominal Sorbent Loss, see below.
3
For the calculation of the updated Heat-to-Electricity Efficiency, see below.
In order to reflect the new regeneration heat requirement of the Advanced Amine CO2 capture
process, the original regression equation was adjusted by a scaling factor. In the original model,
regeneration heat is calculated based on the following regression equation:
Regen Heat (Btu/ lb CO2) = Sorbent Circulation (tons/hr)* exp(2.5919 + 0.0259 * Reagent Concentration
(%) - 6.3536 * Lean CO2 Loading (mol CO2/sorb) - 0.0015 * Actual CO2 Removal Efficiency (%) -
0.0059 * CO2 Flue Gas (lb moles/hr)*100/Total Gas (lb moles/hr) / Sorbent Molecular Weight
(lb/lb*mole)/ CO2 Captured (tons/hr)* 429.9046
This regression equation was multiplied by a scaling factor of 0.7639 to approximately match the updated
regeneration energy of 1516 Btu/ lb CO2 currently available by advanced amine-based CO2 capture
systems, from 1984 Btu/ lb CO2 available for conventional MEA systems.
In previous versions of the IECM, the Heat-to-Electricity Conversion Efficiency (or equivalence
factor) was selected from a range of values in the literature as 14%. In this new version of the IECM, the
Heat-to-Electricity Conversion Efficiency was estimated from data obtained using the NETL 2007
Baseline report (NETL 2007). In the NETL Baseline report, the following data is available for a
subcritical plant without CO2 Capture:
Therefore, approximately 750 lb coal/hr is burned for each gross MW produced for this plant. For a
subcritical plant with CO2 Capture:
For NETL Case 10, the subcritical plant with the CO2 capture system, 1,995,300 lb steam/hr of quality
1397.7 Btu/lb is diverted from the low pressure turbine and this steam flows to the reboiler of the
advanced amine-based CO2 capture unit. Therefore, the Heat-to-Electricity Conversion Efficiency can be
calculated as:
182[MW]
∗ 1397.7[Btu/lb steam] ∗ 2.93E−7 [MW/(Btu/hr)] = 0.222 or 22%,
1995300[lb steam/hr]
Similar results are shown using NETL Cases 11 and 12 for supercritical plants. In the new version of the
IECM, the Heat-to-Electricity Conversion Efficiency as well as the steam quality parameters were
updated for both the MEA and Advanced Amine CO2 capture systems to reflect these results.
In previous versions of the IECM, the electrical equivalent loss (energy penalty) from the
conventional CO2 capture system was based on multiplying the regeneration energy requirement by the
Heat-to-Electricity Conversion Efficiency. In the updated version of the IECM, this calculation was
modified to reflect a more realistic process. The electrical equivalent loss (MW) due to the steam
requirements in the reboiler are calculated in two steps, first by calculating the steam flow rate directly,
and then by using this value and the Heat-to-Electricity Conversion Efficiency to calculate the electrical
equivalent loss:
Where:
Where:
Updated Base Plant Cost Equations for the Case with CO 2 Capture
In past versions of the IECM, the costs of the equipment in the Base Plant depended on the gross
power produced (MW) by the power plant. In the updated version of the IECM for cases with CO2
capture, the majority of equipment in the Base Plant is instead sized on the gross power produced (MW)
plus the equivalent electrical loss (MW), which is called the Gross Power Produced Effective internally in
the IECM. This new calculation accounts for the steam produced by the base plant that is not used to
generate electricity but is instead used to regenerate amine in the CO2 capture system. The only exception
is the Turbine Island, which is still sized based the gross power produced. The Turbine Island does not
need be sized based on the equivalent electrical loss because it is not part of the set of equipment that
produces steam. This adjustment more realistically captures the cost equations of the base plant
equipment for cases with CO2 capture.
For the advanced amine-based CO2 capture system, the Nominal Sorbent Loss (lb/ton CO2)
represents the amount of sorbent that has been lost due to unwanted polymerization and oxidation
reactions. The total sorbent loss, which requires makeup sorbent (called Sorbent (lb/hr) on the Get
Results, CO2 Capture, Diagram screen), represents the Nominal Sorbent Loss (lb/ ton CO2) minus the
amount of CO2 regenerated in the reclaimer.
The IECM CO2 Capture screens have been updated to include the changes listed in this
document. The updated Advanced Amine process has been included in the Set Parameters, CO2 Capture,
Config Menu, and the user can now select between traditional MEA and Advanced Amine (FG+). An
additional update to the Set Parameters, CO2 Capture, Config Menu is the inclusion of a polishing unit
intended to lower the SO2 concentration in the feed gas. SO2 can react with MEA to produce undesirable
and irreversible byproducts, therefore causing a loss of amine in the system that requires makeup (NETL
2007). The polishing unit uses caustic to capture the SO2, reducing the cost of makeup chemicals. The
user can choose whether or not to include the polishing unit. The updated Set Parameters, CO2 Capture,
Config Menu is shown in Figure 7.
The CO2 capture menu for the advanced amine system (Figure 8) has been updated to show only
the Nominal Sorbent Loss. The Sorbent Oxidation Loss line has been collapsed into Nominal Sorbent
Loss to reflect the lack of detailed information on this parameter available for advanced amine capture
systems.
