Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Alptekin, Gökhan O.

Publications and source records attributed to Alptekin, Gökhan O..

Pilot Testing of a Highly Efficient Pre-combustion Sorbent-based Carbon Capture System

TDA developed and demonstrated a highly efficient pre-combustion carbon capture system. The overall objective of this work was to develop a new sorbent-based pre-combustion carbon capture technology for Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plants. In this project our goal was to demonstrate the techno-economic viability of the new technology by 1) demonstrating it in large-scale slipstream tests, and 2) carrying out a high fidelity engineering and cost analysis. TDA’s process used an advanced physical adsorbent that selectively removes CO 2 from coal-derived synthesis gas above the dew point of the gas at temperatures as high as 300°C. The sorbent consists of a mesoporous carbon whose surface was grafted with functional groups that remove CO 2 via a well-known acid-base interaction. As documented in bench-scale experiments and field tests with actual coal gas, the sorbent achieved a very high capacity for CO 2 at temperatures as high as 300°C. The sorbent bound CO 2 more strongly than common physical adsorbents, providing the chemical potential needed for the high temperature operation. However, because CO 2 does not form a true covalent bond with the surface sites (as is the case with chemical absorbents), the sorbent regeneration could be carried out with only a very small energy input. The heat input to regenerate our sorbent was only 4.9 kcal per mol of CO 2 , which is much lower than that for chemical absorbents (e.g., 29.9 kcal/mol CO 2 for sodium carbonate) and was similar to the requirements of physical solvents (e.g., 4 kcal/mol CO 2 for Selexol TM ). Because the sorbent operates above the dew point of the synthesis gas (unlike the Selexol TM process), a higher power cycle efficiency can be achieved. With previous DOE/NETL funding (Contract No. DE-FE-0000469), we demonstrated the techno-economic viability of the technology in bench-scale tests and slipstream demonstrations at the National Carbon Capture Center (NCCC), Wilsonville, Alabama and Wabash River IGCC plant in Terra Haute, Indiana. We demonstrated a stable working CO 2 capacity for over 11,650 cycles with simulated synthesis gas. We also evaluated its performance with actual synthesis gas in two test campaigns at the Wabash River IGCC Plant, Terre Haute, IN and the National Carbon Capture Center (NCCC), Wilsonville, AL. The slipstream tests clearly showed that the actual coal gas constituents and potential contaminants (e.g. trace metals, halides, tars) had no effect on the sorbent’s ability to remove CO 2 (the same sorbent beds were used in both field tests with no sign of deactivation for 2,000 cycles with over 26,750 SCF of gas treated). As expected, due to the high temperature CO 2 removal capability and low energy needed to regenerate the sorbent, the power cycle efficiency with our process was greater than 34% on a higher heating value (HHV) basis; in comparison, the same IGCC plant equipped with the Selexol TM solvent for carbon capture can only achieve 31.4% HHV efficiency. The capital cost for an IGCC system with TDA’s process is estimated as $2,417/kW e , which is 12% lower than that of the IGCC/ Selexol TM process. The levelized cost for electricity including the transport, storage and monitoring (TS&M) cost for CO 2 was calculated as $\$ $92.9/MWh (lowest reported to our knowledge), which is much better than the $105.2/MWh estimated for the IGCC/ Selexol TM process. In this project (DE-FE0013105), TDA Research, in collaboration with our partners Gas Technology Institute (GTI), Illinois Clean Coal Institute (ICCI), University of California, Irvine (UCI), University of Alberta (UOA), Siemens, NCCC and Sinopec advanced the technical maturity of the technology; scaling it up by a factor of 100. We optimized the reactor design using computational fluid dynamics (CFD); using adsorption modeling we improved the pressure swing adsorption (PSA) cycle sequence. We carried out two field test campaigns with a fully-equipped 0.1 MW e prototype unit (for a total of 844 hours) using actual synthesis gas to prove the viability of the new technology. A successful 30 day (707 hrs) evaluation was completed at NCCC under air blown gasification conditions. We demonstrated 97.3% carbon capture at 1,500 SLPM, 93% carbon capture at 1,800 SLPM, and 90% carbon capture at 2,100 SLPM in the NCCC tests. We also demonstrated the system for 137 hours at a Sinopec petrochemical plant under oxygen blown gasification, demonstrating 86% carbon capture at 2,660 SLPM. In collaboration with University of California, Irvine (UCI), we completed a techno-economic analysis (TEA) for TDA’s warm gas cleanup technology integrated to IGCC power plant. The net plant efficiencies (on a coal HHV basis) for the warm gas cleanup cases were estimated to be 34.0% for E-GasTM gasifier, 34.4% for GE gasifier, 33.4 for the Shell gasifier and 34.2 for the TRIG TM gasifier (Cases 2, 4, 6 and 8 in this study) with a catalytic combustor for CO 2 purification, which are significantly higher than those for the Cold Gas Case, or an increase of as much as 12% in the heat rate for Case 2, 6% for Case 4, 9% for Case 6, and 9% for Case 8. The 1st year cost of electricity with the transport, storage and monitoring (TS&M) costs for the CO 2 included was $\$ $129.2/MWh for the E-GasTM gasifier Warm Gas Cleanup Case, $\$ $131.9/MWh for the GE gasifier Warm Gas Cleanup Case, $\$ $146.8/MWh for the Shell Gasifier Warm Gas Cleanup Case, and $\$ $129.9/MWh for the TRIG TM gasifier Warm Gas Cleanup Case. For comparison, the costs for the baseline Cold Gas CO 2 removal with Selexol for the different gasifiers were: $\$ $146.6/MWh for the E-Gas TM gasifier, $\$ $142.2/MWh for the GE gasifier, $\$ $159.0/MWh for the Shell gasifier and $\$ $144.3/MWh for the TRIG TM gasifier. In summary, the costs for our system were 7 to 12% lower than the corresponding Cold Gas Cleanup cases. The results of this techno-economic analysis suggested that TDA’s high temperature PSA-based Warm Gas Clean-up Technology can make a substantial improvement in the IGCC plant thermal performance for achieving near zero CO 2 emissions for E-Gas TM , GE, Shell and TRIG TM gasifier based IGCC power plants. The capital expenses were estimated to be lower than that of Selexol’s™. Taken together, the higher net plant efficiency and lower capital and operating costs resulted in substantial reduction in the cost of carbon capture for the IGCC plant equipped with TDA’s high temperature PSA-based carbon capture system. Finally, in collaboration with Gas Technology Institute (GTI) we completed the environmental health and safety assessment for TDA’s warm gas carbon capture technology.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗

Integrated Water-Gas-Shift Pre-combustion Carbon Capture Process

TDA Research, Inc (TDA) has developed a highly efficient integrated WGS pre-combustion carbon capture technology and demonstrated its techno-economic viability for use in the Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plants that process coal. The new system uses a warm gas CO 2 scrubber integrated with a Water-Gas-Shift (WGS) catalyst to capture greater than 90% of the carbon emissions, which does not increase the cost of electricity (COE) as much as conventional carbon capture technologies.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗

A New Process for Carbon Dioxide Conversion to Fuel

In this project, TDA developed a new mixed metal oxide-based sorbent that converts CO 2 (captured from coal fired power plant) to CO, which can then be combined with renewable H 2 generated by water electrolysis to produce different liquid fuels. TDA’s absorbent-based CO 2 conversion process uses a redox process, which splits the reverse water gas shift reaction steps into two stages: CO 2 reduction to CO and H 2 oxidation to H 2 O and eliminates the equilibrium limitations. The CO produced in the two-stage reactor system can then be further reacted with renewable H 2 to produce methanol, naphtha, diesel, or gasoline. We worked with the Gas Technology Institute (GTI) and Advanced Power & Energy Program (APEP) of University of California, Irvine (UCI) to design and develop the liquid fuel synthesis process that is built around this new material. We demonstrated the techno-economic viability of the new sorbent based redox process to convert CO 2 into synthesis gas by: 1) demonstrating continuous carbon dioxide reduction in a prototype test system for over 500 hours while converting up to 0.4 kg CO 2 /day. With the successful completion of the R&D effort, the technology is now ready for a larger pilot-scale demonstration and the technology readiness has been raised from TRL 3 to TRL 5. In collaboration UCI, we also completed a high-fidelity process design and economic analysis. The required selling price (RSP) for methanol (Case 1 H2-MeOH) is $\$$3.06/gal, naphtha and diesel (Case 2 H2-FT) are $\$$6.21/gal and $\$$8.91/gal, and for gasoline (Case 3 H2-MTG) is $\$$6.96/gal on a 2011 dollar basis. To put these costs in perspective, the recent (June 2020) U.S. price for methanol made from natural gas is about $\$$1.19/gal according to Methanex, a major methanol producer in North America. The recent (June 2, 2020) California prices for gasoline and diesel with California’s strict specifications are $\$$3.35/gal and $\$$3.73/gal according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency. On the other hand, it should be noted that the gasoline and diesel produced by the designs of Case 2 and Case 3 would be both nitrogen and sulfur free. These RSPs are based on a cost of imported electricity of $\$$64/MWh based on the low-end current wind generated electricity cost (Genevieve and Ramsden, Wind Electrolysis: Hydrogen Cost Optimization, Technical Report, June 2011, NREL/TP-5600-50408). This cost is by far the largest component of the variable costs used in computing the RSPs. The cost of the imported electricity has to approach zero for the RSP to be competitive for methanol produced in Case 1 and naphtha and diesel produced in Case 2 while the cost of electricity has to be less than $\$$10/MWh for gasoline produced in Case 3.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