Cost of energy analysis of integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plant with respect to CO2 capture ratio under climate change scenarios

2012 ◽  
Vol 29 (9) ◽  
pp. 1129-1134 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyungtae Park ◽  
Dongil Shin ◽  
Gibaek Lee ◽  
En Sup Yoon
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Power Plant ◽  
Co2 Capture ◽  
Energy Analysis ◽  
Combined Cycle ◽  
Climate Change Scenarios ◽  
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle ◽  
Capture Ratio ◽  
Cost Of Energy ◽  
Integrated Gasification

Modeling of Ultra Superheated Steam Gasification in Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Power Plant With Carbon Dioxide Capture

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peng Pei ◽  
Manohar Kulkarni
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Dioxide ◽  
Power Plant ◽  
Co2 Capture ◽  
Superheated Steam ◽  
Carbon Dioxide Capture ◽  
Combined Cycle ◽  
Steam Gasification ◽  
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle ◽  
Integrated Gasification ◽  
Gasification Technology

Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) is believed to be one of the most promising technologies to offer electricity and other de-carbon fuels with carbon capture requirement as well as to meet other emission regulations at a relatively low cost. As one of the most important parts, different gasification technologies can greatly influence the performance of the system. This paper develops a model to examine the feasibilities and advantages of using Ultra Superheated Steam (USS) gasification technology in IGCC power plant with carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS). USS gasification technology converts coal into syngas by the endothermic steam reforming reaction, and the heat required for this reaction is provided by the sensible heat in the ultra superheated steam. A burner utilizes synthetic air (21% O2 and 79% H2O) to burn fuel gas to produce the USS flame for the gasification process. The syngas generated from USS gasification has a higher hydrogen fraction (more than 50%) then other gasification processes. This high ratio of hydrogen is considered to be desired for a “capture-ready” IGCC plant. After gas cleanup and water gas shift reaction, the syngas goes to the Selexol process for carbon dioxide removal. Detailed calculations and analysis are performed to test the performance of USS gasification technology used in IGCC generation systems. Final results such as net output, efficiency penalty for CO2 capture part, and net thermal efficiency are calculated and compared when three different coal types are used. This paper uses published data of USS gasification from previous research at the University of North Dakota. The model also tries to treat the IGCC with carbon dioxide capture system as a whole thermal system, the superheated steam used in USS gasification can be provided by extracting steam from the lower pressure turbine in the Rankine Cycle. The model will make reasonable use of various waste energies and steams for both mechanical and chemical processes to improve the performance of the plant, and incorporate CO2 capture system into the design concept of the power plant.

A Model for Analysis of Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Power Plant With Carbon Dioxide Capture

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peng Pei ◽  
Manohar Kulkarni
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Dioxide ◽  
Power Plant ◽  
Co2 Capture ◽  
Carbon Capture ◽  
Carbon Dioxide Capture ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Combined Cycle ◽  
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle ◽  
Pollutants Emission ◽  
Integrated Gasification

Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) is believed to be one of the most promising technologies to offer electricity and other de-carbon fuels with carbon capture requirement at a relatively low cost. With the process of carbon dioxide capture, it can also actually meet strict regulations for other pollutants emission. However, the performances can vary depending on what kinds of technologies or processes are used. This paper has developed a model and calculated by using Engineering Equation Solver (EES) program to determine and compare different available technologies and processes. There are four main components in the model: Gasification Island; Gas Cleanup Island; Carbon Dioxide Capture Island and Power Island. Among them, the different options of Gasification Island; and Carbon Dioxide Capture Island are expected to be the most effective factors to influence the performance of the plant. Therefore, different gasification processes are examined in this paper, including Shell, GE (Texaco) and Lurgi. The carbon dioxide capture processes are based on SELEXOL, a physical absorption process, because of the high partial pressure of carbon dioxide in the syngas. A process called “double-absorption” is used for capturing sulfur compounds and carbon dioxide. This paper calculated and compared the net outputs, efficiency penalties for CO2 capture part, and net plant efficiencies for different technologies and processes by using EES program. This model tries to treat the IGCC with carbon dioxide capture part as a whole thermal system, instead of just looking at the capture system alone. Different gasification technologies mentioned above will result in various paths and efficiencies of using steam and waste energy in the system. It will make reasonable use of various waste energies and steams for both mechanical and chemical processes to improve the performance of the plant, and incorporate a CO2 capture system into the design concept of the power plant.