The NETL 2007 Baseline report presents four pulverized coal case studies: Subcritical PC plants
with and without a CO2 Capture System, carbon, and Supercritical PC plants with and without a CO2
Capture System. For these case studies, parameters from the NETL 2007 Baseline Report (NETL 2007)
were duplicated in the IECM, and the results from the updated IECM are presented.
For the Supercritical plant without a CO2 Capture System, a number of default parameters in the
IECM were changed so that these parameters matched the NETL 2007 Baseline Report. These changes
are shown in Table 16.
Table 16: IECM Parameters Changed for Case 1 - Supercritical Plants without CO2 Capture
The key results of this case study are shown below in summary Table 20.
For the Supercritical plant with a CO2 Capture System, a number of default parameters in the IECM
were changed so that these parameters matched the NETL 2007 Baseline Report. These changes are
shown in Table 17.
Table 17: IECM Parameters Changed for Case 2 - Supercritical Plants with CO2 Capture
The key results of this case study are shown below in summary Table 20.
For the Subcritical plant without a CO2 Capture System, a number of default parameters in the IECM
were changed so that these parameters matched the NETL 2007 Baseline Report. These changes are
shown in Table 18.
Table 18: IECM Parameters Changed for Case 3 - Supercritical Plants without CO2 Capture
The key results of this case study are shown below in summary Table 20.
For the Subcritical plant with a CO2 Capture System, a number of default parameters in the IECM
were changed so that these parameters matched the NETL 2007 Baseline Report. These changes are
shown in Table 19.
Table 19: IECM Parameters Changed for Case 4 - Supercritical Plants with CO2 Capture
The key results of this case study are shown below in summary Table 20.
The key results from Case Studies 1-4 are shown below in Table 14. The performance parameters in terms of
net plant efficiency for the same gross power plant size match closely, as do the capital costs on a $/kW-net basis.
The revenue required for the IECM for each of these cases is somewhat lower than in the NETL 2007 Baseline
Report, owing primarily to an escalation in coal prices for all four cases in the Baseline Report, which is not done in
this analysis in the IECM.
Revenue
Gross Output Net Plant Efficiency Capital Cost
Cases Required
(MW) (%) ($/kW -net)
($/MWh)
PC Supercritical + CCS 663.3 663.4 27.1% 27.2% 2857 2870 108.4 114.8
PC Subcritical + CCS 681.3 679.9 24.8% 24.9% 2935 2895 112.5 118.8
A cost sensitivity analysis was done for different steam cycles (Subcritical, Supercritical, and Ultra
Supercritical), for different coal types (Appalachian Medium Sulfur, Illinois #6, and Wyoming Powder
River Basin), and for plants with and without CO2 capture across a range of net plant sizes (250MW to
750MW). In each of these sensitivity studies, the defaults for the IECM were used with an SCR, ESP,
and FGD system, and with an Advanced Amine CO2 Capture System for the case with CO2 capture. The
results are presented below.
In the sensitivity analysis for the steam cycle, an IECM default plant was built with an SCR, ESP, and
FGD system, but without a CO2 capture system, and the coal used was Illinois #6. The net plant size was
varied between 250 and 750 MW. The plant efficiencies were approximately constant through this range
of plant sizes, with the Subcritical plant having an efficiency of 36.4%, the Supercritical plant having an
efficiency of 38.7%, and the Ultra Supercritical plant having an efficiency of 42.7% (all HHV). The
results from the sensitivity studies for Capital Cost and Revenue Required are shown in Figure 9 and
Figure 10 below.
Figure 10. Revenue Required by Steam Cycle Type vs. Net Power Output
In the sensitivity analysis for coal type, an IECM default plant was built with an SCR, ESP, and FGD
system, but without a CO2 capture system, and a Supercritical steam cycle was used. Three coals were
chosen for this analysis, Appalachian Medium Sulfur, Illinois #6, and Wyoming Powder River Basin. The
net plant size was varied between 250 and 750 MW. The results from the sensitivity studies for Capital
Cost and Revenue Required are shown in Figure 11 and Figure 12 below.
.
Figure 12. Revenue Required by Coal Type vs. Net Power Output
In the sensitivity analysis for CO2 capture technology, an IECM default plant was built with an SCR,
ESP, and FGD system, and a Supercritical steam cycle was used. The net plant size was varied between
250 and 750 MW with and without a CO2 capture system. The results from the sensitivity studies for
Capital Cost and Revenue Required are shown in Figure 13 and Figure 14 below. The costs for plants
with CO2 Capture generally decrease with increasing plant size until a new train is required in the CO2
capture system, at which point the cost rises slightly.
Figure 14. Revenue Required vs. Net Power Output with and without CCS
6. References
1. Marion, J., Nsakala, N., Bozzuto, C., Liljedahl, G., Palkes, M., Vogel, D., Gupta, J.C., Guha, M.,
Johnson, H., and S. Plasynski (2001). “Engineering feasibility of CO2 capture on an existing US coal-
fired power plant”, in the Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Coal Utilization and
Fuel Systems, March 5-8, 2001, Clearwater, FL, USA, 941-952.
2. Herzog, H.J. et al (2001). “A cost model for transport of carbon dioxide”, a draft paper.
3. IEA GHGRDP (2000). “International test network for CO2 capture: report on a workshop”, Report
No. PH3/33, December 2000.