Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Carbon Dioxide Production From Coal-fired Power Plants for Enhanced Oil Recovery

Carbon Dioxide Production From Coal-fired Power Plants for Enhanced Oil Recovery

Ratings: (0)|Views: 27|Likes:
Published by eskrni

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Science
Published by: eskrni on Aug 11, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Energy Vol. 21. No. 10, pp. 857-869, 1996
PII: SO360-5442(95)00037-O
Copyright 0 1996 Elsevier Science LtdPrinted in Great Britain. All rights reserved0360-W2/96 $15.00 + 0.00
$Faculty of Engineering, University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada S4S 0A2,SCANMETINRCan, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, IrSaskatchewan Energy and Mines, Regina, Saskatchewan,Canada, ([SaskPower, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
(Received 28 November 1995)
Abstract--In order to sustain the current production capacity of conventional oil in
Western Can-ada, enhanced oil recovery
(EOR) technologies must be increasingly applied. Among these, CO,flooding is a highly attractive alternative. A large amount of CO1 is being produced by coal-firedpower plants in this region. The CO, is currently discharged into the atmosphere and could be amajor contributor to the greenhouse effect, which may lead to global warming. Thus, the conceptof capturing CO, and utilizing it as a flooding agent in EOR processes is currently generatingmuch interest among oil, utility and coal companies. We demonstrate how cogeneration concepts,together with process-optimization strategies, help to reduce the CO,-production cost by utilizinglow-pressure steam and waste heat from various sections of the power-generation process. Basedon these concepts and strategies, results from this study show that the recovery cost of CO, froma coal-fired power plant may range between $0.50 and 2.OO/mscf. If the cost is approximately$1.25/mscf, the production cost of a barrel of incremental oil would be less than $18. Therefore,even at today’s modest oil prices, there is room for profit to be made operating a CO1 flood withflue-gas-extracted CO,. The technical and economical feasibility of the concepts are evaluated andthe practical implications
for the Saskatchewan esources are discussed.Copyright 0 1996 Elsevier
Science Ltd.
The concept of capturing CO, from coal-fired power plants and utilizing it as a flooding agent for EORprocesses is currently drawing much interest from oil, utility and coal companies in Western Canada.Implementation of such a scheme would provide two important benefits: (i) the captured CO2 couldbe marketed as a flooding agent which would generate revenues, and (ii) CO2 emissions to the atmos-phere would be reduced. Since CO, emissions are considered to be the main contributor to the possibleserious environmental problem of global warming, the proposed scheme could become an importantinstrument to reduce such emissions at minimal incremental cost to the environment.In the past few years, a few pilot test projects on CO2 extraction from the Canadian coal-fired powerplants (such as the Sundance and Boundary Dam projects) were organized by consortia of oil companiesin collaboration with government organizations and utility companies; these projects were primarilyaimed at using the recovered CO2 for EOR applications. A variety of process technologies availablefrom gas processing, including chemical gas absorption, cryogenic separation, dry bed adsorption, andmembrane separation processes, were screened. The selection process resulted in the chemical gasabsorption process being chosen as it had better overall economical advantages and a proven operabilityrecord over other processes.1,2However, the pilot plant results demonstrated that, even though thisprocess technology was technically feasible, chemical gas absorption capital and operating costs weretoo high for EOR applications in the current crude petroleum market. The primary reason for the highcost of CO, extraction was that a substantial amount of energy was required for the process.
t Author for correspondence.857
Paitoon Tontiwachwuthikul et al
The major objective of this study is to further develop and evaluate ways to extract CO2 from coal-fired power plants as efficiently and economically as possible using the amine absorption process. Thispaper will demonstrate how cogeneration concepts, together with process optimization strategies, canhelp to reduce CO2 production costs. The economics and technical feasibility of the concepts aredescribed and the practical implications of this study in the province of Saskatchewan are discussed.
Figure 1 shows a simplified diagram of the proposed CO2 extraction plant. It has been modified andextended from the previous works. 