Imperial College London

Vishnu Digant
CID 00652171 Engineering Design of a Generic NGCC CO2 Capture Plant Retrofit
Supervisors: Dr Nick Florin, Dr Paul Fennell 29th April 2011

Engineering Design of a Generic NGCC CO2 capture plant retrofit

Table of contents1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Introduction .. 2 Overview of CO2 Capture Technology. 4 Carbon Capture readiness concept. 12 Evaluation of carbon capture technologies for NGCC retrofit..13 Review of existing literature for NGCC post combustion capture technology17 Project Proposal and Methodology..20 Working Plan.21

Vishnu Digant

Engineering Design of a Generic NGCC CO2 capture plant retrofit

1. Introduction: Energy and its Impact on Environment

An increasing body of evidence confirms that anthropogenic emissions are contributing to global climate change and there is almost no doubt that humans are altering earths natural climate (Anderson et. al., 2003). IPCC Fourth assessment report concludes that the global warming observed in last 50 years is very likely due to increase in anthropogenic green house gas (GHG) emissions(Metz et. al., 2007). The main GHG is carbon dioxide (CO2) accounting for 77 % of the total GHG emissions to the atmosphere (Metz et. al., 2007). Electricity & heat generation is one of the major contributors to GHG emissions and accounted for 12.1 Gt-CO2, or approximately 41% (Fig 1B) of global GHG emissions in 2008 (IEA, 2010). Since this sector relies heavily on coal (Fig 1A) therefore the majority of these emissions were from coal-fired power generation. Considering the huge impact of power generation sector on economy and global emissions, the development of environment friendly and cost effective means of power generation is necessary for a sustainable society (Hongtao et. al., 2006).

Fig 1A Fig 1A: Fuel share of electricity generation worldwide in 2008. (IEA, 2010) Fig 1B: Sectoral distribution of sources of CO2. (CCS, 2011)

Fig 1B

By 2030, world energy outlook (WEO, 2009) reference scenario predicts that the worldwide demand for electricity would reach nearly twice the current demand, driven by increasing income and population growth in developing countries (IEA, 2010). So on one side there is increasing electricity demands while on other side there are increasing climate change concerns because of emissions associated with electricity production. Therefore there is a need for switching to low carbon intensive electricity production to avoid emissions reaching dangerous levels and affecting terrestrial eco-systems and human societies. In such context natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) plants can be a good option because of their lower emissions and competitive electricity generation prices (Hongtao et. al., 2006). Increasing penetration of renewables in electricity mix and energy efficiency improvement can further help reduce carbon intensity of electricity generation. IPCC in its report has identified carbon capture and storage (CCS) as one of the potential technologies for GHG mitigation, which have great potential for large point source emitters (IPCC, 2005). With the slow growth of renewables and their associated intermittency, it is likely that coal, oil and natural gas will remain the main source of energy production throughout this century. CCS is an alternate route that allows power generation using fossil fuels but with significantly lower CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. CCS involves capturing of CO2 from large point source emitters like power generating stations, liquefying the captured CO2 and transporting it to geological formations or saline aquifers for permanent storage (Herzog et. al., 2004; IPCC, 2005). Using CCS the CO2 emissions of fossil fuel based power generation can be significantly reduced, but it requires a price, which makes CCS currently unviable (Hongtao et. al., 2006). CCS is not a new technology; specialized chemical solvents have been developed more than 60 years ago to capture CO2from impure natural gas streams (Anderson et. al, 2003). Similar solvents are also used by several industrial plants to capture CO2 from their flue gas stream for applications in food processing, beverages or other chemical industries (Anderson et. al, 2003). Although partial CO2 capture from several power plants are in demonstration phase (Davison, 2005), complete CCS implementation on a power plant is yet to be demonstrated (Rubin et al., 2007). CCS has a great potential for reducing CO2 emissions from point sources like power
Vishnu Digant 2

Engineering Design of a Generic NGCC CO2 capture plant retrofit

plants, but is not a silver bullet for climate change mitigations, rather it is a leading transitional technology for reducing CO2 emissions on the way to complete implementation of renewable energy systems (Page et. al., 2009). The major focus of the CCS technology is to reduce CO2 emissions from fossil fuel based power generation. Since gas is relatively clean compared to coal (CO2 emissions of 379 g/kWh for natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) plants compared to 743 g/kWh for ultra supercritical coal fired plant (IEA GHG, 2004) therefore, it is very likely that CCS would be applied first to coal based plants than gradually extended to gas based plants. The use of gas turbines for power generation has been growing since the last decade and is expected to grow in future because of low capital cost, short construction time, lower CO2 emissions per unit of electricity and competitive price of electricity (Hailong et. al., 2010). So the CCGT plants will continue to be built across the globe and to prevent the carbon lock-in or stranded assets (IEA GHG, (2007)), these plants need to be designed in a way that CCS retrofit is economically viable when policy and economic drivers are in place for CCS. The major barrier to CCS implementation on power plants is the energy penalty and the high CO2 avoidance cost. The magnitude of input energy required for CCS plant has significant implications in the form of additional fuel input, net GHG emissions and on cost of heat and electricity produced (Page et. al., 2009). The capture energy and the compression energy requirements are inversely proportional to CO2 partial pressure (CCS, 2011). Figure 2 shows the partial pressure of CO2 in air, in NGCC flue gas and in pulverized coal fuel based power plant flue gas and their corresponding energy requirements. A CCS plant with currently available technology can capture up to 85-90 % of generated CO2 emissions but will require about 10 40 % of additional fuel based on the type of power plant and the technology employed for CCS plant (CCS, 2011).

Fig 2: Minimum work requirement for separation is expressed as energy requirement per tonnes CO2 (CCS, 2011). The capture of CO2emissions from power plants can be treated in several ways but are mainly divided into three sub-categories:A> Post-combustion It involves post combustion treatment of flue gases and separates CO2 from flue gases by means of chemical absorption, distillation, membranes or other techniques (Moller et. al., 2006) B> Pre-combustion It involves pretreatment of fuel where the fuel is gasified to syngas and is enriched in hydrogen through water-gas shift reaction. The CO2 from syngas is removed using physical absorbents like Selexol (Moller et. al., 2006). C> Oxy-fuel combustion- This group involves nitrogen free oxidation or combustion of fuel in pure oxygen stream. The flue gas is a mixture of CO2 and water, and the water can be condensed to yield a pure stream of CO2 (Moller et. al., 2006). These methods are discussed in detail in next pages.

Vishnu Digant

Engineering Design of a Generic NGCC CO2 capture plant retrofit

2. Overview of CO2 capture Technology for NGCC

Power generation sector emits largest amount of CO2 compared to all other sectors (IEA, 2010). To contain GHG emissions and attenuate global temperature rise, capturing emissions from fossil based plants is a viable path (Nord et. al., 2009). A wide spectrum of technological choices is available (Fig 3) for carbon capture from gas stream, however they have not been yet designed for power plants (Rubin et al., 2002). The choice of technology is governed by characteristics of gas stream from which CO2 is to be separated. CO2 capture from NGCC flue gas stream using absorption principle has been widely studied and is in most advanced stage of commercial development.

Fig 3: Technological options for capturing CO2 from flue gas (Rubin et al., 2002). Carbon capture from coal is attracting most attention because of higher CO2 emissions per unit of generated electricity and abundance of coal power plants across globe (Nord et. al., 2009). However, the cost of electricity with the CCS plant and the CO2 emissions after the implementation of CCS plant would be least with NGCC plant. Fig 4 shows the estimated cost of electricity and projected CO2 emissions before and after implementation of CCS plant on NGCC, IGCC and pulverized coal plants (Herzog et al., 2004). With the increasing share of NGCC plants in power generation, it is imperative to evaluate the CCS technology options for the NGCC plants.

