CO 2 capture by Adsorption Processes: From Materials to Process Development to Practical Implementation Paul A. Webley Dept. of Chemical Engineering Talloires, July 2010 Outline Adsorption for Post-Combustion CO 2 Capture PVSA or TSA or TVSA? Materials development synergy with process and adsorbent assessment Lab and Pilot scale Post Combustion Experimental Work Field Demonstrations Conclusions 2
Post Combustion Flue Gas Conditions and Challenges T,P,Flow PC(black)+FGD PC(brown) NGCC Oxyfuel Mass Flow (kg/s) 600 790 1000 180 Volume flow 2.2 x 10 6 3.0 x 10 6 3.8 x 10 6 0.5 x 10 6 (m 3 /hr) Pressure (barg) ~ 0.05 ~ 0.05 ~ 0.05 ~ 0.05 Temperature( C) ~90 ~90 ~90 ~ 170 Volume flows VERY large (pressure drop) Pressures very low (no driving force) Temperatures relatively high (for adsorption) 3 Post Combustion Flue Gas Conditions and Challenges - Composition PC(black)+FGD PC(brown) NGCC Oxyfuel Nitrogen 71 60 75 Carbon Dioxide 12.6 12 3.4 62.6 Water 11.1 24 6.9 31.5 Oxygen 4.4 3 13.8 4.5 SO 2 ~200ppm ~200ppm NOx 670 ppm 25ppm CO 2 concentration ranges from 12-63% (wet basis) High water content SOx, NOx, ash, heavy metals, etc present 4
Commercial Adsorption based CO 2 Systems CO 2 Recovery from COREX Gas Saldanha Steel, South Africa 360,000 Nm 3 /h feed rate (15psig, 30%CO2) 2xVPSA trains Each has 12 vessels and 4 vacuum pump sets Worlds largest VPSA Feed ~ 10,000 TPD 5 CO 2 Capture: Program at Monash University Materials development: Good working capacity & good selectivity Insensitive to moisture Operable at above ambient temperature There is a strong relationship to the process cycle Process development Cycle development Structured adsorbents Energy integration Solution of engineering issues 6
PSA or TSA? Throughput (kg CO2/day/kg adsorbent) TSA provides large WC at the expense of cycle time unless innovative rapid cycling systems are developed PSA provides smaller WC but can provide much shorter cycle time Large throughput, bulk separation tends to favor PSA, eg. O2VSA, H2PSA etc. PTSA??? (yes) 7 Adsorbent Requirements from Process Operation Minimal compression of flue gas! vacuum operation => need large WC between 0 and 1 atm Regeneration of the adsorbent is where the energy is needed put energy into CO2, not N2, not solid material (minimal N2 adsorption, minimal T swing) Difference between adsorption and desorption for CO2 compared to other gases is key Large adsorption amount is not necessarily better Interaction of species is important (impurities) 8
Adsorbent Isotherms 5.00 4.50 4.00 Regen Feed CaCHA CO2 Adsorption Isotherms at 25 C 13X 13X WC,CO2 ~ 1.6 Isothermal Op. n(mol/kg) 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 NaY SWNT Alumina ACF BPL carbon 1.00 0.50 0.00 IRMOF-6 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 P(kPa) 9 Screening Problem Which adsorbent is best over a particular operating region and what is this operating region (can we solve the inverse problem)? By how much will improvements in adsorbent reduce capture cost (or particular interest to sponsors!)? Should improvements be aimed at CO 2 capacity, N 2 capacity, heat of adsorption, etc? Cannot simulate processes for every possible adsorbent too time-consuming. 10
Quick Assessment First Order effects Need to consider adsorption P,T and desorption P,T of CO 2 required to meet purity constraints Need to consider adsorption P,T and desorption P,T of N 2 (selectivity) Need to consider temperature change on adsorption/desorption (isothermal vs adiabatic) Need to capture effect of isotherm shape on pressure profile and hence power Ideally, should include kinetics however, initial goal is to permit equilibrium evaluation 11 Capacity for CO 2 effect of temperature Heat of adsorption (exothermic) leads to reduction in working capacity since adsorbent T increases on adsorption and decreases on desorption Instead of isotherm only, need to look at adiabat Loading (gmole/kg) 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 13X Isotherm and Adiabat Isotherm at 300K, Adiabat starts at 300K isotherm adiabat T=343K T=370K 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 T=300K CO2 Partial Pressure (bar) 12
