Log In Sign Up

Explore

A two-pressure levels steam bottoming cycle was considered with high pressure (HP) steam at 40 bar and 450 C, and low pressure (LP) steam at 2.5 bar and 168.1 C. Heat recoveries from dierent cycle sectionsin addition to the heat recovery steam gener- ator (HRSG) from GT exhaustshave been arranged in order to maximise the produced steam ow rate.Fig. 9, shows the steam cycle scheme.
v v

5. Results

The simulation results are reported inTable 7. Syngas compression work represents a high fraction of the total combined cycle power out- put, about 18.5%, and quite greatly contributes to the e ciency reduction with respect to a pressurised coal IGCC (46.6%) in a conventional conguration or with CO2chemical absorp- tion (38.8%)[8]. The two steam extractions from the steam turbinein order to supply the duty for amine regeneration and for shift reaction steamalso largely aect the global performance. As a mat- ter of fact, 4.55 eciency points are lost due to the amine regeneration duty requirement and 55.5 eciency points are lost due to the duty required for shift reaction steam supplying. Specic CO2emission can be directly compared with values obtained from previous studies [8]for a conventional coal IGCC725 kg CO2=MW hand a coal IGCC with CO2 removal 130 kg CO2=MW h. Specic CO2emission can also be compared with other published results[4]: pulverised coal (PC) conventional steam cycle 800 kg CO2=MWh; conventional coal IGCC 760 kg CO2=MW h; PC with CO2 chemical absorption (MEA or DEA) 100 kg CO2=MW h; PC with

CO2membrane separation 250 kg CO2=MW h; coal IGCC with shift reaction and CO2 chemical absorption 40 kg CO2=MW h. Similar data can be found in Refs.[3] and[9] and are reported inTable 8. Specic CO2emission in the case of semi-closed GT combined cycle (SCGT/CC) is 388 kg CO2=MW h and it is 65 kg CO2=MW h when chemical absorption is applied[10].
Table 7 IBGCC DeCO2simulation results Fuel compressor [kW] 37 929 GT compressor [kW] 192 666 GT power [kW] 149 347 HP steam turbine [kW] 37 255 LP steam turbine [kW] 17 900 Steam cycle power [kW] 55 155 CC power [kW] 204 502 CC eciency [%] 36.27 CO2specic emission kgCO2=MW h

167 CO2 specic emission kgCO2=kgBIOMASS

0.305 A. Corti, L. Lombardi / Energy 29 (2004) 21092124 2118

IBGCC DeCO2 has denitely a better conversion eciency and CO2 specic emission with respect to biomass direct combustion in steam cycle conguration23% and about 1400 kg CO2=MW h[11].
6. Life cycle assessment

According to the denition of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry[12]: Life Cycle Assessment is a process to evaluate the environmental burdens associated with a product, process, or activity by identifying and quantifying energy and materials used and wastes released to the environment; to assess the impact of those energy and materials uses and releases to the environment; and to identify and evaluate opportunities to aect environmental improvements. The assessment includes the entire life-cycle of the product, process, or activity, encompassing extracting and processing raw materials; manufacturing;

transportation and dis- tribution; use, re-use, maintenance; recycling and nal disposal. Hence, life cycle assessment (LCA) considers the possible impact on the dierent environmental components, also consider- ing the non-direct eect, deriving from the production processes of the manufactured materials entering the system boundary. LCA studies are composed of several interrelated components: goal denition and scoping, inventory analysis, impact assessment, and improvement assessment[13]. 6.1. LCA: goal and scope denition The rst component of an LCA study is the Goal Denition and Scoping according to ISO 14041[14]. This component consists of dening the study purpose and its scope, establishing the functional unit. The aim of this study is to evaluate the contribution to CO 2emission reduction that can be achieved by mean of using biomass for energy production, in comparison with conventional fuel
Table 8 Specic CO2emission from literature Cycle conguration kgCO2=MW h

Natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) 377 [3] PC supercritical steam cycle 794 Coal IGCC without CO2removal 747789 Coal IGCC with CO2removal 74 Conventional coal IGCC 709 [9] Coal IGCC with chemical abs. 73 Coal IGCC with semi-closed GT and chemical abs. 72 Coal IGCC with physical abs. 72 Coal IGCC with semi-closed GT and physical abs. 71 Coal IGCC with semi-closed GT and CO2as working uid 72 2119 A. Corti, L. Lombardi / Energy 29 (2004) 21092124

use. The functional unit is the produced energy unit (1 MJ), to which inventory data and results are referred to. Within the system studied, biomass production phase, plant construction, energy production (operation, assumed equal to 15 years) and plant dismantling phases are

included. Also, the production processes of the manufactured materials entering the dened system are included. In this way the entire system has been described and summarised in the inventory analysis in terms of raw material inputs and emission outputs (solids, liquids and gases). 6.2. LCA: inventory analysis Any product or service needs to be represented as a system in the inventory analysis method- ology. A system is dened as a collection of materially and energetically connected operations (e.g. manufacturing process, transport process, fuel extraction process) which performs some dened function. The inventory analysis is a quantitative description of all ows of materials and energy across the system boundary either into or out of the system itself ISO 14041[14]. 6.2.1. Biomass production and transportation The biomass production ratio considered is equal to 13.4 ton/ha per year, with a cultivation cycle of 7 years[15]. Mainly, the use of agricultural machines for seeding, growing and collection phases and the use of pesticides and fertilisers have been considered using the data according to Ref.[15] and are summarised inTable 9. No consumption of water and energy for watering have been considered, since it has been assumed that all the required water is supplied by rainfall. Fuel consumption for agricultural machines have been calculated, with reference to the oper- ations inTable 9, using emission factors in Refs.[15,16]. No contribution due to construction and dismantling of agricultural machines has been considered. Atmospheric emission factors for the use of fertilisers and pesticides/herbicides have been retrieved respectively from Refs.[16,17]. Data for the production processes of manufactured materials entering the system (fertilisers, pesticides/herbicides, fuels, electricity, etc.) have been retrieved from LCA devoted databases [18,19]. Biomass transportation average distance has been assumed to be equal to 75 km. Atmospheric emissions and fuel consumptions have been calculated following Ref.[16].
Table 9 Biomass growing phase data N fertiliser use (50% urea and 50%ammonium nitrate ) 100 kg/ha (nitrate) during the 4th year of the cycle P fertiliser use 22.4 kg/ha (as P) 1st year of the cycle K fertiliser use (K2O) 39.2 kg/ha (as K) 1st year of the cycle Pre-emergency herbicide use (Oust1) 36.5 cm3 a.s./ha 1st and 2nd year of the cycle Post-emergency herbicide use (Roundrup1) 36.5 cm3a.s./ha 1st and 2nd year of the cycle Pesticide use Not considered A. Corti, L. Lombardi / Energy 29 (2004) 21092124 2120

Moreover, a 20% loss of dry substance during ambient conditions drying process has been considered[17]. Carbon dioxide assimilated by the biomass during the growing phase corre- sponds to the amount of carbon in the biomass composition, equal to 48% in mass. Hence, for each kilogram of carbon in the biomass about 3.67 kg of carbon dioxide have been subtracted from the atmosphere. 6.2.2. Energy production operational phase Inventory data for this phase come from the IBGCC Aspen Plus simulation (Table 10). 6.2.3. Plant construction phase For the construction phase, the main materials have been considered (steel, cast iron, aluminium, copper, plastic, rubber asphalt and cement), accounting for their production processes [16]. The amounts of these materials have been estim ated by a rst sizing of the main devices in the plant and with reference to a similar plant fed with coal[10], up-scaling or down-scaling the devices. Also, the on-site energy consumption for construction has been considered[10]. 6.2.4. Plant maintenance phase Contributions from devices maintenancebasically material consumption[10]and from chemical products entering the energy cycle[10,18] have been accounted for. 6.2.5. Plant dismantling phase Concerning the dismantling phase, energy consumption and the relative emissions for the on- site work and recycling processes have been considered[10]. The material recycle is considered as negative emission in the avoided production of new materials.
Table 10 Stack emission data Compound Mass fraction O2 12.94% N2 71.70% Ar 0.92% H2O 13.08% CO2 1.26% CO 0.06 ppm NH3 Trace H2 0.2 ppm HCl 41 ppm NO

