Modeling Activities Related to Carbon Capture

Michael Matuszewski
14 June 2016

Challenge: Accelerate Development/Scale Up

Traditional time to deploy new technology in the power industry

Laboratory
Development
10-15 years

Process Scale Up
20-30 years

1 kWe

1 MWe

10 MWe

100 MWe

500 MWe

Accelerated deployment timeline

2010

2015

2020

500 MWe

100 MWe

10 MWe

1 MWe

Process Scale Up
15 years

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

dly synthesize
ed processes to
romising concepts

nal Labs

For Accelerating Technology Development

Better understand internal

behavior to reduce time for
troubleshooting

Academia

Quantify sources and effects of

uncertainty to guide testing &
reach larger scales faster

Stabilize the co
commercial de

Industry

Goals & Objectives of CCSI

velop new computational tools and models to enable industry to more rapidly deve
deploy new advanced energy technologies
Base development on industry needs/constraints

monstrate the capabilities of the CCSI Toolset on non-proprietary case studies

Examples of how new capabilities improve ability to develop capture technology

ploy the CCSI Toolset to industry

T&E licenses, CRADA
Commercialization activities

vanced Computational Tools to Accelerate Carbon Captu

Technology Development
Lab & Pilot Scale
Experiments & Data

Physical Properties
Kinetics
Thermodynamics

Process Systems

Device Scale Models

Design, Optimization & Control

Validated 3-D, CFD

CCSI Toolset Workflow and Connections

Superstructure Optimization

Models

Utility Out

Data Management
Framework

Algebraic
Surrogate Models

CFD Device Models

CCSI$CFD$Validation$Hierarchy$fo
Utility In

Data
dels

Demonstration and
Full Scale Systems

25%MWe,%1
650%M
Solid%Sorbe

1%MWe%
Capture

Pilot Scale
Systems

Simulation-Based
Optimization

NETL%Carbon%Cap
Reactin

Optimized
Process

Laboratory Scale
Subsystem
(Decoupled
benchmark cases)

Intermediate
Validation
(Adsorber without
reactions and heat
transfer)
Upscaling
(flow filtering)

24

Uncertainty
Quantification

S3

CYC-001

Unit
Problems

SHX-001

ADS-001

11

16

CPT-001

15
10

S1

Legend

S4

RGN-001

Flue Gas

19

Clean Gas
Rich CO2 Gas

Lean Sorbent

ELE-001

Rich Sorbent
LP/IP Steam

21

ELE-002

HX Fluid
Injected Steam

CPP-002

Cooling Water

CPR-002
4

GHX-001

CPR-001

GHX-002
S2

2
12

Parallel
ADS Units

3
6

SHX-002

14

S5
18

13

17
S6

22

20
23

Process Dynamics
and Control

Hydrodynamics
of Bubbling
Fluidized Bed

Upsca
(heat tr
filter

Non-rea
flow and
transfe
cooling

Solid Sorbent Process Models

0.14

0.1
0.08
0.06

Compression System Model

Integral-gear and inline compressors
Determines stage required stages, intercoolers
Based on impeller speed limitations
Estimates stage efficiency
CO2 drying (TEG absorption system)
Off-design performance.
Includes surge control algorithm

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

z/L

Solid Component Flow Profile of MB Regenerator

1000

Bicarb.

kmol/hr

0.04

Moving Bed (MB) Model

1-D, nonisothermal with heat exchange
Unified steady-state and dynamic
Adsorber and Regenerator
Heat recovery system

CO2
H2O

0.12

yb (kmol/kmol)

Bubbling Fluidized Bed (BFB) Model

1-D, nonisothermal with heat exchange
Unified steady-state and dynamic
Adsorber and Regenerator
Variable solids inlet and outlet location
Modular for multiple bed configurations

Carb.

