Carbon capture options for refiners

An outline methodology identifies the most appropriate way to achieve a refinerys carbon capture goal
SUZANNE FERGUSON and MIKE STOCKLE Foster Wheeler

egardless of how well designed and operated a refinery is, there are always some unavoidable energy demands and carbon emissions. As concern over the impacts of carbon emissions grows and, around the world, government legislation controlling or putting a cost on carbon emissions comes into force, refineries are becoming increasingly concerned with cost-effectively minimising their carbon footprint. Greenfield development projects have the advantage of being able to design their processes for reduced CO2 emissions through process selection and choice of primary energy supply. However, both new and existing plants can consider the following options to reduce their carbon footprint:1 Efficiency improvements Fuel substitution Feedstock substitution Configuration modifications Carbon capture and storage. In this article, we will consider

the application of carbon capture to the refinery for carbon footprint reduction. It should be noted that a potentially profitable market for captured CO2, such as enhanced oil recovery, may also lead to the consideration of carbon capture and storage. Assuming that fugitive carbon losses are negligible, most of the carbon that enters the refinery leaves again in the form of hydrocarbon products, most of which will be combusted as fuels, emitting that carbon to the atmosphere. The processing of these products also contributes to their carbon footprint, since carbon is emitted due to the energy demand, or chemistry, of the refinery processes. Typically, around 5-10% of the crude feed to a refinery is lost as fuel in the refinery. The carbon emitted from the refinery is much easier to reduce than that emitted from, say, the exhaust pipe of a car. Hence, carbon captured from a refinery not only

reduces the refinerys overall emissions and carbon footprint, but also the embedded carbon of its products.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is the process of removing or reducing the CO2 content of streams normally released to the atmosphere and transporting that captured CO2 to a location for permanent storage. CCS can be applied to a wide range of large single-point sources, such as process streams, heater and boiler exhausts, and vents from a range of high CO2 footprint industries, including power generation, refining, natural gas treating, chemicals, cement production and steel production. There are three main classifications of technologies employed: Pre-combustion capture Post-combustion capture Oxyfuel combustion capture.

Introduction to carbon capture and storage

Vent Lean solvent

Drying and compression

CO2 export

Absorber
Flue gas

Direct contact cooler

Hex

Stripper

Excess water

Blower

Figure 1 Post-combustion flow scheme

www.eptq.com

PTQ Q2 2012 77

Air

ASU

Nitrogen

Oxygen

Water/steam

Drying and compression Heat recovery AGR process SRU and tail gas treating

CO2 export

Feedstock

Gasifier/ reformer

Shift reactor

Sulphur

Excess water

HP MP LP Steam

HP hydrogen

Figure 2 Pre-combustion flow scheme

Once captured, the CO2 is compressed, dried and transported to a suitable storage location such as a saline aquifer, depleted oil field (where enhanced oil recovery could be employed) or depleted gas field. Each CCS route described below comprises a group of technologies based on similar process flow schemes. For each method, an example process description and flow scheme are given and the key variations highlighted.

process may be coupled with a flue gas desulphurisation unit, allowing the direct contact cooler to be eliminated. Post-combustion CO2 capture is a simpler system than pre-combustion, described below, and can be combined with almost any type of combustion system. Very large single-point sources such as utilityscale power plants present a challenge in terms of maximum scale-up in a single leap. However,

the cooler, blower and absorber located as close as possible to each source (or group of sources), with the rich solvent then pumped to one or multiple solvent regeneration units and one or multiple compression units. This offers flexibility to fit in the large capture equipment around the existing, often crowded plot.

Pre-combustion CO2 capture

Post-combustion CO2 capture

Combustion flue gas is cooled by direct water contact before entering a blower designed to overcome the absorption system pressure drop. The flue gas enters the absorption column, where it is washed with a physical solvent such as monoethanolamine (MEA). The flue gas is scrubbed of up to 90% of its CO2 content and is returned to the combustor stack and released to atmosphere. The CO2-rich solvent is then heated against lean solvent and regenerated in a stripping column. The solvent then returns to the absorption column, while the released CO2 is dried and compressed for export. The highlight of the post-combustion process is that it is suited not only to new installations but may also be retrofitted to existing plants (see Figure 1). There are variations on this postcombustion scheme: A range of processes exists utilising different solvents: MEA, ammonia, sterically hindered MEA and even seawater For high-sulphur feeds, the

Depending on the specific site, post-combustion carbon capture could be applied to a number of refinery flue gas sources at the same time
the scheme shown above has already been demonstrated for many years for the production of CO2 for use in the food and chemicals industries. Some of these plants are already at an appropriate size to capture CO2 from point sources the size of refinery-fired heaters and boilers.2,3 Depending on the specific site, post-combustion carbon capture could be applied to a number of refinery flue gas sources at the same time (such as fired heaters, FCC, hydrogen production units), with

A hydrocarbon feedstock is fed to an oxygen- or air-blown pressurised gasifier or reformer, where it is converted to syngas. The syngas is then passed through a shift reactor, which increases the hydrogen and CO2 content of the syngas. This high-pressure, high-temperature syngas is then cooled before being washed with a solvent to absorb the CO2, leaving an essentially pure hydrogen stream and a CO2-rich solvent stream. The solvent regeneration process then releases a CO2 stream, which can be dried and compressed for export. This process offers a high degree of integration potential, as it generates a pure, high-pressure hydrogen stream, and the syngas cooling train can be used to raise a significant quantity of high-, medium- and lowpressure steam (see Figure 2). There are variations on this precombustion scheme: A range of coals, petcoke, fuel oils, municipal solid waste and biomass can be used as gasifier feedstock Natural gas and light liquid feedstocks can be used with a reformer A range of CO2 solvent removal systems are available such as

78 PTQ Q2 2012

www.eptq.com

Selexol and methyl-diethanolamine (MDEA), as well as alternative technologies such as membranes and pressure swing absorption. The most frequently considered application of pre-combustion carbon capture is a power plant in which the hydrogen-rich stream is combusted in a gas turbine and the steam raised during syngas heat recovery is utilised, along with heat recovered from the gas turbine exhaust, in a steam turbine to form a combined-cycle plant such as an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plant. However, the scheme above could similarly be used on a refinery for co-generation of low embedded carbon hydrogen, steam and heat to be supplied to other refinery units or with a steam turbine to raise power. The acid gas removal step is typically characterised by its high-pressure syngas feedstock composed of mainly hydrogen, CO2 and carbon monoxide. The same acid gas removal process can therefore also be applied to similar syngases in processes such as steam methane reformer (SMR) hydrogen production, natural gas treating and ammonia production. This route could also be used for decarbonisation of refinery fuel gas. The pre-combustion scheme can also be used for repowering an existing gas turbine power island or any burner that is capable of switching to decarbonised syngas, with or without burner modification.

combusted with oxygen from an air separation unit. The temperature in the boiler is moderated by recycling a portion of the flue gas back to the combustion chamber. The flue gas passes through particle removal by electrostatic precipitator, sulphur removal by limestone scrubbing and water removal by cooling and condensation. The remaining flue gas has a high concentration of CO2, which can then be purified, dried and compressed for export (see Figure 3).

Addition of an air separation unit can allow any boiler or fired heater to be converted to oxy-firing
Variations on the oxyfuel flow scheme are: A range of fuels can be used in an oxyfuel flow scheme A similar scheme has also been proposed for the conversion of gas turbines to use oxygen in place of air. The most discussed application of oxyfuel carbon capture is for newbuild, large-scale power production. However, addition of an air separation unit, sealing the system against air ingress and burner modification, if necessary, can allow any boiler or fired heater to be converted to oxy-

firing. Careful consideration must be made with respect to design temperatures and pressure of the existing boiler or heater when applying oxyfuel carbon capture as a retrofit. Oxyfuel carbon capture aims to increase the partial pressure of the combustion flue gas by effectively eliminating the large volume flow of nitrogen found in systems fired using air as their oxidant. This is done in order to remove the process step in both the pre- and post-combustion carbon capture flow schemes in which CO2 must be separated from a stream largely composed of other gases. This therefore results in smaller volumes of equipment and fewer processing steps; however, an air separation unit must be added.

Where is the carbon emitted on a refinery?

The processing of crude oil into products requires energy in the form of heat and power, as well as some chemical reactions, all of which result in the emission of CO2 to the atmosphere from the refinery site (assuming power is produced on site from the combustion of hydrocarbons or coke).

Utilities area: power and steam production

Oxyfuel combustion CO2 capture

In this process, the fuel

is

All combustion-based power generation will emit CO2. However, different fuels and different methods will result in a variety of flue gas compositions and conditions. For example, gas turbine generator (GTG) flue gas will be characterised

Air

ASU

Nitrogen Flue gas recycle

Limestone slurry

Oxygen

Drying and compression Sulphur removal Cooler/ condenser

CO2 export

Fuel

Oxyfuel boiler

Particle remover

Ash

Fly ash

Gypsum

Water

Figure 3 Oxyfuel flow scheme

www.eptq.com

PTQ Q2 2012 79

by low CO2 concentration (3%), low temperature (if a heat recovery steam generator is also used) and low sulphur content, whereas a coal- or coke-fired boiler will have a much higher CO2 content (10%) and potentially much higher sulphur content.

Process unit emissions: CDU, VDU, CCR

Emissions from the process units are characterised by their variety. Most emissions are due to the combustion of hydrocarbon fuels for process heating, while other emissions are waste streams from the unit operation processes, such as sulphur removal unit tail gas treatment. Units with often particularly large process heaters include the CDU, VDU, CCR and visbreaker. Units with smaller heaters include the NHT, DHT and SRU.

methods of steam and power generation, since it treats the flue gas downstream of the emission source with little or no impact on the upstream operations, proving there is plot space available for ducting and/or the absorption section of the process close to the flue gas source(s). The current state-of-theart post-combustion capture technologies can be applied to any flue gas, although some may be more appropriate than others if there is, for example, a significant sulphur content or very low CO2 partial pressure. Case-by-case technology selection is therefore recommended. Pre-combustion CO2 capture can be applied to any steam and power systems that can be fired on a high hydrogen content gas. This is done by decarbonising the fuel gas

feeding the remaining hydrogenrich gas to the CHP. Alternatively, if the utilities systems are fired on refinery fuel gas, this can be collected and reformed at a central location, and the resulting decarbonised fuel gas used anywhere on the refinery site, effectively decarbonising all refinery fuel gas users at once. Oxyfuel CO2 capture can be applied to all of those steam and power systems that can be sealed to air ingress and whose burner systems and design conditions can tolerate switching to operation in a fuel-CO2-water + oxygen regime as opposed to a fuel + air regime. At the moment, this is mostly limited to boilers and fired heaters, although research is ongoing into the modification of gas turbines to fire in oxyfuel mode.

Hydrogen plant

For those refineries that have one or more hydrogen production units (HPUs), this unit contributes a significant proportion of the sites carbon emissions. This is due to the chemistry of the hydrogen production process, which results in the atmospheric emission of nearly 100% of the carbon content of the feedstock stream.

Some carbon capture methods are more appropriate than others, depending on the methods employed on a particular site
upstream of the combustion location using the process described in the previous section. For this capture method, it is not necessary to have the carbon capture equipment located adjacent to the boiler or gas turbine; instead, the carbon capture equipment can be located remotely and the decarbonised fuel transported to the utilities area. Pre-combustion carbon capture can allow either a single fuel to a single unit to be decarbonised, or it could be applied to the whole refinery fuel gas system. If a site has a large power island fired on a single fuel, such as a natural gas-fired combined heat and power unit, it may be more sensible to add precombustion CO2 capture by reforming the natural gas, shifting the syngas to hydrogen and CO2, then removing the CO2 before

Carbon capture options for process unit heaters

Similar to the discussion for the utilities area, post-, pre- and oxyfuel CO2 capture could all be applied to process unit heaters. The characteristics of the flue gases and the fired heaters should be considered carefully when selecting the best option for each process unit.

Pre-combustion

Fluidised catalytic cracker

The catalyst used in the FCC process becomes coated in coke in the FCC reactor and is continuously regenerated by burning this coke off the catalyst in an adjacent vessel. The resulting exhaust gas is therefore high in CO2.

If a process unit contains several small heaters fired on refinery fuel gas in a very congested plot, the only feasible option for reduction of the units CO2 footprint may be to decarbonise the refinery fuel gas to this unit, assuming there is space to add the necessary equipment elsewhere on the site.

Carbon capture options for steam and power generation in the general utilities area

Post-combustion and oxy-combustion

Steam and power generation in the utilities area is achieved using a broad range of different fuels and methods, from coal or heavy fuel oil boilers to natural gas-fired gas turbine generators. Some carbon capture methods are more appropriate than others, depending on the methods employed on a particular site. Post-combustion CO2 capture can be applied to all combustion-based

If a process units heaters are fired on various fuels or waste streams generated within the unit, either post-combustion or oxyfuel combustion are likely to be more appropriate if space is available for the capture equipment. If the heaters can be sealed against air ingress and an air separation unit added to the site, oxy-combustion may be a good option. Applying oxy-combustion to an existing heater requires review

www.eptq.com

PTQ Q2 2012 81

Reformer flue gas

Syngas

aMDEA syngas scrubbing

Captured CO2

CO2 compression and drying

CO2 export New scope

Decarbonised syngas Natural gas feed Natural gas for reformer firing Syngas

Reforming

Shift

PSA unit

Hydrogen product

PSA offgas

Figure 4 SMR with PSA pre-combustion carbon capture

Decarbonised flue gas CO2 lean MEA Captured CO2

Reformer flue gas

CO2 absorption

MEA regeneration

CO2 compression and drying

CO2 export New scope

CO2 rich MEA Natural gas feed Natural gas for reformer firing Syngas Syngas

Reforming

Shift

PSA unit

Hydrogen product

PSA offgas

Figure 5 SMR post-combustion carbon capture

Captured CO2 Reformer flue gas

CO2 compression and drying

CO2 export New scope

Natural gas feed Natural gas for reformer firing

Reforming

Syngas

Shift

Syngas Amine/Benfield

unit

Methanation

Hydrogen product

Figure 6 SMR non-PSA pre-combustion carbon capture

and likely modification of the burners, as well as careful checking that the equipment can tolerate safe operation at modified temperatures and pressures without exceeding the design conditions. Ducting must also be added in order to recirculate the CO2-rich recycle stream to the heater inlet along with the addition of particulates and sulphur removal

(depending on the fuel used), water removal, and CO2 purification and compression. Post-combustion CO2 capture is often likely to be the simplest capture method to add to an existing unit, as long as its plot and/or surroundings are not too congested. Applying post-combustion capture requires re-routing the flue gas to

cooling and sulphur removal (if sulphur removal is required, depending on the fuel composition and capture technology selection), the CO2 absorption step, then returning the scrubbed flue gas to the stack and sending the absorption media for either local or central regeneration. It is necessary to minimise the distance between the

82 PTQ Q2 2012

www.eptq.com

Decarbonised flue gas CO2 lean MEA Reformer flue gas

CO2 absorption

MEA regeneration
Captured CO2

CO2 compression and drying

CO2 export New scope

CO2 rich MEA Natural gas feed Natural gas for reformer firing Syngas

Reforming

Shift

Syngas Amine/Benfield

unit

Methanation

Hydrogen product

Figure 7 SMR non-PSA pre- and post-combustion carbon capture

flue gas source, CO2 absorption and the stack, as this minimises pressure drop and hence minimises the blower power. This, in turn, reduces the parasitic power load from CO2 capture to a minimum. Most current state-of-the-art postcombustion processes can allow for the absorption media to be transported some distance to be regenerated at a remote location. This is particularly useful if space is limited around the CO2 source or if it is required to capture CO2 from a number of sources that are distributed around different areas of a site. This second consideration allows economies of scale for the absorbent regeneration and CO2 compression steps in the capture process.

