![]() By maximizing liquids production at the expense of power generation, Subtask 2.2 developed an optimized design that produces 10,450 bpd of liquid fuel precursors and 617 MW of export power from 5,417 tpd of dry petroleum coke. Subtask 2.1 developed a petroleum coke IGCC power plant with the coproduction of liquid fuel precursors from the Subtask 1.3 Next Plant by eliminating the export steam and hydrogen production and replacing it with a Fischer-Tropsch hydrocarbon synthesis facility that produced 4,125 bpd of liquid fuel precursors. This study showed that selective catalytic oxidation of hydrogen sulfide (SCOHS) is promising. Subtask 1.8 evaluated the potential merits of warm gas cleanup technology. The preferred scenario is to co-produce hydrogen in a plant similar to Subtask 1.3, as described above. At current natural gas prices, this facility is not competitive with hydrogen produced from natural gas. Subtask 1.7 developed an optimized design for a coal to hydrogen plant. Again, all these plants have superior emissions performance. Multi-train plants will further reduce the cost. The single-train advanced Subtask 1.4 plant, which uses an advanced ''G/H-class'' combustion turbine, can have a thermal efficiency to power of 44.5% (HHV) and a plant cost of 1,116 $/kW. ![]() This plant has a thermal efficiency to power of 40.6% (HHV) and cost 1,066 $/kW. Subtask 1.6 generated a design, cost estimate and economics for a four-train coal-fueled IGCC power plant, also based on the Subtask 1.3 cases. Therefore, in the near term, a coke IGCC power plant could penetrate the market and provide a foundation for future coal-fueled facilities. A side-by-side comparison of these plants, which contain the Subtask 1.3 VIP enhancements, shows their similarity both in design and cost (1,318 $/kW for the coal plant and 1,260 $/kW for the coke plant). Subtasks 1.5A and B developed designs for single-train coal- and coke-fueled IGCC power plants. In all cases, the emissions performance of these plants is superior to the Wabash River project. Thus, such a coke-fueled IGCC coproduction plant could fill a near term niche market. The Subtask 1.3 Next Plant, which retains the preferred spare gasification train approach, only reduced the cost by about 21%, but it has the highest availability (94.6%) and produces power at 30 $/MW-hr (at a 12% ROI). Subtask 1.9 produced a detailed report on this availability analyses study. The study looked at several options for gasifier sparing to enhance availability. The base case (Subtask 1.3) Optimized Petroleum Coke IGCC Coproduction Plant increased the more ยป power output by 16% and reduced the plant cost by 23%. A structured Value Improving Practices (VIP) approach was applied to reduce costs and improve performance. ![]() This non-optimized plant has a thermal efficiency to power of 38.3% (HHV) and a mid-year 2000 EPC cost of 1,681 $/kW.1 This design was enlarged and modified to become a Petroleum Coke IGCC Coproduction Plant (Subtask 1.2) that produces hydrogen, industrial grade steam, and fuel gas for an adjacent Gulf Coast petroleum refinery in addition to export power. First, the team developed a design for a grass-roots plant equivalent to the Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project to provide a starting point and a detailed mid-year 2000 cost estimate based on the actual as-built plant design and subsequent modifications (Subtask 1.1). The as-built design and actual operating data from the DOE sponsored Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project was the starting point for this study that was performed by Bechtel, Global Energy and Nexant under Department of Energy contract DE-AC26-99FT40342. This project developed optimized designs and cost estimates for several coal and petroleum coke IGCC coproduction projects that produced hydrogen, industrial grade steam, and hydrocarbon liquid fuel precursors in addition to power.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |