Cryogenic Carbon Capture Development

2018 NETL CO2 Capture Conference

August 13-17, 2018
Larry Baxter,1,2 Kyler Stitt,1 Chris Russell,2 and Daisy Harmon2
1Sustainable Energy Solutions
2Brigham Young University
 Outline
• Project Background
• Process, Energy, Economics Overview
• Field Test Summary
• Robust Unit Operations Review
• Next Steps

2
 Background
• SES developed the Cryogenic Carbon Capture™ process under
separate funding to the stage of a 1 tonne/day skid-scale system
that has been widely tested in house and in the field.
• DOE/NETL is funding the further development of unit operations in
the existing skid to improve reliability and related issues that
became apparent during the testing and updated TEA. (DE-
FE0028697; $3.7M DOE/$4.7M total; 10/01/2016 – 03/31/2019)
• This presentation summarizes progress on the DOE-funded project.
• The culmination of this project is a 6-month field test (3 months
under DOE funding) of the improved skid at a utility power plant,
which starts 10/2018.

3
 CCC is a Simple Process

The CCC process (1) cools a dirty exhaust gas stream to the point that the CO2 freezes using mostly heat recuperation, (2) separates
solid CO2 as it freezes from the clean gas, (3) melts the CO2 through heat recuperation and pressurizes it to form a pure liquid, and
(4) warms up the clean, harmless gas releasing it to the atmosphere. See appendix slides for more detailed flow diagrams.

4
 Cryogenic Carbon Capture (CCC) Cuts Costs in Half
$80 30%
$/Tonne Avoided
$70 28%
Energy Penalty (Parasitic Load) $69 25%
$60
20%
$50

$40 15%
14%
$30 $35
11% 10%
$20
5%
$10 $14

$0 0%
CCC Base Case CCC with Plant Integration Current Technology (Amine)

-Numbers based on NETL 2013 net 550 MW super critical pulverized coal plant
-Integration includes energy and cost savings from steam cycle improvements and offsetting cost and energy requirements for SOX, NOX, and
Mercury controls.
-Additional value and revenues could be gained from CO2 sales and energy storage.
5
 Cost and Energy with Composition
$90 NGCC Amine 1.6

Energy Penalty (GJ/tonne)

$80 1.4
CAPEX ($/tonne/yr)

$70 Coal Amine

1.2
$60
1
$50
$40 0.8

$30 0.6
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Carbon Dioxide Concentration

CAPEX Energy Penalty

CAPEX numbers is the total equipment cost, not depreciated over any timeframe, and it does not include
operating costs. These numbers assume large installations on the order of a power plant
6
 Cost and Energy with Plant Size
$300 1.2
Pilot Plant
$250 1.1
CAPEX ($/tonne/yr)

Energy Penalty (GJ/tonne)

$200 1

$150 0.9
Industrial

$100 550 MWe Coal 0.8

$50 0.7

$0 0.6
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Carbon Dioxide (kT/yr)

CAPEX Energy Penalty

CAPEX numbers is the total equipment cost, not depreciated over any timeframe, and it does not include
operating costs. These numbers assume a CO2 composition of approximately 16% on a dry basis.
7
 Additional CCC Benefits
• Bolt-on Retrofit
• Grid-level Energy Storage
• Multipollutant System
• Low Water Demand
• Highly Adaptable

8
 Previous CCC Demonstrations
• Fuels
– Coal
– Natural gas
– Biomass
– Municipal Waste
– Shredded Tires
• Field Tests
– Power Utilities
– Heat Plants
– Cement Kilns
– Pilot Combustion
Facilities

Thousands of cumulative hours of total testing.

9
 Demonstration Pictures

10
CO2 captured from cement CO2 used in concrete
January 22, 2018 February 6, 2018
Light Gas Path through System

12
 Front End and Dryer
- Commercially Available
Technologies, with promising
Dryer Modifications

13
 Water Vapor Pressure
1.E-02
1.E-03 Process 1 Process 2 Ice
Vapor Pressure (bar)

1.E-04
1.E-05
1.E-06
0.2
1.E-07 Prediction Data
1.E-08 0.15

Pressure (bar)
1.E-09
0.1
1.E-10
1.E-11 0.05
-120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0
0
Temperature (°C) 0 0.5 1
14 Liq/Vap Mole Frac
 Multi-Stream
Heat Exchanger
- Commercially Available
In Partnership with
Chart Industries

15
 Direct Contact
Desublimating
Heat Exchanger

16
 Spray Tower Selected as Main HX
• Easiest to scale
• Most similar to commercial
processes
• Lowest pressure drop
• Most tested desublimating
heat exchanger

1717
 Desublimating Heat Exchangers
• Spray tower has been
proven, including on-site
with real flue gas sources
• CO2 capture above 90%,
and can be increased up
to 99% easily
• Average capture above
98% in tests at Alabama

18
 Contact Liquid
Cooler

19
 Contact Liquid Cooling Heat Exchangers
Used to cool the recirculating contact liquid without fouling

Custom Designed Brazed Plate HX

with Patented Clearing Mechanisms
Self-cleaning Shell-and-tube
Particle Based Fluidized Bed
20
 Solid-Liquid
Separations
1
0.8
0.6
CO2%

0.4
0.2
0
0.0 20.0 40.0
Time (hr)
21
 Solid-Liquid Separations
• Increases the
concentration of solid
CO2 before melting
• Current implementation
is a screw press
filtration system

22
 Videos

Solid CO2 separation:

https://youtu.be/9ZzIlBA3y9I

Solid CO2 melting:

https://youtu.be/Qomy8H8cX00

23
CO2 Path through System

24
 Final CO2 Purification
- Commercially Available
- 99.99%+ CO2 purity and
high purity contact liquid

25
 High Capture and Purity

98+% Average 99+% Average

26
 Current Status
• Thousands of cumulative hours for the system
and individual unit operations
• Consistently demonstrated high rate of capture
• Preliminary designs and quotes in place for larger
pilot scale system
• Next step: six-month demonstration at Pacificorp
power plant

27
 Next Step: $25M Pilot Project
Objective: Demonstrate
industrial reliability and
validate commercial-scale
economics

First commercial-scale (100

TPD CO2 liquid) demonstration

Design and engineering to

begin first half of 2019

28
 Acknowledgements
• DOE/NETL Project No. DE-FE0028697
– $3.7M DOE/$4.7M total
– 10/01/2016 – 03/31/2019
• Lynn Brickett and David Lang of DOE
• SES Employees
• Partners – Pacificorp, EPRI
29
 This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award
Number DE-FE0028697.
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United
States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor
any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal
liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any
information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would
not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product,
process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not
necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the
United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors
expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States
Government or any agency thereof.

30