Techno-Economic Feasibility Study of the Commercial-Scale Oxy-CFB Carbon Capture System in Turkey

Year 2021, Volume: 24 Issue: 1, 45 - 56, 01.03.2021

Tuba Coşkun , Prof. Dr. Mehmet Özkaymak , Hasancan Okutan

https://doi.org/10.2339/politeknik.674619

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Oxy-fuel combustion is a promising technology for the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions, in coal-fired power plants that allow the clean use of fossil fuels. Circulating fluidized bed (CFB) boilers are one of the power generation technologies that can use oxy-fuel combustion design successfully. The purpose of this paper is to perform the techno-economic feasibility analysis of the commercial-scale oxy-fuel combustion circulating fluidized bed (oxy-CFB) power plant generating 550 MWe net power with a carbon capture rate of 90%. So far, economic analysis of oxy-PC power plants has been studied by researchers at many reports. Nevertheless, the cost of an oxy-CFB power plant has rarely been studied.This is the first study that has used Turkish lignite (Orhaneli Coal) in an oxy-CFB carbon capture plant economic analysis. The basic economic performance indicators were investigated. The Models are based on cost scaling and Discounted Cash Flow analysis. Three cases were analyzed: In the first case, A base scenario (air-fired CFB plant without CO2 capture) is considered and then based on this baseline scenario the other scenarios are taken into account. The economic viability of transition from the classical air-fired CFB plant system to oxy-CFB with CO2 capture and compression plant is evaluated. The post-combustion monoethanolamine (MEA) based CO2 capture system is investigated as a benchmark study to compare oxy-CFB capture system performances. The main applicability parameters such  
as cost of electricity (COE), levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) and the cost of CO2 capture for each case are calculated. The obtained results indicated that 54% and 52% increase in terms of total plant cost and COE respectively in the oxy-CFB plant when compared to air fired-CFB without carbon capture. Considering the COE, the designed oxy-CFB power plant is greater than the air-fired SC-PC (without capture) plant by more than 45% (DOE target). The efficiency penalty for oxy-CFB is 10%. Oxy-CFB plant has a net efficiency 2% point higher than amine-based CO2 capture systems. In amine-based CO2 capture system; The capital costs, LCOE, and cost of CO2 captured are higher than the oxy-CFB plant. The results show that the oxy-CFB power plant has a lower cost for carbon capture compared to amine-based capture plant.

Keywords

Oxy-fuel combustion, Circulating Fluidized Bed, carbondioxide capture, levelized cost of electricity, techno-economic analysis