Fig 4: Estimated price of electricity in reference case and with use of CCS on NGCC, IGCC and PC plants (Herzog et al., 2004).

Vishnu Digant

Engineering Design of a Generic NGCC CO2 capture plant retrofit

NGCC plants have highest efficiency among all other fossil fuel based conventional plants. Therefore the impact of energy penalty due to CCS plant on cost of electricity is expected to be least on NGCC plants (Kanniche et. al., 2010). Fig 5 shows efficiency of different fossil fuel based power plants with and without CCS plant.

Fig 5: The efficiency of fossil fuel based plants before and after implementation of CCS plants (Kanniche et. al., 2010).

A) NGCC plants with oxy-fuel combustion

NGCC plants with oxy-fuel combustion involve combustion of natural gas in pure stream of oxygen instead of air (Nord et. al., 2009). The ratio of oxygen to fuel has to be maintained close to stoichiometric conditions with 2% O2 margin (Dillon et. al., 2004) to produce flue gas consisting of mainly CO2 and water. The exhaust gas from the gas turbine is passed to heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) where steam is generated for the bottoming cycle. The water is separated from the flue gas through the use of coolers and condensation. The major part of flue gas (close to 90%) is re-circulated back to the combustor through compressor to keep the gas turbine inlet temperature (TIT) within acceptable limits (Kvamsdal et. al., 2007). Since most of the flue gas is re-circulated, therefore the size of CCS plant required for capturing CO2 from the residual flue gas is greatly reduced. The residual flue gas is then sent to capture plant for compression after purification and separation of Oxygen, Nitrogen and Argon. Hence, the working fluid in the gas turbine is mainly CO2 (Bolland et. al., 2003). Therefore the NGCC plants with oxy-fuel capture will have their turbo-machinery designed to operate with thermodynamic and transport properties of CO2 / steam mixtures (Bolland et. al., 2003). Fig: 6 shows the process flow diagram of oxy-fuel NGCC plant.

Fig 6: Process flow diagram of Oxy-fuel NGCC plant (Kvamsdal et. al.,2007).
5

Vishnu Digant

Engineering Design of a Generic NGCC CO2 capture plant retrofit

The oxygen required for combustion is typically supplied by the cryogenic air separation unit (ASU). ASU has a high energy penalty, so other options like ionic transport membrane (ITM) are currently being developed (Amann et. al., 2009a). Although transport membranes are likely to reduce energy requirement for oxygen production by more than 30 %, however they are still in development phase and currently not suitable for large scale NGCC plants (Dillon et. al., 2004). There are several challenges to be overcome for implementing this technology on NGCC plants. The first real challenge is to design a new gas turbine capable of working with CO2 and water as the main working fluid (Amann et. al., 2009a). This requires development in material and combustion technology and the performance of the system components need to be demonstrated in a validated power plant for operability of system and components (Dillon et. al., 2004). Since the combustion takes place near stoichiometric conditions, it needs to be ensured that proper mixing of O2 and CO2 take place inside gas turbine combustor. This would require non-standard design, and developmental testing would be required to validate the model and the design assumptions. The turbo- machinery also needs to be validated for aeromechanics, aero-cooling, lubrication and control system (Dillon et. al., 2004). Since CO2 and steam are the main working fluids, therefore the design and rotational speed of the compressor has to be changed to accommodate the different working fluid properties. Because of high water content in the working fluid, the heat transfer to turbine blades is more compared to conventional gas turbines with air as main working fluid. Therefore the turbine blades need to be adequately cooled. The bleedings from compressor would be used for cooling the turbine blades (Dillon et. al., 2004). The oxy-fuel combustion for NGCC would not be suitable for capture retrofit as the combustion, compression and expansion system of current NGCC plants will not be suitable for CO2 as main working fluid (Kanniche et. al., 2010).

B) NGCC plants with pre-combustion capture

NGCC plants with pre-combustion capture system involve reforming of natural gas in the auto thermal reformer (ATR). Although steam reforming and partial oxidation are other techniques used for industrial natural gas reforming, however they are not suitable for power generation because of high energy requirement in case of steam reforming and low H2 yield per mole of natural gas in case of partial oxidation (Amann et al., 2009b). Either air or a pure stream of oxygen supplied from ASU unit is used as an oxidant in the ATR. The natural gas is reformed to yield a mixture of hydrogen, water, carbon dioxide and nitrogen known as syngas. Major part of CO2 and water is removed from the syngas and the resulting hydrogen rich gas is combusted in the gas turbine. The plant comprises mainly of i) Natural gas treating system where natural gas is moisturized and treated for sulphur removal, ii) Syngas production system where syngas is produced in ATR and passed through water gas shift reactors to convert carbon monoxide (CO) into CO2, iii) CO2 capture island where CO2 is separated from syngas, compressed and liquefied and iv) the power island where the hydrogen rich gas is combusted in the gas turbine (Romano et. al, 2010). General Electric (GE) has been offering FB class gas turbines capable of burning hydrogen rich gas for IGCC applications since 2004 (GE Energy, 2011). Fig 7 shows the process flow diagram of a NGCC plant with pre-combustion capture system where methyl di-ethanol amine (MDEA) is used for capturing CO2.

Vishnu Digant

Engineering Design of a Generic NGCC CO2 capture plant retrofit

Fig7: Process flow diagram of a NGCC plant with pre-combustion capture using MDEA (Romano et. al, 2010). The natural gas is treated in the pre-treating section to remove sulphur from it before entry to the pre-reformer and ATR as sulphur causes poisoning of the catalyst in the reformers. The natural gas is mixed with steam, preheated to 500C and introduced in the pre-reformer with steam to carbon ratio (S/C) ranging from 0.9 1.6 (Romano et. al, 2010). In the pre-reformer, hydrocarbons heavier than methane are converted to syngas to prevent coking in the ATR according to reactions (1) and (2)(Nord et. al, 2009). 2 3 206 0 1 2

Exothermic water gas shift reaction (3) occurs partly in the pre-reformer converting carbon monoxide into CO2 (Nord et. al, 2009). 41 3

Steam reforming of natural gas occurs in the ATR in the presence of nickel-based catalyst according to the reaction (4) and (5). Reaction (4) is exothermic and provides heat for the endothermic reaction (5)
Vishnu Digant 7

Engineering Design of a Generic NGCC CO2 capture plant retrofit

1 2

2 3

36 206

4 5

The produced syngas is passed through water-gas shift reactors to convert carbon monoxide to CO2 according to the reaction (3). CO2 is removed from syngas in CO2 capture island where it is captured using either amines or physical solvents like Selexol. The captured CO2 is compressed and liquefied and sent for either enhanced oil recovery (EOR) or to geological formations for permanent storage. The hydrogen-rich gas is sent to the power island where it is combusted in the gas turbine for generating power (Amann et al., 2009b). As evident from the table 1, a number of studies on natural gas fired ATR based power plants with pre-combustion capture has been carried out. There is a wide variety of assumptions used as a result the reported efficiency varies from 41.9 % to 48.5 % and the corresponding efficiency penalty varies from 7.64 % to 14% compared to the reference combined cycle (Romano et. al, 2010). In most studies air has been used as oxidant in the ATR except in the study by Stork engineering consultancy because of high-energy requirement by the ASU. Chemical absorbents like MDEA or DEA have been used for CO2 capture in most cases because of moderate partial pressure of CO2 and use of physical solvents like Selexol have been limited to cases where pressure is high or ATR is supplied with oxygen as oxidant (Romano et. al, 2010). There is a strong energy penalty for physical absorption processes than MDEA because of high power requirement by Selexol process and need to maintain high steam to carbon ratio to prevent metal dusting at elevated pressure (Fluor Daniel, 2000; Romano et. al, 2010). Prereformer ATR oxidant ATR temperatu re (C) 1050 S / C at ATR Absorption Solvent Carbon Capture rate (%) 84.8 Net efficiency (%) 48.35 Efficiency penalty (% points) 7.84

Stork Engineering Consultancy B.V. (2000) Fluor Daniel (2000)

Absent

O2

0.9

Selexol

Adiabatic HE-Reform. HE-Reform.