3*4 he concept of energy management and optimization, as familiaras the cogeneration concept, is applied to reduce the steam and electricity expenditures. In this study,a cogenerating power plant in which steam and electricity are generated, will be used in conjunctionwith the CO*: ecovery plant. Waste heat is minimized to improve the overall energy efficiency of theplant by (i) utilizing high grade steam for driving turbines to produce electricity and/or to compressCO*, and (ii) recycling waste heat (low grade or low pressure steam) from the turbine outlet to thereboilers of the CO2 extraction process for solvent regeneration. Therefore, the reboilers can be con-sidered technically as the heat sink of the steam cycle for the power plant. Instead of using conventionalheat rejection through a set of low-pressure-steam-turbine condensers and cooling towers, this studyintroduces a new feature of CO2 production with two advantages. First, the condensers and coolingtowers will be replaced by the reboiler of the CO2 extraction plant: the replacement will reduce thecapital cost of the power plant and the long-term operating and maintenance (O&M) costs. Second,the steam generation unit (boiler) will be eliminated from the CO2 extraction process: removal lowersthe value of the capital and O&M costs in the CO2 recovery plant. Thus, as shown, simple heatmanagement/cogeneration concepts can reduce the costs of both plants.Two other features were also introduced in order to reduce the cost of CO2 production. First, optimiz-ation techniques were used to search for optimal design and operating criteria for the CO2 extractionplant. Second, coal is used as fuel instead of natural gas (which was used in most of the previousstudies) for producing the make-up steam to the solvent regeneration units. Coal is used because theprice of natural gas in Saskatchewan is approximately three times more expensive than that of coal foran equivalent heating value.The major assumptions in this study are as follows: (i) the proposed plant is capable of extracting
Fig. 1. Simplified flow diagram of the proposed CO, extraction plant.tFor more detail regarding the full report of this study, please contact the first author at the University of Regina.
Carbon dioxide production from coal-fired power plants for enhanced oil recovery 859
8,000 tonnes of CO* per day from flue gases from an existing 300 MW power plant and its cogenerationunit or coal-fired boiler; (ii) the cost studies are based on a 10% internal rate of return and a IO-yearproject life, and (iii) the cost of electricity is assumed to be $O.O6/kWh. All currencies are reported inCanadian dollars (Nov. 1992), unless they are stated otherwise.Chemical absorption process technology was selected for capturing CO* from the flue gas. This studyconsists of two parts: ( 1) MEA (monoethanolamine) technology; and (2) AMP (2-amino-2-methyl-l-propanol-a sterically hindered amine) technology.Monoethanolamine (MEA) is the most commonly used solvent. Amine Guard III and IV, bothrecently commercialized by Dow Chemical Co., have low energy requirements ranging from 39,000 to50,000 Btu/lb-mole of CO, recovered (1.95-2.50 MMBtu/tonne of CO,). This study employs a valueof 50,ooO Btu/lb-mole of CO, as the basis for the heat requirement for MEA in Part 1.Part 2, AMP technology is a relatively new technology that would further lower the production costsof the CO* process. The heat requirement for an aqueous AMP solution was determined from our pilotplant data. It was confirmed that AMP consumes approximately 20-25% less energy than MEA. There-fore, 40,000 Btu/lb-mole of COP (2 MMBtu/tonne of COZ) is the heat requirement used as the basicassumption for the design of this study in Part 2.
In order to cover a wide variety of options for the investment of building a cogeneration power plantand the COZ recovery plant, four case scenarios of process integration between the CO;? recovery plantand cogenerating power plant were evaluated for Parts 1 and 2.
Case A: Maximized electrical production
Under this case scenario, a cogeneration plant of 300 MW would be built and about 230 MW ofsurplus electricity would be sold to the electric grid. It is the largest plant size that utility companiesin western Canada would consider in the options of their investment.
Case B: 80-
MW electrical production
This case represents an 80-120 MW cogeneration power plant to generate an amount of steam justenough for the CO, recovery plant producing 8,000 tonnes/day of CO*, so that the set of cooling towerscan be replaced with a set of reboilers. This is referred to as the “cooling tower/reboiler replacement”.Electrical and steam efficiencies are calculated from available information. Deductions have to be madefor losses in electricity and thermal energy. As a result, values of 31.7% for electrical efficiency and45.3% for steam efficiency are used in this design. About 3% of electrical losses are caused by sizeand/or stage reductions of the low-pressure steam turbine in order to improve the quality of steam.5
Case C: Null electricity production
This case scenario is for self-contained CO, production, with break-even thermal and electricalrequirements. The cogenerating power plant is designed to generate just enough electricity for the CO,recovery plant (within C 10 MW). The cooling tower/reboiler replacement is also implemented in thiscase scenario, similar to Case B. The major difference between the Case B scenario and the Case Cscenario is the electricity-to-steam ratio of the co-generating power plant. Following Limaye (Ref. 6),a 15% electrical efficiency and a 67% steam efficiency are used for this case.
Case D: Buy-back electricity
This final case scenario illustrates the production cost of CO:! from an optimized CO, recovery plant.About 50-60 MW of electricity has to be supplied by the existing electrical grid, while the steamrequired by the reboilers of the regenerators is generated by a coal-fired boiler. Atmospheric fluidizedbed combustor (AFBC) technology, one of the popular clean coal technologies, is selected as theoperation mode for the coal-fired boiler in this study. An AFBC boiler that bums lignite coal withlimestone at low temperatures (760-954’C) tends to emit low levels of nitrogen (NO,) and sulfur(SO,) oxides.The engineering design for all the cogenerating power plants and boilers in this study is based on

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->