Example T-swing during CO2VSA process 13 Development of Proposed Parameter Consider 1kg adsorbent with feed gas of known composition and specified pressure and temperature Perform adiabatic pump-down calculation tracking composition, temperature, moles removed (CO 2 and N 2 ) and energy consumed Derive CO 2 working capacity (WC CO2 ), N 2 working capacity (WC N2 ), working selectivity (WS=WC CO2 /WC N2 ), and specific energy (E CO2 =energy/mole CO2 removed) Repeat for a range of operating temperatures and pressure ratios Very easy and fast calculations 14
Basis for Comparison 3 adsorbents: NaX, NaY, Activated Carbon, ADSORBENT ZERO LOADING H(kJ/mol) NaX 44.4 NaY 37.0 AC 11.5 15 Isotherms for CO 2 CO2 Adsorption Isotherms at 25C n(gmole/kg) 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 NaY NaX AC 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 P(kPa) 16
Isotherms for N 2 N2 Adsorption Isotherms at 25C 0.80 0.70 n(gmole/kg) 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 NaX AC NaY 0.00 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 P(kPa) 17 Comparison of Isothermal and Adiabatic Working Capacity (Yf=0.1) Isothermal working capacity exceeds adiabatic working capacity by several factors Adsorbent requirement scales directly with CO 2 working capacity Adiabatic working capacity has a maximum unlike isothermal working capacity WC(gmol/kg) CO2 Working Capacity - NaX isothermal adiabatic 1.80 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 290 310 330 350 370 390 T(K) 18
Comparison of Isothermal and Adiabatic Working Selectivities (Yf=0.1) Isothermal working selectivity exceeds adiabatic working selectivity by several factors Adsorbent purity and recovery scales with CO 2 working selectivity Both show a maximum but at different locations WS 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 CO2 Working Selectivity - NaX adiabatic isothermal 0.00 290 310 330 350 370 390 T(K) 19 Comparison of adsorbents Adiabatic Working Capacity (Yf=0.15) CO2 Working Capacity 0.80 0.70 NaX WC(gmol/kg) 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 AC NaY 0.10 0.00 290 310 330 350 370 390 T(K) 20
Comparison of adsorbents Adiabatic Working Selectivity (Yf=0.15) Working Selectivity 12.00 10.00 NaX 8.00 WS 6.00 NaY 4.00 AC 2.00 0.00 290 310 330 350 370 390 T(K) 21 Comparison of Energy Required Energy Requirement -6.00 290 310 330 350 370 390-6.50 AC NaY E(kJ/gmole) -7.00-7.50 NaX -8.00-8.50 T(K) 22
Ranking depends on which parameter to chose WC and WS suggests NaX is superior for T > 300, NaY superior for T<300 AC shows lowest regen. energy Ultimate ranking should reflect capture cost relative to a base case (NaX) (trend at least!) Capture Cost depends on capital (use 1/WC CO2 as a surrogate) and power (use WS as a surrogate). Both also depend on recovery (use WS as surrogate) 23 Capture Figure of Merit or CFM Must necessarily be approximate since relative contributions to capital and operating are site specific Need 2 parameters to truly reflect each situation For a given ratio of capital : power costs, we combine the parameters into a single CFM: CFM WC * WS CFM ; Relative CFM E CFM ref 24
How well does it perform? Rigorous PSA simulations conducted with 3 adsorbents Ranking of overall performance compared with CFM prediction Assume capital contributes ~50% towards overall capture cost 25 Performance of Adsorbents based on CFM Performance of Adsorbents Based on CFM over temperature range 300-400K 1.2 AC Dimensionless Capture Cost 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 NaY NaX 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 CFM 26