Carbon capture options for the hydrogen plant

SMR hydrogen plants contribute a significant proportion of the overall

CO2 footprint of many refineries and are a major single-point CO2 emission source, since in most SMR hydrogen plants almost all the carbon in the feed gas is ultimately discharged as CO2. The emissions from the hydrogen plant have a high partial pressure of CO2 compared to most flue gases, making them very attractive for post-combustion CO2 capture. However, the SMR process can be easily modified for pre-combustion carbon capture, so the choice of technology is not obvious. Two main SMR process routes are currently in use, with the vast majority of more modern plants using the PSA-based process route. For the PSA-based plant, a convenient solution for capturing most of the CO2 is the installation of a new aMDEA amine wash unit between the existing CO shift and the PSA unit. By this route, typically 50% of the CO2 can be captured.

Alternatively, post-combustion capture can be applied instead to the SMR reformer flue gas in order to capture 90% of the CO2. Some older hydrogen plants use liquid wash (typically, amine or Benfield) to remove CO2 from the shifted gas instead of the PSA unit. In these plants, the CO2 removed is available as a concentrated stream at around 1.2 bar in the existing plant and can go straight to compression/drying. Since the reformer is natural gas-fired, postcombustion CCS can optionally be applied. These capture options are shown in Figures 4, 5, 6 and 7. Foster Wheeler has previously compared the following options: Pre-combustion capture on HPU syngas between the shift reactor and the PSA unit Post-combustion capture on the HPU reformer itself (where the reformer is fired on PSA tail-gas) Post-combustion carbon capture

Treated flue gas

Catalyst to FCC reactor

FCC regenerator

Stack

CO2 absorption
Rich solvent

CO2 stripping
Lean solvent Steam

CO2

Compression and dehydration

CO2 export

Catalyst from FCC reactor

Figure 8 Refinery FCC post-combustion case

www.eptq.com

PTQ Q2 2012 83

Air

ASU

Nitrogen Flue gas recycle

Limestone slurry CO2

Oxygen Catalyst to FCC reactor

Compression and dehydration

CO2 export

FCC regenerator

Particle remover

Sulphur removal

Cooler/ condenser

Catalyst from FCC reactor

Catalyst particles

Gypsum

Water

Figure 9 FCC with oxyfuel combustion carbon capture

on other refinery-fired heaters, fired on natural gas. In this particular study, both of the HPU carbon capture options (first and second options) delivered significant CO2 emissions reductions at a lower project cost (both capital and operating) than applying postcombustion capture to the other refinery-fired heaters on the site.

a mass rate of carbon dioxide product, or even the quantity of capital to invest. At this stage, it is also important to ensure that a destination for the captured CO2 will be available. This might be a customer who intends to use the CO2 for enhanced oil recovery, or a pipeline and saline aquifer for permanent sequestration.

Technology selection

Carbon capture options for FCCU

The FCC unit is another key CO2 emitter. However, since its carbon source is the process of regenerating the FCC catalyst, pre-combustion carbon capture is not an option. Both post-combustion and oxycombustion are feasible options for the FCC unit. For the post-combustion case, more sulphur removal is likely to be required compared with a coal or natural gas boiler flue gas. However, the concentration of CO2 in the stream is higher, and hence the absorption column and cooler can be smaller in diameter. Otherwise, the post-combustion scheme is identical to the boiler flue gas process (see Figure 8). Application of oxyfuel combustion to the FCC regenerator is also similar to the boiler application (see Figure 9).

Material balance

Applying carbon capture to the refinery Setting the goal

When applying carbon capture to a specific refinery, it is important to consider what the goal of the project will be; for example, a set target carbon capture percentage, or

Once the goal of the capture project has been set, the carbon balance of the refinery should be quantified, typically using LP modelling. This allows the largest single-point emitters to be identified as well as potential groupings of smaller emitters. The CO2 concentration, impurities content and other key factors such as nearby plot constraints should also be noted for each CO2 source. This information allows the CO2 emissions sources to be prioritised for carbon capture, with those with easiest capture (high quantity and or concentration of CO2, with sufficient space nearby) at the top of the list and those to which it would be much more difficult to apply carbon capture (small quantity and low concentration, with significant impurities and very constrained plot) at the bottom of the list. At the end of this stage of the project, it should be easy to identify where quick wins can be made in terms of reducing the refinery carbon footprint and maximising the quantity of CO2 captured, for minimum effort and investment.