Air Air Air Air Air Air Air

900 900 NA 980 1042 900 950

2.4 2.4 NA 1 1 1.6 1.5

MDEA MDEA Selexol DEA Selexol NA MDEA

89.6 89.6 NA 90.1 90.1 86.2 93.4

42.8 43.1 35.7 48.47 48.63 48.88 41.9

7.64 7.68 10 14.0

Lozza and (2002)

Chiesa

Absent Absent Adiabatic Adiabatic

Ertesvag et al. (2005) Nord et al (2009)

(Table 1:) Main assumptions and results of some studies on natural gas fired ATR based power plants with pre-combustion capture (Romano et. al, 2010).

C) NGCC plants with post-combustion capture

NGCC plants with post combustion capture involve separation of CO2from flue gas after combustion (Kvamsdal et. al.,2007). Amine based absorption processes have been widely studied in literature for capturing CO2 from flue gas of power plants (Romeo et. al.,2008). Because of low partial pressure of CO2 in flue gas, absorption using chemical solvents like MEA, MDEA, KS-1 or hindered
Vishnu Digant 8

Engineering Design of a Generic NGCC CO2 capture plant retrofit

amines offers good potential for CO2 capture from NGCC plant flue gas (Kanniche et. al., 2010). The main disadvantage of amine based carbon capture process is the high energy penalty required in the form of electricity and steam (Amrollahi et. al.,2010). The estimated efficiency penalty of adding chemical absorption based amine capture plant on NGCC is in range of 8-10 % (Peeters et al., 2007; Gttlicher, 2004). Bolland and Undrum have calculated efficiency for a NGCC power plant using oxy-fuel combustion, precombustion capture and post combustion capture concepts. The reference plant has 58 % LHV efficiency without capture and postcombustion capture concept gives the highest efficiency in the study with 49.6 % LHV efficiency (Bolland et.al, 2003). Post combustion is followed by oxy-fuel combustion at 47.2% LHV efficiency and pre-combustion capture concept gives the least efficiency at 45.3% (Bolland et.al, 2003). Table 2 shows the carbon capture energy requirement and efficiency penalty for NGCC plant with post combustion capture using MEA and KS-1 (Page et al., 2009). Carbon Capture Method Herzog et. al., 2004 IPCC (2005) Absorption MEA Final CO2 Conditions NS Data origin Cited Reference Energy Efficiency Penalty (%) Penalty (%) 16 -

Citation

Unclear

Absorption MEA

Compressed 10MPa

Citation Citation Citation

Parsons et al., 2002. Parsons et al., 2002. IEA, 2004. IEA, 2004. CCP, 2005 Rubin et. al., 2005 Roberts et. al., 2005 14.7

7.7 8.0 8.2 6.0 10.2 8.2 7.4 8.2

Absorption KS-1

Compressed 11MPa

Citation Citation Citation Cost study Simulation

(Table 2:) Carbon capture energy and efficiency penalty for NGCC plants (Page et al., 2009). The exhaust gas from the gas turbine, after generating steam in the HRSG is cooled to 40-50 C in the pre-coolers. The cooled gas contains nearly 3.9 % CO2 by volume and is passed through the absorbers for separating CO2 (Kvamsdal et. al., 2007). 85-90 % of CO2 in the flue gas is absorbed by the amines and the flue gas containing mainly nitrogen, oxygen and water is released to the atmosphere through the top of the absorber (Kvamsdal et. al., 2007). To avoid plume visibility, because of high moisture content in the flue gas, the flue gas from the top of the absorber is passed through heaters before release in the atmosphere. The CO2 rich amine from the bottom of the absorber is sent to the stripper for regeneration through amine-amine heat exchanger. The heat exchanger is used to exchange heat between hot lean amine and cold CO2 rich amine to optimize the process by reducing heat demand in the stripper. The heat requirement of the stripper is met through extraction from steam turbine cycle (Bolland et.al, 2003). In the stripper, the CO2 rich amine is regenerated using heat and the released CO2 is sent to the compressors after cooling and removal of moisture from CO2. Regenerated lean amine from the bottom of the stripper is passed to the absorber through the amine-amine heat exchanger. Fig 8: shows the process flow diagram of NGCC plant with post-combustion capture.

Vishnu Digant

Engineering Design of a Generic NGCC CO2 capture plant retrofit

Fig 8: shows the process flow diagram of NGCC plant with post-combustion capture (Kvamsdal et. al.,2007). Post combustion CO2 capture is cost and energy intensive. Of the total energy penalty caused by post combustion capture, approximately 60% is caused by regeneration energy requirements by the amines and CO2 compression (Peeters et. al., 2007). Therefore research and development in chemical absorbents for reducing regeneration energy requirements present significant opportunity for future cost reductions in post combustion capture process. Table 3 shows the regenerative energy requirement for different chemical solvents from literature (Peeters et. al., 2007). Chilled Ammonia process (CAP) has a regenerative energy requirement of slightly higher than 1.5 MJ/Kg CO2, however the results are from coal-fired plants and CAP is yet to be demonstrated on a NGCC plant (Valenti et. al., 2009). Source Solvent / Process Status Regeneration Energy (MJ/kg CO2) 4.00 4.25 4.20 4.4 3.00-3.25 3.24 3.54 3.00 - 3.25 2.80 - 3.20 55 85 % of MEA

Gibbins et. al., 2004 Feron et. al., 2004 Peeters et. al., 2007 Gibbins et. al., 2004 IEA GHG, 2004 Mimura et. al, 2001

MEA MEA MEA Econamine FG+ Econamine FG+ KS-1 KS Solvents KS Solvents

State-of-the art State-of-the art State-of-the art Near commercial Near commercial Near commercial Near commercial Near commercial R & D phase

Chakma et. al., 1999

PSR

(Table 3:) Regeneration energy requirements of different solvents / processes from literature (Peeters et. al., 2007) The best integrated technology concept under development by the CO2 capture project (CCP) consortium aims at reducing the cost of post combustion capture plant through improved integration of steam cycle and amine plant and through design improvements in capture plant (Botero et. al., 2009). The major cost reduction opportunities have been identified by using Exhaust gas recirculation
Vishnu Digant 10

Engineering Design of a Generic NGCC CO2 capture plant retrofit

(EGR), integration of amine re-boiler in the heat recovery steam generator and by use of low cost capture plant (Botero et. al., 2009). EGR, by enhancing CO2 concentration in flue gas is potentially one of the most effective methods of reducing post combustion capture high efficiency penalty (Hailong et al, 2011). It can also reduce the overall area footprint required by the capture plant. Fig 9 shows the Best Integrated technology for NGCC post-combustion capture plant developed by CCP consortium.