HO
2

800
600
400
200
0

0.5
z/L

Device Scale (CFD) Models for Solid Sorbents

Particle clusters: mm

Actual device scale: ~10m

Bench top scale: ~10cm

Particle: 118 micron

1D Hollow Fiber Membrane Model

Isothermal
Shell Feed
Perfectly cylindrical
fibers

Shell flow evenly

distributed
Counter-current flow
Dense skin layer faces
the shell side

Membrane System Decision Variables

To Stack

Flue Gas
Feed pressure prior
M-1 Capture Fraction
to M1

M-2 Capture Fraction

M-1

M-2
To Boiler

Vacuum inlet
pressure

M-3 Capture Fraction

M-3

Vacuum pumps

Liquefaction
Temperature and
Pressure
Multistage compression

Multistage
compression

CO2Sequestration

Three stages configuration with sweep air to 2nd stage membrane and CO2 recycling to
1st stage membrane (Merkel et al.,2010)

How to develop a gold standard solvent model?

Measurement
Uncertainty

Pilot/
Commercial
Scale Data

Lab Scale
Data

Process UQ

Steady-State and Dynamic

Process Model

WWC/Bench/Pilot
Scale Data

Measurement
Uncertainty

Proper0es Package
Chemistry Model
Thermodynamic
Models

Measurement
Uncertainty

Transport
Models

UQ

UQ

Process Sub-Models
Kine5c model

Hydrodynamic
Models

Mass Transfer
Models

Test Runs at National Carbon Capture

Center, AL: Steady-State Runs
All possible combinations of
different operating conditions
tested

Operating Conditions

Range

Solvent Flow (lb/hr)

7,000-26,000

Inlet Flue Gas (lb/hr)

5,000-6,500

Reboiler Steam Flow (lb/hr)

600-2,500

6.0

Inlet FG CO2 vol%

9-11%

4.0

# of beds

1-3

Intercooler

no - yes

L/G

Steady-State Test Matrix

2.0
0.0
0
1000
2000
3000
Reboiler Steam Flow (lb/hr)

Steady State Regenerator Validation

Lean Loading Comparison

Lean Solvent Temperature Comparison

Model Stripper Bottom

Temperature (C)

125
120
115
110
105
100
100

105

110

115

120

Data Stripper Bottom Temperature (C)

Sample Temperature Profiles
Case K1

Case K9

Case K10

125

6500

90.0

CO2 captured (%)

Lean Solvent to absorber (kg/h)

Absorber Validation with DDR

6100
5700
5300
4900

85.0
80.0
75.0
70.0
65.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

0.0

0.5

1.5

2.0

Time (h)

2700

98

CO2 captured (%)

Flue gas flowrate to absorber

(kg/h)

Time (h)

1.0

2500
2300
2100
1900

96
94
92
90
88
86

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Time (h)

0.8

1.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Time (h)

0.8

CFD Hierarchy for Solvent-based Capture

Enable predictive understanding and prediction at scale
by developing a hierarchical multi-scale modeling
framework
Micro/Meso-Scale
VOF model
Replace structure by an effective stationary
porous phase (porous media)

Macro-scale
Two Fluid model

Use closure models (interfacial area; interphase

interaction terms) developed from VOF
simulations
Fernandes et al., JSF, 2009

Effective mass transfer

coefficient for different flow
regimes
Raynal et al., Workshop, 2012

Application to Pilot-Scale Post-Combustion Ca

Carbon Capture Simulation for Industry Impact

Lab$&$Pilot$Scale
Experiments$&$Data

lerated deployment timeline

2015

2020

Physical$Properties
Kinetics
Thermodynamics

500 MWe

100 MWe

10 MWe

1 MWe

Process Scale Up
15 years

2025

Process$Systems

Device Scale$Mo

Design,$Optimization$&$Control

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

Validated$3;D,$CF

Carbon Capture Simulation Initiative Toolset Support

Carbon Capture Simulation for Industry Impact

with industry partners on pilot projects

nsure success & maximize learning at this scale
Data collection & experimental design
Develop & Validate models
UQ to identify critical data

