DOE OSTI2020
This report contains the results of a techno-economic assessment (TEA) conducted of a heat integrated post-combustion CO2 capture process with Hitachi advanced solvent for retrofit into an existing coal-fired power plant (but treated as greenfield plant on cost analysis). The process has been developed by the University of Kentucky Center for Applied Energy (UK CAER). EPRI was chiefly responsible for this analysis, with significant input from WorleyParsons, Hitachi Power Systems America (Hitachi) and UK CAER. The project also involves the design, fabrication, installation, testing, and analyses of a slipstream facility located at L&GE-KU’s E.W. Brown Generating Station to demonstrate the UK CAER carbon capture system that could utilize heat integration with the main power plant. The design, start-up, and baseline of the pilot system was performed with a generic 30 wt% MEA solvent to obtain data for direct comparison with the DOE/NETL Reference Case followed by testing Hitachi’s proprietary solvent H3-1. In this techno-economic analysis, two cases utilizing the UK CAER process are compared, using different approach temperatures and solvent, against the DOE/NETL Reference Case (Case 10). The results are shown comparing the energy demand for post-combustion CO2 capture and the net higher heating value (HHV) efficiency of the power plant integrated with the post-combustion capture (PCC) plant. A levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) assessment was performed showing the costs of the options presented in the study. The key factors contributing to the reduction of LCOE were identified as CO2 partial pressure increase at the flue gas inlet, thermal integration of the process, and performance of the Hitachi H3-1 solvent. Recent UK CAER process pilot-scale testing data and process simualtion data showed that the packing heights of absorber and stripper columns were significantly oversized in the prelimanary TEA (Task 2 of this project) and thus updated in this final TEA for the H3-1 case only. In addition, the solvent make-up cost for H3-1 was updated based on lattest test results. Finally, a heat integration with the main power plant was applied in this final TEA to increase overall energy effciency for both the MEA and H3-1 cases. Additonal reductions in capital and operational costs are expected but not taken into account here. Shorter columns result in reduced pressure drops, smaller blower head and pump hydraulic head requirements. An increase in overall energy efficiency resuls in a decreased size of the power plant, the CCS and a reduced parasitic steam requirement to the CCS. The net efficiency of the UK CAER integrated PC power plant with CO2 capture changes from 26.2% for the Reference Case 10 plant in 2010 revised DOE/NETL baseline report to 27.6% for the MEA options considered, and 29.1% for the options utilizing the Hitachi advanced solvent. The UK CAER Process + Hitachi case also produces an extra 30.9 MW of generation compared to the UK CAER Process + MEA case and total 60.9 MW more than DOE Case 10. LCOE ($/MWh) values are $172.08/MWh for the MEA option and $157.65/MWh for the Hitachi H3-1 solvent cases considered in comparison to $189.59/MWh in January 2012 dollar for the Reference Case 10. The UK CAER CCS process with MEA case lowers energy consumption for CO2 capture to 1340 Btu/lb-CO2 captured as compared to 1540 Btu/lb-CO2 in the Reference Case 10. The UK CAER CCS process with H3-1 case further lowers energy consumption for CO2 capture to 973 Btu/lb-CO2 captured, for an advantage of 36.8% less energy consumption than Case 10. The study also shows 38.1% less heat rejection associated with the carbon capture system from 3398 MBtu/hr (Case 10) to 2104 MBtu/hr for the UK CAER + MEA system. Heat rejection is reduced to 2464 MBtu/hr in the UK CAER + H3-1 case, for a 27.5 % decrease compared to Case 10. Modeling outputs show that in the UK CAER process, the cooling water that is 2-5°C cooler than conventional cooling tower water can be achieved for ambient conditions common to the midwest and other regions. The results from the techno-economic assessment show that the proposed technology can be investigated further as a viable alternative to conventional CO2 capture technology. The evaluation also shows the effect of the critical parameters on the LCOE, with the main variables being the approach temperature and CO2 partial pressure increase at the flue gas inlet. A summary of the key advantages of the UK CAER Process + H3-1 case for LCOE and other economic factors compared to the DOE Case 10 is as follows: • A lower variable operating cost by $1.56/MWh ($1.08MWh less than the UK CAER Process + MEA Case), a 11.7% reduction compared to the DOE Case 10 • A lower COE by $25.32MWh ($13.94/MWh lower than the UK CAER Process + MEA Case), a 16.9% reduction compared to the DOE Case 10 • A lower LCOE by $31.94/MWh ($17.51/MWh lower than the UK CAER Process + MEA Case), a 16.9% reduction compared to the DOE Case 10 • A lower cost of CO2 captured by $18.65/tonne CO2 ($9.44/tonne CO2 lower than the UK CAER Process + MEA Case), a 30.4% reduction compared to the DOE Case 10 • A lower cost of CO2 avoided by $34.95/tonne CO2 ($18.53 tonne CO2 lower than the UK CAER Process + MEA Case), a 38.7% reduction compared to the DOE Case 10