Fig 9: The Best Integrated Technology for post-combustion CO2 capture (developed by CCP) (Botero et. al., 2009). EGR involves cooling down a fraction of flue gas after HRSG and re-circulating it back to the compressor inlet, where it is mixed with ambient air before entry to the compressor. Fig 10 A shows that with increasing EGR, the CO2 concentration of the flue gas increases and the flue gas flow through the absorbers reduces. This has a dual benefit on the cost reduction of NGCC plant with post combustion capture. Figure 10 B shows that with increasing CO2 concentration, the specific re-boiler duty decreases. Therefore EGR yields not only reduced energy requirement in the re-boiler but it also reduces the overall cost of the capture plant and area footprint requirements by reducing the gas flow through the absorber (Botero et. al., 2009). Although higher EGR would favor the overall CO2 capture economics, however a practical limit of 40 % EGR has been established to prevent gas turbines operating in challenging regimes with respect to operational efficiency, flame stability and emission performance (Elkady et. al., 2009; Jansohn et. al., 2011). The integrated amine re-boiler concept reallocates part of the heat required by the re-boiler for amine regeneration back into the HRSG (Botero et. al., 2009). Amine regeneration is an energy intensive process and requires steam extraction from steam turbine for regeneration necessitating bigger re-boiler sizes. However, integrating re-boiler in the HRSG reduces the overall size of the re-boiler. Integration further improves the overall heat transfer efficiency and utilization of high grade heat as heat is effectively transferred in one step process from exhaust gas to MEA directly as opposed to two step process in case of steam turbine extraction to re-boiler (Botero et. al., 2009). Their proposed low cost CO2 capture plant design involves features like efficient structured packing, plate and frame heat exchangers, less costly design specification for low pressure and better heat integration in re-boiler and stripper (Botero et. al., 2009). Better heat integration in re-boiler and stripper include options like flashing part of the lean amine and supplying the steam to the re-boiler thus reducing re-boiler steam requirement (Botero et. al., 2009).

Vishnu Digant

11

Engineering Design of a Generic NGCC CO2 capture plant retrofit

Fig 10 A (Hailong et al, 2011).

Fig 10 B (Hailong et al, 2011).

Fig 10 A: Effect of EGR on CO2 concentration of flue gas (mol %) and mass flow rate of flue gas in absorber Fig 10 B: reduction in specific re-boiler duty with increasing CO2concentration of flue gas (mol %)

3. Carbon Capture readiness concept for NGCC

Under section 36 of Electricity Act 1989, the UK government requires that all new applicants with electrical capacity at or over 300 MWe demonstrate carbon capture readiness (CCR) (DECC, 2009). Although CCR is used by UK government while granting licenses for new power plants, there is no formal or agreed definition of CCR (Markusson et. al, 2009). In general terms CCR implies that all known barriers for installing carbon capture plant at a later date has been addressed during the planning stage and it is reasonable to expect that the plant will be able to accommodate carbon capture plant when economic drivers are in place (DECC, 2009).

The CCR requirements:

The applicant needs to demonstrate that: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. There is sufficient space available on or near the site for accommodating carbon capture plant when required by law, The chosen carbon capture technology for retrofit is feasible, A suitable off shore geological storage site exists for storing the captured CO2 from the proposed plant, Transportation of CO2 from the plant to storage site is technically feasible and a proper transport corridor has been identified and It would be economically feasible to integrate the carbon capture plant with the main plant (DECC, 2009; GCCSI, 2010).

CCR concept has been proposed to prevent the carbon lock in problems, a solution to avoid situation where we would have large amount of electricity coming from fossil fired plants, which will not be able to accommodate carbon capture plant when policy requires CCS implementation (Markusson et. al, 2009). However, technical uncertainty and continuous development in carbon capture processes create a dilemma for power plant developers. From the prospective of a NGCC plant developer, it is important that the proposed solution is economically competitive which means minimal upfront investment is required, suitably weighed against the eventual cost and time of retrofit. The NGCC plant developer would also be interested in maintaining his plant efficiency at highest level in short and medium term as it is not certain
Vishnu Digant 12

Engineering Design of a Generic NGCC CO2 capture plant retrofit

when CCS implementation would be required by law. Therefore a NGCC plant developer would likely consider only those technologies that give him technological flexibility. Decisions taken by plant developers now must not limit their choice of turbine manufacturer or restrict the CCS method to a particular technology (SKM, 2011). Therefore it seems unlikely that significant CCR preinvestment would be made by the NGCC developers when there is so much technological and policy uncertainty. The major CCR demonstration criterion is eventually the minimum land requirements set in the DECC guidelines. The guideline sets a 2 2 minimum area requirement of 37,500 m for a 500 MWe NGCC post-combustion CCR plant, 26,250 m for a NGCC pre-combustion 2 CCR plant and 9,600 m for an NGCC oxy-fuel CCR plant (DECC, 2009). However, the area requirement for a NGCC post-combustion plant is contentious and actual area required may eventually be reduced by more than 50 % (Florin et. al; URS, 2009; SKM, 2009). With development in amine technology, EGR integration with post-combustion technology and vertical integration in design of capture plants for space optimization; the area requirement for CCS plant installation may reduce further (Botero et. al., 2009; URS, 2009). The minimum space required on site for a post-combustion NGCC plant must not only be calculated on the basis of size of the CCS equipment. There must be sufficient space available to integrate the capture plant with the main plant. There should also be sufficient space between turbines for steam extraction for amine regeneration (probably 36 dia. pipe) and enough space on the cable rack for control cables (Jacobs, 2005). Further, there should be extra sizing of waste water plant, extra capacity for cooling water system, space for return condensate to be integrated with main condensate system, extra electrical loading capacity of unit auxiliary transformer or facility for the addition of extra auxiliary transformer, extra margin on air compressor, extra sizing of fire fighting system and extra space for storage and handling of chemicals (BERR, 2008). It is also required that sufficient space (local fabrication space) is available for construction of CO2 capture plant and for transportation of these huge structures to the point of installation. Although NGCC CCR design will not have significant impact on cost of plant but will definitely influence site selection, arrangement, space allocation and plant layout (Popa et. al., 2011).

4. Evaluation of carbon capture technologies for NGCC retrofit

Fig 11 shows the proposed declining level of carbon intensity and increasing electricity demands of UK up to 2050 (Gibbins et. al., 2009). It is evident from the Fig 11 that beyond 2030, the required levels of carbon intensity would fall below 100 g CO2 /kWh and therefore after 2030 any plant running for extended hours will have to have their annual CO2 emissions within 100 g CO2 /kWh (Gibbins et. al., 2009). The current CO2 emissions level for a new built NGCC plant without capture is around 350 g CO2 /kWh and it is highly unlikely that they will be able to operate beyond 2030 without carbon capture plant (Gibbins et. al., 2009; Popa et. al., 2011). In coming few years about 4.6 GW of NGCC plants are expected to be built in UK (DECC, 2011) and it is essential to have these plants capture ready so that they will be able to accommodate the carbon capture plant within their lifetime. It is also important to compare various capture options for NGCC in terms of investment, levelized cost of electricity, efficiency and cost of CO2 abatement so as to decide which would be the most economical options for NGCC retrofit / CCR.