The most appropriate method of carbon capture should then be identified for each CO2 emissions source, or group of sources. Typical sitespecific studies to be undertaken in order to do this would include: Pre-combustion, post-combustion and oxyfuel capture options for power generation in the general utilities area Post-combustion capture versus oxyfuel capture for existing refinery heaters review heaters or groups of heaters covering small-, mediumand large-scale duties Review decarbonising refinery fuel gas using pre-combustion capture facilities to maximise the hydrogen content of fuel and allow partial decarbonisation of small CO2 point sources Review pre-combustion and postcombustion capture options for the hydrogen plant Review of capture technology options on the FCC unit. These studies need not be performed for every emission source on the refinery. Instead, they can be applied to typical sources and then their results extrapolated to the other, similar sources.

Propose design solution

Once the technology selection stage has been completed, an action plan for applying carbon capture in order to achieve the goal of the project can be identified. If there are a number of different options, it may be most appropriate to select the best case by using LP modelling, as described in

84 PTQ Q2 2012

www.eptq.com

Characterisation of CO2 emission sources

CO2 mass rate, CO2 concentration, Notes kg/h mol% GTGs 10 145 8.5 Fuel oil boilers 10 435 13.0 Variable, high-sulphur content, limited space available Natural gas/refinery Large plot area can be made available to fuel gas boilers 39 200 (total) 8.5 the north of the process, close to boundary FCC 51 400 16 200 ppm sulphur HPU 32 000 20 Space available to south if storage area relocated CDU 31 182 7.9 VDU 9213 7.9 CCR 28 352 7.9 Visbreaker 16 950 13.0 NHT 4040 7.9 DHT 5044 7.9 FCC NHT 3607 7.9 SRU 125 n/a

Table 1

detail in a previous Foster Wheeler paper.4

Case study

Our case study refinery is based on a theoretical FCC/visbreaker-based refinery processing 235 000 b/d of Urals crude. The refinery is powered by gas turbine generators with additional power imported over the fence, with steam generation by one old heavy fuel oil boiler and 3 x 150 MMBTU new natural gas-fired boilers. The refinery has a 50 000 b/d FCC unit and a single 40 000 Nm3/h PSA-based SMR hydrogen production unit. The target for the carbon capture project is to identify the lowest cost (capital and operating) method for capturing 100 t/h of CO2 to be exported to a pipeline and utilised by a third party for enhanced oil recovery. The material balance shows that CO2 is emitted in the breakdown of areas in Table 1. High-level design and economic analysis of a number of options showed that the lowest-cost solution to achieve the project goal was to: Apply a dedicated 90% postcombustion capture unit to the FCC flue gas (absorption, stripping and low-pressure CO2 compression) with tailored sulphur removal by hydroxide dosing in the direct contact cooler, capturing 46 260 kg/h CO2

Apply a dedicated 90% postcombustion capture unit to the HPU reformer flue gas (absorption, stripping and low-pressure CO2 compression) capturing 28 800 kg/h CO2 Duct the flue gases from the 3 x 150 MMBTU natural gas-fired boilers in the utilities area to a single dedicated 90% post-combustion capture unit (absorption, stripping and low-pressure CO2 compression) Install high-pressure CO2 compression, dehydration and pumping facility common to all three capture units adjacent to utility boiler capture unit. The overall material balance shows that applying this scheme delivers a CO2 footprint reduction of 31% for the overall site (including 25 200 kg/h additional CO2, which is emitted due to the generation of additional steam and power used by the capture and compression facilities). If further CO2 capture were required for future development, the recommended next steps might be to: Duct the flue gases from gas turbine generators in the utilities area to a single dedicated 90% post-combustion capture unit (absorption, stripping and lowpressure CO2 compression) Decarbonise refinery fuel gas and eliminate heavy fuel oil firing by adding a refinery fuel gas reformer and a heavy fuel oil gasifier, with