Develop demonstration plant design

Utilize optimization tools (OUU, Heat Integration)
Quantitative confidence on predicted
performance
Predict dynamic performance

, LANL, PNNL, WVU, U of Texas

-FY20: $2.2M/year (Carbon Capture)

Supports ongoing CCSI users

Supports CCSI2
Ensures CCSI capabilities continue to be availa
until they are commercially supported
Limited development of new capabilities to sup
specific needs encountered by CCSI2 & other u
Toolset licensing
Continuation of Industry Advisory Board
August 8-12 with NETL CO2 Capture Mtg

NETL, LBNL, LLNL, Princeton, CMU

FY16-FY18: $2.1M/year (Crosscutting, CUS)

Large Pilot-Scale Post-Combustion Capture Projects

Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois (Champaign, IL)

Abbott Power Plant on the campus of the University of Illinois
Linde/BASFs amine-based advanced CO2 capture absorption system
Partners are the Linde Group, BASF, Burns & McDonnell, and Affiliated Engineers Inc.
University of Kentucky Research Foundation (Lexington, KY)
Partners are EPRI, Koch Modular Process Systems, WorleyParsons, Smith Management Group, and
CMTA Consulting Engineers.
NRG Energy Inc. (Princeton, NJ)
Inventyss VeloxoTherm
Alstom Power Inc. (Windsor, CT)
Alstoms chilled ammonia process (CAP) CO2 capture technology.
Partners are Technology Centre Mongstad, Georgia Institute of Tech, GE Power & WaterPurecowa
and ElectroSep Inc.
Southern Company Services (SCS) (Birmingham, AL)
Amine-based CO2 capture process at SCSs Plant Barry
Partners are AECOM and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America.
General Electric CompanyGE Global Research (Oklahoma City, OK)
Aminosilicone CO2 capture system, a non-aqueous chemical solvent
Partner is Test Centre Mongstad.

Acknowledgements

SorbentFit

David Mebane (NETL/ORISE, West Virginia University)

Joel Kress (LANL)

Process Models

Solid sorbents: Debangsu Bhattacharyya, Srinivasarao Modekurti, Ben Omell (West Virginia University), Andrew Lee, Hosoo Kim, Juan Morinelly, Yang Chen
Solvents: Joshua Morgan, Anderson Soares Chinen, Benjamin Omell, Debangsu Bhattacharyya (WVU), Gary Rochelle and Brent Sherman (UT, Austin)
MEA validation data: NCCC staff (John Wheeldon and his team)

FOQUS

ALAMO: Nick Sahinidis, Alison Cozad, Zach Wilson (CMU), David Miller (NETL)
Superstructure: Nick Sahinidis, Zhihong Yuan (CMU), David Miller (NETL)
DFO: John Eslick (CMU), David Miller (NETL)
Heat Integration: Yang Chen, Ignacio Grossmann (CMU), David Miller (NETL)
UQ: Charles Tong, Brenda Ng, Jeremey Ou (LLNL)
OUU: DFO Team, UQ Team, Alex Dowling (CMU)
D-RM Builder: Jinliang Ma (NETL)
Turbine: Josh Boverhof, Deb Agarwal (LBNL)
SimSinter: Jim Leek (LLNL), John Eslick (CMU)

Data Management

Tom Epperly (LLNL), Deb Agarwal, You-Wei Cheah (LBNL)

CFD Models and Validation

Xin Sun, Jay Xu, Kevin Lai, Wenxiao Pan, Wesley Xu, Greg Whyatt, Charlie Freeman (PNNL), Curt Storlie, Peter Marcey, Brett Okhuysen (LANL), S. Sundare
Ozel (Princeton), Janine Carney, Rajesh Singh, Jeff Dietiker, Tingwen Li (NETL) Emily Ryan, William Lane (Boston University)

s presenta5on 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
kes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any informa5on, apparatus, product, or proce
its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specic commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise
s5tute or imply its endorsement, recommenda5on, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do no
those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.