Comparison Between the Coal-Fired Power Plant With CO2 Capture by Integrating MCFCs System and the Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle System Integrated MCFCs

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jing Bian ◽  
Siyu Sun ◽  
Kun Xia ◽  
Liqiang Duan ◽  
Umberto Desideri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Power Plant ◽  
Co2 Capture ◽  
Flue Gas ◽  
Capture Rate ◽  
Combined Cycle ◽  
Pure Oxygen ◽  
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle ◽  
Utilization Factor ◽  
Cycle System ◽  
Integrated Gasification

In this paper the coal-fired power plant with CO2 capture by integrating MCFCs system and the integrated coal gasification with CO2 capture by integrating MCFCs combined cycle system are compared with each other in different ways. The effects of the key parameters of MCFC on the performance of two systems, such as CO2 utilization factor, fuel utilization factor and the current density of MCFC, have been analyzed and compared. Aspen Plus soft is used to develop the system models and the key parameters of MCFC are calculated, analyzed and optimized. The flue gas of the coal-fired power plant (CFPP) or the Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) system is used as the reactant gas of MCFC cathode side, reacting with fuel in the anode side and producing power. The anode exhaust gas burns with pure oxygen in the afterburner. The CO2 in the flue gas is further concentrated and captured with the lower energy consumption. The results show that, the efficiency of the coal-fired power plant integrating MCFCs system is about 45.75% when the CO2 capture rate is 88.07%, and the efficiency of the IGCC system integrating MCFCs is about 47.31% when the CO2 capture rate is 88.14%. Achievements in this paper will provide the valuable reference for CO2 capture of coal-fired power plant and IGCC with low energy penalty.

Effect of supplementary firing on the performance of an integrated gasification combined cycle power plant

2000 ◽  
Vol 214 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
S De ◽  
P K Nag
Keyword(s):  
Power Plant ◽  
Heat Recovery ◽  
Combined Cycle ◽  
Exergy Loss ◽  
Temperature Ratio ◽  
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle ◽  
Specific Heats ◽  
Second Law Analysis ◽  
Integrated Gasification ◽  
Igcc Power Plant

The effect of supplementary firing on the performance of an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plant is studied. The results are presented with respect to a simple ‘unfired’ IGCC power plant with single pressure power generation for both the gas and the steam cycles as reference. The gases are assumed as real with variable specific heats. It is found that the most favourable benefit of supplementary firing can be obtained for a low temperature ratio R T only. For higher R T, only a gain in work output is possible with a reverse effect on the overall efficiency of the plant. The second law analysis reveals that the exergy loss in the heat-recovery steam generator is most significant as the amount of supplementary firing increases. It is also noteworthy that, although the total exergy loss of the plant decreases with higher supplementary firing for a low R T (= 3.0), the reverse is the case for a higher R T (= 6.0).

Comparison of Preanode and Postanode Carbon Dioxide Separation for IGFC Systems

2010 ◽  
Vol 132 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Liese
Keyword(s):  
Fuel Cell ◽  
Power Density ◽  
Co2 Capture ◽  
Coal Gasification ◽  
Combined Cycle ◽  
Energy Technology ◽  
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle ◽  
Lower Efficiency ◽  
Integrated Gasification ◽  
Cold Gas

This paper examines the arrangement of a solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) within a coal gasification cycle, this combination generally being called an integrated gasification fuel cell cycle. This work relies on a previous study performed by the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) that details thermodynamic simulations of integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) systems and considers various gasifier types and includes cases for 90% CO2 capture (2007, “Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants, Vol. 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity,” National Energy Technology Laboratory Report No. DOE/NETL-2007/1281). All systems in this study assume a Conoco Philips gasifier and cold-gas clean up conditions for the coal gasification system (Cases 3 and 4 in the NETL IGCC report). Four system arrangements, cases, are examined. Cases 1 and 2 remove the CO2 after the SOFC anode. Case 3 assumes steam addition, a water-gas-shift (WGS) catalyst, and a Selexol process to remove the CO2 in the gas cleanup section, sending a hydrogen-rich gas to the fuel cell anode. Case 4 assumes Selexol in the cold-gas cleanup section as in Case 3; however, there is no steam addition, and the WGS takes places in the SOFC and after the anode. Results demonstrate significant efficiency advantages compared with IGCC with CO2 capture. The hydrogen-rich case (Case 3) has better net electric efficiency compared with typical postanode CO2 capture cases (Cases 1 and 2), with a simpler arrangement but at a lower SOFC power density, or a lower efficiency at the same power density. Case 4 gives an efficiency similar to Case 3 but also at a lower SOFC power density. Carbon deposition concerns are also discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document