Fig 11: Declining level of carbon intensity and increasing electricity demands of UK to 2050 (Gibbins et. al., 2009). Although NGCC can be adapted to all three methods of carbon capture but pre-capture option is economically most expensive. As evident from Fig 12 A, post combustion carbon capture is the most efficient method, followed by oxy-combustion and pre-capture
Vishnu Digant 13

Engineering Design of a Generic NGCC CO2 capture plant retrofit

option. In terms of investment cost required, pre-capture option is most expensive followed by oxy-combustion and postcombustion capture (Fig 12 B) (Kanniche et. al., 2010; IEA, 2005). Post combustion capture is also the most mature and developed technology that is most likely to be commercially available (Popa et. al., 2011, IEA, 2005).

Fig 12 A

Fig 12 B

Fig 12 A: Efficiency of different capture options with respect to NGCC without capture (adapted from Kanniche et. al., 2010). Fig 12 B: Investment cost for different capture options with respect to NGCC without capture (adapted from Kanniche et. al., 2010)

Fig 13 A

Fig 13 B

Fig 13A: Levelized cost of electricity for different capture options and for NGCC without capture (Gibbins et. al., 2009). Fig 13B: Cost of CO2 abatement for different capture options and for NGCC without capture (Gibbins et. al., 2009). The levelized cost of electricity is minimum for post-combustion capture among all the capture options for NGCC and the cost of CO2 abatement is also lowest for postcombustion option (Gibbins et. al., 2009). Therefore considering the CCR criteria of technical and economical viability, post-combustion should be the most-economically viable technology and for demonstrating CCR requirements for NGCC plants, land area requirements for post-combustion capture should be demonstrated. Table 3 shows some of the major challenges and R & D requirements of all three options for NGCC plants. It is evident from the table 3 that the most significant challenge for pre-combustion is the development of gas turbine capable of burning hydrogen as the fuel (GE offers FB class for IGCC
Vishnu Digant 14

Engineering Design of a Generic NGCC CO2 capture plant retrofit

applications (GE, 2011). Similarly for oxy-combustion, a turbine capable of working with CO2 and water as main working fluid is yet to be developed and demonstrated. Finally for the post-combustion capture design of NGCC, chemical regeneration of absorbent, de-gradation of absorbent and elimination of degraded absorbent comprise the major challenges. Currently, a lot of research and development work in field of amines technology is being carried out to enhance the performance and reduce the regeneration energy requirement of amines. For low CO2 partial pressure, mono ethanol amine (MEA) are the preferred solvent, while methyl di-ethanol amine (MDEA) are preferred when CO2 partial pressure is slightly higher (Kanniche et. al., 2010). The regeneration energy requirement for MDEA is slightly lower and it is easier to regenerate MDEA. Therefore with further development of post-combustion technology and integration of EGR, the regeneration energy requirement for post-combustion capture method is likely to be reduced further. Capture Technology Technical problems that still need to be solved (R&D necessary) Hydrogen fired Turbine Technical weak link of the system Financial hard points (most expensive part when capture is added) Reformer

Pre-combustion capture NGCC Post-combustion capture NGCC

Carbon deposit on the reformer Consumption of LP steam for regeneration.

Chemical regeneration of degraded absorbent. Elimination of degraded absorbent.

Oxy-combustion NGCC

Oxy-combustion chamber Turbine operating on CO2 and water as main working fluid Purification of CO2

Separation of incondensable gases Electrical consumption of auxiliaries

Air separation unit (ASU) Separation of Incondensable gases.

(Table 3:) Major challenges for different carbon capture options for NGCC plants (adapted from Kanniche et. al., 2010). Almost half of the energy penalty of post-combustion capture NGCC plant arises because of the regenerative heat requirement of the capture solvent (Gibbins et. al., 2009). Therefore, the major challenge is to integrate the CCS plant with the main plant to optimize the heat requirements. As the gas turbine and the steam turbine are unlikely to be redesigned at the time of retrofit for NGCC, therefore proper provisions must be taken during design stage itself, so that heat integration is economical during the retrofit stage. There are several ways to provide heat to the amine for regeneration and each design has its own merits and demerits. From the literature, it is evident that the regeneration temperature requirement is between 130-120C for different amines and it is likely to reduce down further in long term with development in amine technology (Peeters et. al., 2007). Therefore the steam needs to be supplied at a higher temperature than the regeneration temperature. Table 4 shows the regeneration temperature values from literature for different amines. Regeneration Temperature Treg(C) Source

130 - 110 133

Bolland and Undrum, 2003 Hendriks, 1994 (MEA optimized)

Vishnu Digant

15

Engineering Design of a Generic NGCC CO2 capture plant retrofit

128 131 122

Hendriks, 1994 (DEA optimized) Buchanan, 2000 Alie, 2004

Table 4: Regeneration temperature from different literature sources (adapted from Peeters et. al., 2007). The heat requirements for amine regeneration can be supplied through LP steam extractions from either steam turbine or heat recovery steam generator (HRSG). Although this would result in net decrease in overall output and the efficiency of the plant, however with better integration, significant energy penalty can be reduced. Three major options for supplying heat for amine regeneration have been considered in literature (Popa et. al., 2011)1. 2. 3. LP Steam extraction from steam turbine of CCGT for amine regeneration, Use of auxiliary boiler for generating steam for amine regeneration and Use of NGCC based CHP plant for generation of electricity and steam for amine regeneration (URS, 2009; Popa et. al., 2011)

Steam extraction from several points of steam turbine have been evaluated and the best overall efficiency of the NGCC plant with capture is obtained by using steam from IP LP crossover pipe (e.g. Gibbins et. al., 2009; Popa et. al., 2011; Lucquiaud et. al. 2009). Using steam from auxiliary boiler gives the least overall efficiency and further complicates the situation, as another capture plant would be required to capture CO2 from auxiliary boiler flue gas (Gibbins et. al., 2009; Popa et. al., 2011). Use of NGCC based CHP plant supplying steam for amine regeneration have been considered for the Cokenzie power plant (URS, 2009) and the overall efficiency of the plant after capture is expected to be lower than a well heat integrated NGCC plant. However, the NGCC based CHP option helps NGCC plants maintain their rated output (there is no loss of electrical output as steam and power are supplied by the CHP), but this option can be implemented only in big NGCC power plants having multiple NGCC units and sufficient space for installation of a new NGCC plant and the associated capture units (URS, 2009). Figure 14 shows different options for extracting steam from steam turbine of a NGCC plant for supplying post-combustion capture plant re-boiler.

Fig 14: Options for extracting steam for supplying post-combustion capture plant re-boiler (Gibbins et. al., 2009).