Selection of Operating Temperature based on CFM NaX Performance Based on CFM over temperature range 300-400K 7 NaX 6 5 CFM 4 3 2 1 0 300 320 340 360 380 400 Tfeed(K) 27 Laboratory and Pilot Scale Work Vacuum Swing Cycle with multiple beds Minimum pressurization of feed gas Evacuation of beds to low pressure (< 10kPa) Energy is used on recovered stream only, not on total feed stream Cyclic process to ensure longevity of adsorbent 28
Process Development and Testing Experimental pilot scale plant provides real operating data validates process simulations 3 beds, 1m x 8 cm i.d. Simulation allows prediction of the effect of operating and design variables in-house simulation tools 29 PSA Cycle Design: Nine step cycle (product purge) W W I II III IV V VI VII F P P ITEM Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Bed 1 I II II III IV V VI VII VII Bed 2 VI VII VII I II II III IV V Bed 3 III IV V VI VII VII I II II 30
Performance Data for 6 and 9 step VSA cycles Performance 6-step Cycle no purge 9-Step cycle with purge Purity, % 82~83 90~95 Recovery, % 60~80 60~70 Power, kw/tpdc Power, MJ/kg CO2 4-8 8~12 0.35 to 0.7 0.7 to 1.0 Cycle can be optimised for specific feed gas - adsorbent combinations 31 Water: Not just an impurity Will our existing adsorbent (13X) tolerate high concentrations of water? What is the impact on process performance (purity, recovery, power) of high humidity flue gas streams Can we operate at elevated temperature? If water adversely affects CO2 capture plant performance, can we protect the adsorbent? What is the impact of impurities (SOx, NOX for post combustion, NH 3, H 2 S for pre-combustion) on adsorbents? 32
Water and Impurities - Multilayers 33 33 Current P/VSA process currently undergoing testing at a Power Plant Multi-step cycle with 3 beds including two pressure equalizations, heavy and light rinse, heavy purge effluent recycle Up to 1 TPDc Capable of deep vacuum (1-2 kpa) Wash tower will remove impurities and reduce water level. 34
Demonstration Plant in fabrication shop 35 Demonstration Plant 36
37
40
Conditions Flue Gas & Adsorbent Property Value CO 2, % 12 O 2, % 8 CO, ppm 40 NOx, ppm 170-250 SOx, ppm 60-270 H 2 O, % ~10 NaX Sorbead WS Manufacturer UOP BASF- Engelhard Mass in each 25.00 9.15 column(3:1),kg Mass in each 29.96 3.66 column(9:1),kg Price, US$/kg 11.18 7.10 Water capacity, 28 >34 wt% sat Structure Crystall ine Amorphous 41 Pressure Profiles with Simple Cycle (no Purge) 140 120 Pressure,kPa.a 100 80 60 40 20 PIT201 PIT203 PIT204 PIT205 PIT206 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Time,second 42
Preliminary Results 6-step without purge (Actual plant) Purity: ~71% Recovery: ~60% 6-step without purge (Simulation with void volume) Purity: ~70% Recovery: 75% 9-step with purge (Simulation with low void volume) Purity: 96% Recovery: 75% Power consumption: 12kW/TPD ~ 1 MJ/kg CO 2 captured 43 Engineering Issues Ash carryover from wash tower Water condensation in adsorption vessels Corrosion & Blockage in feed blower Large void space dilutes product % CO2 Partial fluidization at high gas velocity Main capture plant disruption 44
Water Condensation reduces pumping capacity 45 Void Volumes Simulations indicates a drop in purity of 5-10% 46
Conclusions CO2 Capture using adsorption processes is technically feasible but issues remain Scale-up is significant challenge Advantages of no waste, very limited water use Very simple process Significant improvements can be made using advanced adsorbents but must be careful of water and other impurities Adsorbent development must carefully consider the relationship to the process 47 48