Comparative assessments of physical absorption, water gas shift membrane reactor and chemical looping integrations in a coal fired

IGCC system with CO2 capture

Sina Rezvani, Ye Huang, David McIlveen-Wright, Neil Hewitt, Jayanta Deb Mondol
School of the Built Environment, Centre for Sustainable Technologies, University of Ulster, Co Antrim BT37 0QB, N. Ireland, UK

Techno-economic assessment of IGCC/CO2 systems

ECLIPSE simulation package CLC and WGSMR info: ENCAP IGCC systems: Base case WGS/Selexol WGS membrane reactor Single CLC Double CLC

IGCC reference case

WGS-SXL

WGS-MR

Membranes
Pd/Ag membranes
Permselectivity ~ 4000
(200-10000 for other Pd alloy types)

Permeances:
1.1x10-6 m3/(m2sPa) @ temp of 450oC, on a silicon wafer (Tong) 2.24x10-9 m3/(m2sPa) @ temp of 100 to 300oC, on a Al2O3 (McCool)

Poor chemical and thermal stability

Zeolite
Permselectivity > 50 Permeances: 1.12x10-7 m3/(m2sPa), 350-450oC (Lin) Excellent chemical and thermal stability
1 barrer = 7.5005 x 10-18 m3/ m2 sPa

WGS membrane reactor

Reactor packed with 750 tubes, each 7m long Total area ~ 1850 m2, volume of catalysts ~ 21 m3

Combustion membrane reactor

Single reactor CLC

Double Reactor CLC

Specification
Coal feed: 156 t/hr Feedstock LHV: 1088MW Steam injection to the gasifier: 10 t/hr Oxygen flow to the gasifier: 126 t/hr Gasifier operating pressure: 36-42 bar GT compression ratio: 1:17 and 1:22 GT isentropic efficiency 89% Com. polytropic efficiency: 91%

Labels GT IT [C] GT ET [C] AT ET [C] GT EMF [kg/s] AT EMF [kg/s] CO2 MF [kg/s] ST IT [C] ST IP [bar] Stack T [C]

Mean 1178 646 215 508 325 78 113 532 114

St.Dev 50 139 286 331 430 41 4 10 16

Min 1128 494 0 124 0 0 109 520 97

Max 1235 885 712 843 953 100 116 540 132

IT: inlet temperature, IP: inlet pressure, EMF: exhaust mass flow, MF: mass flow, ET: exhaust temperature, ST: steam turbine, GT: gas turbine

Power output

Power output vs. consumption

Utilities

Specific CO2 Emission [g/kWh]

Economic Analysis
Bituminous coal: 3 (2-4) Construction time: 48 months Discounted cash flow: 8% (4%-12%) Project lifetime: 40 years Owners cost: 15% (contingency + working capital) Capacity factor: 85% Special cost of OTM: 2500/m2
O2 Flux: 1.0-1.5 mol/m2.s 5.4 kg/s

Special cost of WGSMR: 3000/m2

H2 flux: 3-2 mol/m 2.s 6 kg/s

CLC cost: Scaled up from OSU CLC (Ohio State Univ.)

OC loss 60t/a at a cost: 600k/a (0.35/MWh)

Cases Fuel handling WH-Boiler M HX M Pumps M Pipe fitting M Extra Comp. M FG Cond. M GT M ST M Gasifier M Start-up cost Gas cond. M Indirect costs M ASU/ATR M WGS M WGSMR M OTM M Selexol plant M CO2 comp. M CLC M Total M

1 45 22 2 1 2 1 0 138 70 120 10 56 63 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 577

2 45 19 6 1 2 1 4 138 56 120 10 56 65 47 20 0 0 16 25 0 630

3 45 23 7 1 3 2 4 134 69 130 10 63 66 47 13 6 4 0 19 0 644

4 45 23 8 1 3 2 4 134 69 130 10 63 65 35 13 6 4 0 19 0 633

5 45 24 8 1 3 0 4 134 73 120 10 0 70 47 0 0 0 0 25 96 659

6 45 25 9 1 3 0 4 134 73 120 10 0 68 35 0 0 0 0 25 96 649

7 45 21 7 1 3 0 4 163 64 120 10 0 79 47 0 0 0 0 25 160 749

8 45 22 8 1 3 0 4 163 64 120 10 0 78 35 0 0 0 0 25 160 739

9 45 23 2 1 2 1 0 138 70 120 10 56 62 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 565

10 45 19 7 1 2 1 4 138 56 120 10 56 64 35 20 0 0 16 25 0 620

Specific investment

Operating and maintenance cost

Fixed O&M costs: 64-66 /kWe (Ref: 46-48 /kWe) Var. O&M costs: 2.15-3.5 /MWh (Ref: 1.8 /MWh)

BESP [/MWh]

Fuel cost impacts

[/MWh]

Efficiency impacts [/MWh]

BESP vs. Capacity factor [/MWh]

O&M impacts [/MWh]

Avoidance cost

[/t]

Conclusion
Membrane systems
Problem: Pd availability, membrane production Alternatives: Gasification using ITM

IGCC with integrated CLC systems

Disadvantage: Complex, expensive, high reactor temp. Alternatives: Solid fuel CLC

WGS/SXL best matched to IGCC

Higher CO2 compression costs