Vishnu Digant

16

Engineering Design of a Generic NGCC CO2 capture plant retrofit

5. Review of literature on NGCC post-combustion capture design

In order to understand the design aspects of amine based post-combustion NGCC retrofit, five different design reports prepared by five different organizations were reviewed. Due to copyright protections and to maintain their competitive advantage, organizations have not provided many crucial / proprietary data in these reports. The report for Cockenzie, Scotland (4), prepared by URS, is different from all other design reports because a separate GT / fired boiler based CHP will be used to provide steam for amine regeneration and electricity for carbon capture plant (CCP) auxiliaries (URS, 2009). In all other reports, steam from steam turbine of NGCC has been used for amine regeneration and power from the NGCC plant would be provided to CCP auxiliaries. Therefore except Cokenzie power plant, output of all other plant would be reduced when CCP would be implemented. None of the reports have made provision for flue gas heaters after absorption column to avoid plume visibility. Cokenzie report is also different from all other reports in the sense that it uses vertical integration concept to optimize space utilization. SKM (3) and Cockenzie (4) have also made provisions for adding selective catalytic reduction unit (SCR) in future if need arises. Because of low sulphur content in natural gas, SOX emissions are within acceptable range, therefore provision for SOX treatment has not been considered in any of these reports. Table 5 shows the main design aspects of these reports. Plant Generic postcombustion NGCC, Netherlands (1) Fluor for IEA, 2004 Generic postcombustion NGCC, Netherlands (2) Jacobs Consultancy for IEA, 2005 Generic postcombustion NGCC, SKM (3) Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM), 2009 Cokenzie, Scotland (4) Tjeldbergodden, Norway (5)

Studied by

URS, 2009

Statoil, 2005

Capacity (before capture)

800 MWe

800 MWe

1500 MWe

1000 MWe + (77 MWe + 148 MWt )

800 MWe

Configuration

2x260 MWe GT + 1x280 MWe ST

2x400 MWe (GT+ST)

3x500 MWe (GT+ST)

2x500 MWe (GT+ST)

2 GT + 1 ST

Configuration details

1 unit with 2 GT + 2 HRSG + 1 ST

2 units, each unit with 1 GT + 1 HRSG + 1 ST

3 units, each unit with 1 GT + 1 HRSG + 1 ST

2 units, each unit with 1 GT + 1 HRSG + 1 ST

1 unit with 2 GT + 2 HRSG + 1 ST

Capture process

Post combustion Econamine FG+ process

Post-combustion MEA

Post combustion Econamine FG process

Post-combustion MEA

Post combustion Econamine FG+ process

Amine

MEA

MEA

MEA

MEA

MEA

Vishnu Digant

17

Engineering Design of a Generic NGCC CO2 capture plant retrofit

Number of absorber trains

2 + 1 (one train for CHP)

Number of strippers

1 with three reboilers

2 + 1 (one train for CHP)

1 with two reboilers

Number of DCC

2 + 1 (one train for CHP)

SCR considered

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

SOX treatment

No

No

No

No

No

Efficiency before capture (LHV)

55.6 %

55.9 %

Not specified

Not specified

Not specified

Efficiency after capture (LHV)

47.4 %

44.6 %

Not specified

Not specified

Not specified

Efficiency penalty

8.2 %

11.3 %

Not specified

Expected to be high

Not specified

Capture efficiency

85%

85 %

90 %

90 %

Not specified

Flashing of Amine

Yes

Not Specified

Not specified

Not specified

Not specified

Vishnu Digant

18

Engineering Design of a Generic NGCC CO2 capture plant retrofit

CO2 discharge pressure

110 bar (g)

110 bar (g)

Not specified

70 bar (g)

103 kg/cm (a) or 100 bar (g)

Area required

Not specified

250 m x 150 m

23,500 m

185 m x 185 m (Worst case) 133 m x 113 m (with vertical Integration)

Not specified

(Table 5:) Main design aspects of amine based post-combustion NGCC retrofit / CCR study. From the table it is evident that, most reports have assumed a CO2discharge pressure of 100-110 bar (g) except Cockenzie where discharge pressure of 70 bar (g) has been assumed. However, this assumption is unlikely to have significant impact on overall land requirement as CO2 can be pumped to higher pressure using booster pumps, which require significantly less area compared to compressors (The critical pressure of CO2 is 73 atm, so it can be pumped once pressure after compressor is 75 bar (g)). Number of absorber trains and stripper are the major equipments that are likely to have significant impact on overall land footprint. Except IEA, 2005 report, prepared by Jacobs consultancy which assumes four absorber trains and four strippers for a 400 MWe unit before capture, all other reports use either one absorber train for a 400 500 MWe unit or three absorber trains for a combined 800-1000 MWe unit. The number of strippers, in case of reports other than Jacobs vary from one stripper per absorber train to one centralized stripper for all trains with number of re-boilers equal to number of gas turbines (GT). Although, it is not clear why four absorber trains for a 400 MWe unit were chosen in the IEA, 2005 report however it appears probably that during the time frame of study, large diameter absorbers were not available (SKM, 2009). The current practice worldwide for design of NGCC capture plant is to design single absorber trains for one 400-500 MWe unit (SKM, 2009). Units Energy consumption Btu/lb CO2 Econamine FG Plus (MEA) 1395
SM

KS-1 (MHI) 1376

(Table 6:) Energy requirements by MEA and KS-1 (IEA, 2004) Table 6 shows that the regeneration energy requirement of MEA is around only 1.5 % higher than the regenerative energy requirement by the MHIs KS-1 solvent (IEA, 2004). Therefore, the total impact on the land area requirement using KS-1 solvent would be insignificant. However with development of amines, the regeneration energy requirement is expected to decrease by 2030 % in the coming decade (KEPRI, 2009) and this will significantly reduce the land footprint of the CCP. Vertical space integration for optmized space utilization and EGR can further push down the land area requirement of CCP. DECC, 2009 IEA, 2005 Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM), 2009 23,500 m
2

Cockenzie (URS, 2009) Vertical Integration 15,029 m

2

Cockenzie (URS, 2009) Worst case 34,225 m

2

Area Requirement Capacity

37,500 m

37,500 m

500 MWe

800 MWe

1500 MWe

1225 MWe

1225 MWe

(Table 7:) CCP area reuirements for NGCC plants Table 7 shows the area requirement as assessed in the studies. It is clear from the table 7 that with limited data available, it is not possible to predict whether the land footprint requirement follows a linear relationship with increase in capacity. However, it is very
Vishnu Digant 19

Engineering Design of a Generic NGCC CO2 capture plant retrofit

certain from the table that the minimum area prescribed in guidance note (DECC, 2009) for a 500 MWe plant is over estimated, and with current designs as practiced worldwide (SKM, 2009; URS, 2009), the required area may be reduced as much as by 60%. Further, it is difficult to establish how sensitive the land footprint requirement is with respect to regeneration energy requirement by amines and with carbon capture efficiency.

