Integration of Biomass into Gas Fired Combined Cycle - Thermodynamic and Economical Analyses

F. Donatini, G. Gigliucci, C. Zamparelli, N. Herzog

th ECOS 2002, Berlin 4th July 2002
1

Objectives
Reduction of CO2 emission to achieve Kyoto protocol commitment EU target: - 8 %
Italy target: - 6.5 %

Economical benefits from power generation through renewable sources

ECOS - 2002 F. Donatini et al.

Reduction of CO2 emission 2

Improvement of energy conversion efficiency Adoption of lower carbon content fuels (Natural Gas) Power generation from renewable sources CO2 capture and storage in fossil fuel power generating plants

ECOS - 2002 F. Donatini et al.

Economic benefits from renewable sources

ITALIAN SITUATION
Renewable sources promotion on competitive base
Green certificate 6 cE/kWh

Renewable energy
Electricity 4 cE/kWh

Green certificate market

Fossil energy

Electricity market

Utility must generate at least 2% of total electricity from new renewable source plants
ECOS - 2002 F. Donatini et al.
4

Biomass energetic conversion

Process Combustion Thermal Cycle Efficiency
25% 35% 32% 25% 44% 35% 30%

Stand alone Steam Cycles Co-firing in Steam Power Plants . Stand alone Combined Cycles Stand alone Steam Cycles Co-firing in GT-CC Additional firing in HRSG-CC Reciprocating Engines

Gasification

Pyrolysis

ECOS - 2002 F. Donatini et al.

Integration of Biomass in Combined Cycles

Reference Plant
Combined Cycle Power Net Cycle Efficiency 380 MWe 56.5 %

Plant Retrofit Configurations

Biomass gasification and biogas co-firing in the gas turbine External combustion of biomass and air preheating in the gas turbine Biomass gasification and biogas additional-firing in the Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG)
ECOS - 2002 F. Donatini et al.
6

1. Biogas Co-firing in Gas Turbine

Biomass 50 MWt GA
HEX Clean

Natural Gas 644 MWt CC 252 MWe GT GE1 ST 133 MWe GE2

CO

HRSG

Total Electric Power Total Net Efficiency

ECOS - 2002 F. Donatini et al.

385 MWe 55.5 %

7

2. External Biomass Combustion

Comb Biomass 50 MWt CC HEX CO GT Natural Gas 622 MWt 246 MWe GE1 ST 130 MWe GE2

HRSG

Total Electric Power Total Net Efficiency

ECOS - 2002 F. Donatini et al.

376 MWe 55.9 %

8

3. Biomass Post-firing in HRSG

Natural Gas 672 MWt CC CO GT 249 MWe GE1 ST 148 MWe GE2

Clean

Comb

HRSG

Biomass 50 MWt

GA

Total Electric Power Total Net Efficiency

397 MWe 55 %

ECOS - 2002 F. Donatini et al.

Comparision between the performances

Net Cycle Efficiency versus Biomass Thermal Input
57

Efficiency (%)

56

External Combustion

55

Co-firing in GT

54

Post-firing in HRSG
53 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Biomass Thermal Input (%)

ECOS - 2002 F. Donatini et al.
10

Comparision between performances

Electric Power versus Biomass Thermal Input
405 400

Power (MWe)

Post-firing in HRSG
395 390 385 380 375 370 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Co-firing in GT

External Combustion

Biomass Thermal Input (%)

ECOS - 2002 F. Donatini et al.
11

Exergetic Analysis
Biogas Cofiring in GT
5 GA 4.2 HX 4.1 95

External Combustion
5 Comb 3 HX 2.6 95

Biogas Firing in HRSG

95

GT
5 GA 23.7 4.1 Comb 1 26.8 ST 8.5 17.5

39.9

GT
24.7 ST 7.4

41.7 32.7

GT
24.9 ST 7.4

39.8 32.9

31.4

17.4

18.3

ECOS - 2002 F. Donatini et al.

12

Exergetic Analysis
The best performances can be achieved when biomass power is introduced in the top cycle (gas turbine) External combustion allows the most efficient integration; in fact the reduction of irreversibility in the gas turbine fully compensates the irreversibility losses in biomass combustion Biogas co-firing in the HRSG is the least efficient configuration, since biomass is utilised at a low thermal level, but it allows additional power to be produced by the steam cycle
ECOS - 2002 F. Donatini et al.
13

Economical Analysis
Evaluations consider additional costs and incomes of the three solutions with respect to the reference NGCC
Input data:
Biomass Input Equivalent annual operation at full load Time for construction Annual O&M (% of capital cost) Annual discount rate Life of the project Taxes Natural Gas price Biomass price Electricity price Green certificate price 50 MWt 6500 h 2 years 3% 8% 8 years 41.25 % 0.5 cE/MJ 0.31 cE/MJ 4.3 cE/kWh 5.8 cE/kWh
14

ECOS - 2002 F. Donatini et al.

Economical Analysis
Biomass Conversion Efficiency

(W

t,bio

+ W t,NG ) ? tot = W t,bio ? bio + W t,NG ? CC, ref ? bio = ? tot W t,NG (? CC, ref ? tot ) W t,bio

Results
- Biomass gasification and co-firing in GT - Biomass external combustion - Biomass gasification and firing in HRSG
ECOS - 2002 F. Donatini et al.

44 % 48 % 35 %
15

Economical Analysis
Investment Costs (Meuro)
Biogas External Biogas Firing Cofiring in GT Combustion in HRSG

Biomass storage Syngas gasif./cleaning Syngas compressor Biomass burner Gas-air heat exchanger Exhaust gas filter Total Investment

2.5 25.0 2.5 30.0

2.5 5.0 5.0 7.5 20.0

2.5 22.5 25.0

ECOS - 2002 F. Donatini et al.

16

Results of economical analysis

Biomass Investment O&M Fuel Income Gross Conversion Cost Cost Cost Cash Efficiency Flow (%) (ME) (ME/Y) (ME/Y) (ME/Y) (ME/Y) NPV IRR

(ME)

(%)

Biogas Cofiring in GT External Combustion Biogas Firing in HRSG

44

30

0.9

0.05

10

8.8

3.1

10.3

48

20

0.6

-2.6

7.7

9.6

21.8

20.2

35

25

0.75

3.3

11.3

7.2

2.4

10.1

ECOS - 2002 F. Donatini et al.

17

Conclusions
Advantages
High conversion efficiency Slight increase of electric power Highest conversion efficiency Significative increase of electric power

Disadvantages Cofiring in GT
High installation cost

High tech. risk

External Combustion

Slight decrease of electric power

Add.Firing in HRSG

Low conversion efficiency

ECOS - 2002 F. Donatini et al.

18

Conclusions
The most promising solution is the external combustion both in terms of conversion efficiency than in terms of economics, but unfortunally it is the less industrially tested and technologically critic for for the presence of the gas-air heat exchanger Syngas cofiring in the gas turbine results in a good conversion efficiency, but it is jet penalized by the cost of gassification and syngas cleaning Syngas cofiring in the heat recovery boiler is less interesting for the relatively low efficiency, similar to the ones tipical of direct biomass cofiring in convenctional steam units Concluding, the integration of biomass in combined cycle cannot yet be considered an industrially assessed technology and requires further investigations in the fields of thermodynamics, processes and components.
ECOS - 2002 F. Donatini et al.
19