Supporting Institution

TÜBİTAK

Project Number

TÜBİTAK-1003, 213M525

References

• [1] Mapped: The world’s coal power plants in 2019, (n.d.). https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-coal-power-plants (accessed December 1, 2019).
• [2] Presidency of the Republic of Turkey, Why invest in Turkish Energy Sector, Invest. Off. (2019) 57. http://www.invest.gov.tr/en-US/infocenter/publications/Documents/ENERGY.INDUSTRY.pdf.
• [3] M. Varol, A.T. Atimtay, H. Olgun, H. Atakül, Emission characteristics of co-combustion of a low calorie and high sulfur – lignite coal and woodchips in a circulating fluidized bed combustor : Part 1 . Effect of excess air ratio, Fuel. 117 (2014) 792–800. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2013.09.051.
• [4] IEA/OECD, IEA Statistics Coal Information 2018: Overview, (2018). https://webstore.iea.org/coal-information-2018.
• [5] H. Nalbandian-Sugden, Operating ratio and cost of coal power generation. IEA Clean Coal Centre, (2016). doi:978–92–9029–595-2. [6] E. Policies, I.E.A. Countries, Energy Policies of IEA Countries 2016 Review Turkey, 2016. www.iea.org/t&c/.
• [7] A. Dryjańska, Supercritical power plant 600 MW with cryogenic oxygen plant and CCS installation, 34 (2013) 123–136. doi:10.2478/aoter-2013-0019.
• [8] C.C. Cormos, Oxy-combustion of coal, lignite and biomass: A techno-economic analysis for a large scale Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) project in Romania, Fuel. 169 (2016) 50–57. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2015.12.005.
• [9] J.H. Moon, S.H. Jo, S.J. Park, N.H. Khoi, M.W. Seo, H.W. Ra, S.J. Yoon, S.M. Yoon, J.G. Lee, T.Y. Mun, Carbon dioxide purity and combustion characteristics of oxy firing compared to air firing in a pilot-scale circulating fluidized bed, Energy. 166 (2019) 183–192. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2018.10.045.
• [10] B. Leckner, A. Gómez-Barea, Oxy-fuel combustion in circulating fluidized bed boilers, Appl. Energy. 125 (2014) 308–318. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.03.050.
• [11] K.J. Borgert, Oxyfuel Carbon Capture for Pulverized Coal : Techno - Economic Model Creations and Evaluation Amongst Alternatives Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, 2015. https://www.cmu.edu/ceic/assets/docs/publications/phd-dissertations/2015/kyle-borgert-phd-thesis-2015.pdf.
• [12] H. Wang, Y. Duan, Y. ning Li, Y. Xue, M. Liu, Investigation of mercury emission and its speciation from an oxy-fuel circulating fluidized bed combustor with recycled warm flue gas, Chem. Eng. J. 300 (2016) 230–235. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2016.04.131.
• [13] M. Matuszewski, Cost and Performance for Low-Rank Pulverized Coal Oxycombustion Energy Plants, (2010) 442.
• [14] J. Xiong, H.B. Zhao, C.G. Zheng, Techno-economic evaluation of oxy-combustion coal-fired power plants, Chinese Sci. Bull. 56 (2011) 3333–3345. doi:10.1007/s11434-011-4707-5.
• [15] L. Duan, C. Zhao, W. Zhou, C. Qu, X. Chen, Effects of operation parameters on NO emission in an oxy-fired CFB combustor, Fuel Process. Technol. (2011). doi:10.1016/j.fuproc.2010.09.031.
• [16] C. Cormos, ScienceDirect Techno-economic and environmental evaluations of large scale gasification-based CCS project in Romania, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy. 39 (2013) 13–27. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.10.073.
• [17] T. Lockwood, Techno-economic analysis of PC versus CFB combustion, 2013.
• [18] S. Li, H. Li, W. Li, M. Xu, E.G. Eddings, Q. Ren, Q. Lu, Coal combustion emission and ash formation characteristics at high oxygen concentration in a 1 MWth pilot-scale oxy-fuel circulating fluidized bed, Appl. Energy. 197 (2017) 203–211. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.03.028.
• [19] S. Espatolero, L.M. Romeo, A.I. Escudero, R. Kuivalainen, An operational approach for the designing of an energy integrated oxy-fuel CFB power plant, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 64 (2017) 204–211. doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2017.07.018.
• [20] S. Espatolero, L.M. Romeo, Optimization of Oxygen-based CFBC Technology with CO2 Capture, Energy Procedia. 114 (2017) 581–588. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1200.
• [21] K. Myöhänen, R. Diego, R. Kuivalainen, T. Hyppänen, Modelling Supported Development of Oxy-CFB Combustion, Energy Procedia. 114 (2017) 589–599. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1201.
• [22] The role of Circulating Fluidised Bed (CFB) technology in future coal power generation | IEA Clean Coal Centre, (n.d.). https://www.iea-coal.org/the-role-of-circulating-fluidised-bed-cfb-technology-in-future-coal-power-generation/ (accessed December 1, 2019).
• [23] S. Seddighi, P.T. Clough, E.J. Anthony, R.W. Hughes, P. Lu, Scale-up challenges and opportunities for carbon capture by oxy-fuel circulating fluidized beds, Appl. Energy. 232 (2018) 527–542. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.09.167.
• [24] C. Spero, Toshihiko Yamada, Callide Oxyfuel Project-Final Results, 2018. https://callideoxyfuel.com/.