6. Project proposal and Methodology

With the knowledge of current existing literature in public domain, it is fairly difficult to predict the relationship between land area requirements for a NGCC capture retrofit plant and the capacity of the plants. It is also not possible to predict any sensitivity of land requirement with change in capture efficiency, change in regeneration energy requirement of amines or with introduction of EGR. Therefore, in this project I propose to study two NGCC plants with different configurations for retrofit design to understand the relationship between area requirement and plant capacity. Two different configurations of gas turbines, ALSTOM KA 26 machine (EPRI, 2003) and GE 109 FA (GE, 2011) designs would be compared based on capture penalty, space requirement and sensitivity of regeneration heat requirement of capture solvent. These two turbines have been selected because; they represent the most modern, high efficiency combined cycle GT currently offered. Although GE offers combined cycle turbines with efficiency as high as 60 percent, however in this report the idea is to compare two configurations one with 800-900 MWe capacity and other with close to 400 MWe capacity. The ALSTOM KA 26 machine configuration includes two GT, two HRSG and one steam turbo-generator set with 878 MWe capacity and 59 % efficiency while GE machine includes one GT, one HRSG and one turbo-generator set with 390 MWe capacity and 57.6 % efficiency. Two different configurations were chosen to understand whether CCP of similar capacity for one NGCC unit with 2 GT and 1 ST is more area efficient with respect to two NGCC units with single GT and single ST. Sensitivity analysis of regenerative heat requirement is important as it is expected that it would take more than a decade for capture retrofit to be commercialized (Gibbins et. al., 2009). Within this time, there is huge scope for reductions in regeneration heat requirement of capture solvent (KEPRI, 2009); therefore sensitivity analysis of design is important to understand the impact of reduction in regenerative heat requirement on retrofit design. In-line with the current trend in CCP design (SKM, 2009; URS, 2009), single absorber train with one stripper would be used for GE machine configuration (Fig 16) while two absorber trains with single stripper would be used for ALSTOM machine configuration (Fig 15). After sizing and layout design of both CCP, area requirements for both configurations would be evaluated. Considering, that almost 30 % reduction in capture solvent regeneration heat requirement can be made in the coming decade (KEPRI, 2009); sensitivity of design (heat rate and percentage loss / gain of efficiency) would be studied for 10 %, 20 % and 30 % decrease in regenerative heat requirements. Area requirement sensitivity with capture efficiency and with exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) would also be analyzed. Since the flue gas existing from absorber contains traces of amine, therefore this project would also analyze the amount of amines released to atmosphere on an annual basis and the sensitivity of amount of amine annually released to atmosphere with respect to decrease in regeneration energy requirement by amines. Analysis of above mentioned data will likely help to answer the following questions 1.What would be additional space requirement for capture ready NGCC plant? 2.How sensitive is space requirement with change in CO2 capture efficiency and with different EGR ratios? 3.In which possible areas of NGCC pre-investment can reduce significant cost during retrofit? 4.How sensitive is design requirement with change in steam requirement for regeneration? 5.What provisions could be made to demonstrate that NGCC ready concept has been integrated during planning/design stage? 6. Identify the likely barriers that current NGCC (non capture ready) would face during retrofit? The ALSTOM GT 26 machine (EPRI, (2003)) is a dual fuel firing, heavy duty gas turbine compatible with 50 Hz frequency (EPRI, 2003). This project would analyze the 1-KA 26-2 configuration, which means one unit having two gas turbines, two HRSG and one steam turbine generator set. CCP would be designed for this configuration, and area footprint requirement and sensitivity would be assessed.

Vishnu Digant

20

Engineering Design of a Generic NGCC CO2 capture plant retrofit

Fig 15 : ALSTOM 1-KA-26-2 configuration with 878 MWe The General Electric 109 FA machine ((GE, (2011)) is also a heavy duty gas turbine compatible with 50 Hz frequency. This is usually a single shaft configuration with one gas turbine, one HRSG and one turbo-generator set. The capture plant sizing and space requirement would be estimated for this turbine configuration.

GE 109 FA gas Turbine

HRSG

Steam Turbinr generator set

Fig 16 : GE 109 FA single shaft configuration with 390 MW The capture plant design for this study would be based on post combustion amine capture process and would be designed using the industry codes and applicable standards eg ASME, API, TEMA, ANSI (IEA, 2005). Construction space requirement as well as fabrication area requirement would be estimated as per applicable industry norms. MEA would be used as a capture solvent to estimate the required footprint of the capture ready NGCC plant as MEA has the highest regeneration energy requirement, hence highest area requirement for capture plant. Advanced amines will likely have high capture efficiency and low regenerative heat requirement, hence they will require less area compared to MEA. For better heat integration, steam extraction from IP-LP crossover piping will be used to supply regenerative heat requirement of amine (Gibbins et. al., 2009; Popa et. al., 2011; Lucquiaud et. al. 2009).

7. Working plan

Vishnu Digant

21

Engineering Design of a Generic NGCC CO2 capture plant retrofit

ReferencesAmann J.M.G. & Bouallou C. 2009a. CO2 Capture from Power Stations Running with Natural Gas (NGCC) and Pulverized Coal (PC): Assessment of a New Chemical Solvent Based on Aqueous Solutions of N-Methyl Di-Ethanol Amine + Tri-Ethylene Tetra-Amine. GHGT-9. Energy Procedia 1, 909 916 Amann J.M., Kanniche M. & Bouallou C. 2009b. Reforming natural gas for CO2 pre-combustion capture in combined cycle power plant. Clean Techn Environ Policy 11, 6776 Amrollahi Z., Ertesvg I.S. & Olav Bolland O. 2010. Thermodynamic analysis on post-combustion CO2 capture of natural-gas-fired power plant. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 352, xxxxxx (Article in press) Anderson S. & Newell R. 2003. Prospects for carbon capture and storage technologies. [Online] Available at: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=Anderson+S.+%26+Newell+R.+2003.+Prospects+for+carbon+capture+and+storage+technolog ies&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart (Accessed 4/04/2011) BERR, 2008. Towards carbon capture and storage. . [Online] Available :http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file46810.pdf (Accessed 14/04/2011) at

Bolland O. & Undrum H. 2003. A novel methodology for comparing CO2 capture options for natural gas-fired combined cycle plants. Advances in Environmental Research 7, 901911 Boteroa C., Finkenratha M., Bartletta M., Chub R., Choi G. & Chinn D. 2009. Redesign, Optimization, and Economic Evaluation of a Natural Gas Combined Cycle with the Best Integrated Technology CO2 Capture. Energy Procedia 1, 38353842 CCS 2011. The CCS guide. An information website. [Online] Available http://www.ntnu.no/ccs/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=88&Itemid=163 (Accessed 4/04/2011) at:

Davison, J.E., 2005. CO2 capture and storage and the IEA greenhouse gas R & D programme In: Workshop on CO2 Issues, Middlefart, Denmark, 24 May, 2005 DECC 2009. Carbon Capture Readiness (CCR). [Online] Available at: http://www.decc.gov.uk/publications/basket.aspx?FilePath=What+we+do%5cUK+energy+supply%5cDevelopment+consents+and+pl anning+reform%5celectricity%5c1_20091106164611_e_%40%40_ccrguidance.pdf&filetype=4 (Accessed 11/04/2011) Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2011. Applications Under Consideration. Recent Decisions on Applications. [Online] Available at: https://www.og.decc.gov.uk/EIP/pages/applications.htm (Accessed 11/04/2011) Dillon D.J., Panesar R. S., Wall R.A., AllamR.J., White V., Gibbins J. & Haines M. R. 2004. Oxy-combustion process for CO2 capture from advanced supercritical PF and NGCC power plant. [Online] Available at: http://uregina.ca/ghgt7/PDF/papers/peer/145.pdf (Accessed 7/04/2011) Elkady, A. M., Evulet, A. T., Brand, A., Ursin, T. P. & Lynghjem, A. 2009. Application of Exhaust Gas Recirculation in a DLN F-Class Combustion System for Post-combustion Carbon Capture. ASME Volume 131, 034505-1

Vishnu Digant

22

Engineering Design of a Generic NGCC CO2 capture plant retrofit

EPRI, 2003. Steam Turbine and Generator Designs for Combined-Cycle Applications. [Online] Available at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/47567936/EPRI-Steam-Turbine-and-Generator-Designs-for-Combined-Cycle-Applications (Accessed 17/04/2011) Ertesvg, I.S., Kvamsdal, H.M. & Bolland, O., 2005. Exergy analysis of a gasturbine combined-cycle power plant with pre-combustion CO2 capture. Energy 30, 539. Florin N. & Fennell P. Product tle/descrip on: Assessment of the validity of Approximate minimum land footprint for some types of CO2 capture plant provided as a guide to the Environment Agency assessment of Carbon Capture Readiness in DECC's CCR Guide for Applications under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. (Online] Available at: http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/What%20we%20do/UK%20energy%20supply/Development%20consents%20and%20planning %20reform/electricity/553-imperial-college-review-ccr-guidance.pdf(Accessed 11/04/2011) Fluor Daniel, Inc., 2000. Electricity Production and CO2 Capture via Partial Oxidation of Natural Gas. IEA Report Number PH3/21 GCCSI, 2010. Defining CCS Ready: An Approach to an International Definition. [Online] Available http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/sites/default/files/CCS%20Ready-Full-Report-Intl-Def.pdf (Accessed 12/04/2011) GE Energy, 2011. Heavy duty gas turbine products. [Online] Available http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/gas_turbines_cc/en/downloads/GEH12985H.pdf (Accessed 4/04/2011) at:

at:

Gibbins J., Lucquiaud M., Chalmers H., Bosoaga A.P. & Edwards R. 2009. UK Capture readiness: CCGT owners neednt feel left out. Modern power systems, 17-20 Gttlicher, G., 2004. The Energetics of Carbon Dioxide Capture in Power Plants. U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory. Herzog H. and Golomb D. 2004. Carbon Capture and Storage from Fossil Fuel Use. [Online] Available at: http://sequestration.mit.edu/pdf/enclyclopedia_of_energy_article.pdf (Accessed 4/04/2011) Hailong L., Ditaranto M. & Berstad D.2011. Technologies for increasing CO2 concentration in exhaust gas from natural gas-fired power production with post-combustion, amine-based CO2 capture. Energy 36, 1124-1133 Herzog H. and Golomb D. 2004. Carbon Capture and Storage from Fossil Fuel Use. [Online] Available at: http://sequestration.mit.edu/pdf/enclyclopedia_of_energy_article.pdf (Accessed 4/04/2011) Hongtao L., Marchal F., Burer M. & Daniel Favrat. 2006. Multi-objective optimization of an advanced combined cycle power plant including CO2 separation options. Energy 31, 31173134. IEA 2010. Key world energy statistics. [Online] Available at: http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2010/key_stats_2010.pdf (Accessed 4/04/2011) IEA GHG 2004. Improvement in power generation with post combustion capture of CO2 [Online] Available at: http://www.canadiancleanpowercoalition.com/pdf/AS5%20-%20PH4-33%20post%20combustion.pdf(Accessed 5/04/2011) IEA GHG 2007. CO2 capture ready plants [Online] Available at: http://www.iea.org/papers/2007/CO2_capture_ready_plants.pdf (Accessed 5/04/2011)
Vishnu Digant 23

Engineering Design of a Generic NGCC CO2 capture plant retrofit

IEA, 2005. IEA, GHG Retrofit of CO2 capture to natural gas combined cycle power plants. Report no 2005/1. January 2005. IPCC, 2005. Carbon dioxide capture and storage. [Online] Available at: http://www.ipcc-wg3.de/publications/special-reports/specialreport-on-carbon-dioxide-capture-and-storage (Accessed 4/04/2011) Jacobs Consultancy, 2005. IEA, GHG Retrofit of CO2 capture to natural gas combined cycle power plants. Report no 2005/1. January 2005. Jansohn P., Griffin T., Mantzarasa I., Marechalc F. & Clemensd F. 2011. Technologies for Gas Turbine Power Generation with CO2 Mitigation. GHGT-10. Energy Procedia 4, 19011908 Kanniche M., Bonnivard R.G.,Jaud P., Marcos J.V., Amann J.M. & Bouallou C. 2010. Pre-combustion, post-combustion and oxycombustion in thermal power plant for CO2 capture. Applied Thermal Engineering 30, 5362 KEPRI. 2009. Development of Amine Absorbents for Post-Combustion Capture. http://www.co2captureandstorage.info/networks/cap12pdf/3-8.pdf (Accessed 18/04/2011) [Online] Available at:

Kvamsdal H.M., Jordal K. & Bolland O. 2007. A quantitative comparison of gas turbine cycles with CO2 capture. Energy 32, 1024 Lucquiaud M. & J Gibbins J. 2009. Retrofitting CO2 capture ready fossil plants with post-combustion capture. Part 1: requirements for supercritical pulverized coal plants using solvent-based flue gas scrubbing. Journal of Power and Energy. IMechE Vol. 223 Lozza, G. & Chiesa, P., 2002. Natural gas decarbonization to reduce CO2 emission from combined cycles. Part A. Partial oxidation. J. Eng. Gas Turb. Power 124, 8288. Markussona N. & Haszeldinea S. 2009.Capture readiness lock-in problems for CCS governance. GHGT-9. Energy Procedia 1, 4625 4632 Metz B., Davidson O. R., Bosch P. R., Dave R., & Meyer L.A. 2007. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [Online] Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/contents.html (Accessed 4/04/2011) Mo ller. B.F., Assadi M.& Potts I. 2006. CO2-free power generation in combined cyclesIntegration of post-combustion separation of carbon dioxide in the steam cycle. Energy 31, 15201532 Nord L.O., Anantharaman R. & Bolland O. 2009. Design and off-design analyses of a pre-combustion CO2 capture process in a natural gas combined cycle power plant. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 3, 385392 Page S.C. ,Williamson A.G. & MasonI.G. 2009. Carbon capture and storage: Fundamental thermodynamics and current technology. Energy Policy 37, 33143324 Peeters A.N.M., Faaij A.P.C. & Turkenburg W.C. 2007. Techno-economic analysis of natural gas combined cycles with postcombustion CO2 absorption, including a detailed evaluation of the development potential. International journal of greenhouse gas control 1, 396417 Popa A., Edwards R. & Aandi I. 2011. Carbon Capture Considerations for Combined Cycle Gas Turbine. GHGT-10. Energy Procedia 4, 2315-2323
Vishnu Digant 24

Engineering Design of a Generic NGCC CO2 capture plant retrofit

Romeo L.M., Bolea I. &Escosa J.M. 2008. Integration of power plant and amine scrubbing to reduce CO2 capture costs. Applied Thermal Engineering 28, 10391046 Romano M.C., Chiesa P. &Lozza G.2010. Pre-combustion CO2capture from natural gas power plants, with ATR and MDEA processes. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 4, 785797 Rubin, E.S., Chen, C., Rao, A.B., 2007. Cost and performance of fossil fuel power plants with CO2 capture and storage. Energy Policy 35 (9), 44444454 Rubin, E.S. & Rao A.B.2002. A Technical, Economic and Environmental Assessment of Amine-based CO2 Capture Technology for Power Plant Greenhouse Gas Control. [Online] Available at: http://www.osti.gov/bridge/purl.cover.jsp;jsessionid=21B758957A7E2D9DBA7616FE71AFB618?purl=/804932-MqrF4u/native/ (Accessed 6/04/2011) SKM, 2009. Sinclair Knight Merz, Space requiremnts for a post-combustion carbon capture plant for a 1500 MW CCGT, Issue A, 15th December 2009 SKM, 2011. Carbon capture ready CCGTsRegulation and http://www.sccs.org.uk/CCR18May/john-wearmouth.pdf (Accessed 14/04/2011) Engineering. [Online] Available at:

Stork Engineering Consultancy B.V, 2000. Leading Options for the Capture of CO2 Emissions at Power Stations. IEA Report Number PH3/14. URS, 2009. Cockenzie Combined Cycle Gas Turbine Power Station- Carbon Capture Ready (CCR) Feasibility Study. Issue No 3 49306730 / LERP0001 Valenti G., Bonalumi D. & Macchi E. 2009. Energy and exergy analyses for the carbon capture with the Chilled Ammonia Process (CAP) GHGT-9. Energy Procedia 1, 10591066 WEO, 2009. World energy outlook 2009 edition.[Online] Available at: http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/2009.asp (Accessed 14/04/2011)

Vishnu Digant

25