shift unit and acid gas removal unit (AGRU) common to both syngas producers Modify heavy fuel oil boilers to fire on decarbonised refinery fuel gas Modify process unit heaters to fire on decarbonised refinery fuel gas, if modification required Slightly expand sulphur unit capacity to process the additional stream from refinery fuel gas decarbonisation AGRU. The costs both in capital and operating terms for carbon capture are significant and, to make capture economic compared to emitting the carbon, a carbon tax or subsidy is required. The level of tax required is dependent on many factors, but recent Foster Wheeler studies indicate this needs to be $60/tonne of CO2 or more to make projects economically viable.

Challenges in implementation

We have seen that the technologies exist to allow a significant reduction in the carbon emissions from a refinery, but converting this theoretical reduction of carbon into something that can actually be achieved faces a number of challenges. We have already seen that the economics of these projects require a value of carbon higher than that currently being achieved in most locations, but the barriers are not just economic. For a new refinery, many of the challenges can be overcome in the design phase, but for existing plants the impacts on plot plan, existing utilities and infrastructure, and on refinery operations can drive which solutions are most economic or even which are viable. Depending on the technologies selected, the refinery could need to install: A new amine wash unit Additional steam and power capacity Additional cooling water capacity Solvent-based capture and regeneration facilities (possibly multiple absorbers) CO2 compression Significant large-scale ducting to get the flue gases to the capture facilities.

86 PTQ Q2 2012

www.eptq.com

Often the biggest challenge will be the plot layout and constructability issues associated with the facilities. This is where an experienced contractor who is used to working in congested locations with difficult access can be invaluable in ensuring a viable, constructible option is selected.

that are not advantaged in this way.

Selexol is a trademark of UOP.

Conclusions

This article has discussed the application of carbon capture and storage technology to a refinery, and has considered the merits of the main methods of capture, pre-, post- and oxyfuel-combustion capture, to the range of different CO2 emission sources. An outline methodology has also been described as a starting point for identifying the most appropriate way to achieve a given carbon capture goal for a refinery. This methodology is characterised by the following steps: Set the target Perform carbon balance Select applicable technologies Propose design solutions to achieve goal (including assessing constructability) Assess a number of possible solutions by LP modelling. Finally, a case study has been included in order to illustrate one potential scheme for reducing the CO2 emissions from an example refinery, with the goal of exporting 100 tonnes per hour of CO2. The hurdles to wide-scale implementation of carbon capture on refineries are now more about economics and where the carbon is disposed of rather than the technical challenges of capturing the CO2. Significant capital and operating costs are associated with carbon capture on the refinery and these costs would need to be offset against the cost of carbon emissions or other forms of subsidy to make capture projects economically viable. Where the carbon is stored is critical, and locations with easier access to oil fields needing EOR or those facilities that are able to share in larger carbon storage pipeline networks will be able to adopt the technology more readily than those

References 1 Ferguson S, Planning for carbon capture, PTQ, April 2010. 2 http://www.mhi.co.jp/en/products/expand/ km-cdr_experiences_03.html 3 http://www.fluor.com/econamine/Pages/ faqs.aspx 4 Stockle M, Carter D, Jones L, Optimising refinery CO2 emissions, PTQ, Q1 2008.

Suzanne Ferguson is Leader of the Carbon Capture team in Foster Wheelers Business Solutions Group, where she has worked on a range of CCS studies, FEED and pre-FEED projects. She is a chartered chemical engineer with an MEng (Hons) in chemical engineering from the University of Surrey. Email: suzanne_ferguson@fwuk.fwc.com Mike Stockle is Chief Engineer, Refining Technology, in Foster Wheelers Business Solutions Group in Reading, UK. He is an experienced LP modeller and has undertaken a number of feasibility and front-end studies. He graduated from Nottingham University and is a Fellow of the IChemE.

www.eptq.com

PTQ Q2 2012 87