• [25] R. López, M. Menéndez, C. Fernández, A. Bernardo-Sánchez, The effects of scale-up and coal-biomass blending on supercritical coal oxy-combustion power plants, Energy. 148 (2018) 571–584. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2018.01.179.
• [26] A. Pettinau, F. Ferrara, C. Amorino, Techno-economic comparison between different technologies for a CCS power generation plant integrated with a sub-bituminous coal mine in Italy, Appl. Energy. 99 (2012) 32–39. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.05.008.
• [27] K.J. Borgert, E.S. Rubin, Oxy-combustion Carbon Capture for Pulverized Coal in the Integrated Environmental Control Model, Energy Procedia. 114 (2017) 522–529. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1194.
• [28] M. Van Der Spek, N.H. Eldrup, R. Skagestad, A. Ramirez, Techno-economic Performance of State-of-the-Art Oxyfuel Technology for Low-CO2 Coal-fired Electricity Production, Energy Procedia. 114 (2017) 6432–6439. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1779.
• [29] R. López, C. Fernández, O. Martínez, M.E. Sánchez, Techno-economic analysis of a 15 MW corn-rape oxy-combustion power plant, Fuel Process. Technol. 142 (2016) 296–304. doi:10.1016/j.fuproc.2015.10.020.
• [30] B. Professor Terry Wall, Y.A. Liu, S. Bhattacharya, A scoping study on Oxy-CFB technology as an alternative carbon capture option for Australian black and brown coals, 2012. https://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/sites/default/files/publications/33801/scoping-study-oxy-cfb-technology-alternative-carbon-capture-option-australian-black-and-brown-coals.pdf (accessed July 2, 2019).
• [31] H. Okutan, A. Yozgatlig, B. Eng, H. Olgun, A. Atimtay, Dolaşımlı Akışkan Yatak Yakma Sisteminde Linyit ve Biyokömürün Oksijence Zengin Ortamda Yakılması ( OKSİYANMA ), 2017.
• [32] B. Ye, J. Jiang, Y. Zhou, J. Liu, K. Wang, Technical and economic analysis of amine-based carbon capture and sequestration at coal-fired power plants, J. Clean. Prod. 222 (2019) 476–487. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.050.
• [33] T. Fout, A. Zoelle, D. Keairns, M. Turner, M. Woods, N. Kuehn, V. Shah, V. Chou, L. Pinkerton, Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Volume 1a: Bituminous Coal (PC) and Natural Gas to Electricity Revision 3, Natl. Energy Technol. Lab. 1a (2015) 240. doi:DOE/NETL-2010/1397.
• [34] DOE/NETL, Low Rank Coal to Electricity : Combustion Cases, Combustion. 3 (2011).
• [35] DOE/NETL-2011/1455, Cost Estimation Methodology for NETL Assessments of Power Plant Performance, 2011.
• [36] DOE/NETL, Power Systems Financial Model Version 6.6 User’s Guide, Doe/Netl-2011/1492. (2011) 1.
• [37] National Energy Technology Laboratory, Power Plant Flexible Model Technical Documentation and User’s Manual, (2013).
• [38] J.P. Tranier, R. Dubettier, A. Darde, N. Perrin, Air Separation, flue gas compression and purification units for oxy-coal combustion systems, Energy Procedia. 4 (2011) 966–971. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2011.01.143.
• [39] T. Lockwood, Techno-economic analysis of PC versus CFB combustion, 2013.
• [40] D.P. Hanak, D. Powell, V. Manovic, Techno-economic analysis of oxy-combustion coal-fired power plant with cryogenic oxygen storage, Appl. Energy. 191 (2017) 193–203. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.01.049.
• [41] CEPCI Archives - Chemical Engineering, (n.d.). https://www.chemengonline.com/tag/cepci/ (accessed December 12, 2019).
• [42] Q. Zhu, Developments in circulating fluidised bed combustion, Profiles by IEA Clean Coal Cent. No 13/7 (2013).
• [43] Ministry of Labor and Social Security of the Republic of Turkey, Labor Force and Employment in Turkey, (2010) 31. http://www.invest.gov.tr.
• [44] C. White, D. Gray, J. Plunkett, W. Shelton, N. Weiland, T. Shultz, Techno-economic evaluation of utility-scale power plants based on the indirect sCO2 Brayton cycle, (2017).
• [45] E.S. Rubin, J.E. Davison, H.J. Herzog, The cost of CO2 capture and storage, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 40 (2015) 378–400. doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.05.018.
• [46] S.A.Y. W. Follett, M. A. Fitzsimmons, S. V. Pisupati, C. G. Sonwane, S. Jovanovic, T. W. Manley, D. Hiraoka, Development of a pilot scale coal coal powered oxy-fired pressurized fluidized bed combustor wity CO2 capture, Power-Gen Eur. Conf. (2015) 1–17.
• [47] R.T.J. Porter, M. Fairweather, C. Kolster, N. Mac Dowell, N. Shah, R.M. Woolley, Cost and performance of some carbon capture technology options for producing different quality CO 2 product streams, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 57 (2017) 185–195. doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.11.020.
• [48] DOE/NETL, NETL Updated Costs (2011 Basis) for selected Bituminous Baseline Cases, NETL Rep. DOE/NETL-341/082312. (2012).
• [49] K. Gerdes, R. Stevens, T. Fout, J. Fisher, G. Hackett, W. Shelton, Current and future power generation technologies: Pathways to reducing the cost of carbon capture for coal-fueled power plants, Energy Procedia. 63 (2014) 7541–7557. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.790.
• [50] Carbon Capture R&D | Department of Energy, (n.d.). https://www.energy.gov/fe/science-innovation/carbon-capture-and-storage-research/carbon-capture-rd (accessed December 12, 2019).