0.1% SO2 4 ppm NO2 15 ppm SO3 0.2 ppm 2121 A. Corti, L. Lombardi / Energy 29 (2004) 21092124

6.3. LCA: impact assessment Life cycle impact assessment[20] examines the mass and energy inventory input and output data for a product system to translate these data to better identify their possible environmental relevance and signicance. This translation uses, where possible, numerical indicators for spe- cic subjects or categories, where the indicator reects in some manner the system environmen- tal loading or resources depletion for that category. These indicators then constitute an environmental loading and resources depletion prole for a system. This prole with possible further analysis and weighting is intended to provide an additional useful perspective on the possible environmental signicance in one or more general areas of resources, natural environ- ment and human health. In this study, LCA results are presented with reference to a single environmental indicator, namely, greenhouse eect, since the aim of the proposed cycle is to reduce CO 2emissions. Greenhouse eect values for the dierent considered phases are reported inTable 11, in terms of kilograms of equivalent CO2per functional unit (i.e. 1 MJ of energy produced), showing sep- arately the contributions for photosynthesis reduction, biomass production and biomass trans- portation. The results are compared with the corresponding values previously obtained for a IGCC with DeCO2, where CO2reduction at the stack is obtained by means of amine solution chemical absorption[10] (the cited study was carried out based on the same main assumption as the present one). From the results inTable 11, it is evident that the contributions from the construction, main- tenance and dismantling phase are negligible with respect to the others, as previously found[10] (they have been accounted for reasons of completeness). The main contributions to greenhouse eect come from operation phase and biomass production phase, with a value higher from bio- mass production than from operation, since CO2emissions are reduced at the stack. Moreover, the subtracting contribution coming from the tree photosynthesis is of great importance and is responsible for the nal negative value of the total greenhouse eect. This means that, on the entire life cycle, the equivalent CO 2balance is not only closed, but also allows a decrease in the overall emissions. This result is evident inTable 12, where the equivalent CO2balance is reported for the two cases of an IBGCC with and without the CO2 stack reduction.
Table 11 LCA results in terms of greenhouse eect per functional unit, for the IBGCC IGCC DeCO2 IBGCCgreenhouse eect [kg of equivalent CO2 per MJ] Photosynthesis

DeCO and previous results for a

2

sink Biomass production Biomass transportation Energy conversion IBGCC construction IBGCC dismantling IBGCC maintenance Total

2:88 101 6:01 102 1:18 102 5:09 102 2:53 104 4:96 1062:90 105 1:65 101
IGCCgreenhouse eect [kg of equivalent CO2 per MJ] Coal production and transportation Energy conversion IGCC construction IGCC dismantling IGCC maintenance Total

10 3:61 10 3:38 10 3:08 10 8:35 10 9:97 10

6:24
2 2 4 5 2

A. Corti, L. Lombardi / Energy 29 (2004) 21092124 2122

Biomass Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle With Reduced CO2 Emissions

Add To Collection 1.5K

Reads 10 Readcasts 2 Embed Views

Published by api_user_11797_GreenTe...

TIP Press Ctrl-F to search anywhere in the document.

Info and Rating

Category: Uncategorized. Rating: Upload Date: 10/18/2008 Copyright: Attribution Non-commercial Tags: This document has no tags. Free download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. Flag document for inapproriate content

Download and print this document

Choose a format to download in

.PDF

.TXT

Recommended

159 p. Aspen Process Flowsheet Simulation Model BGL,Fischer Tropsch Liquef... api_user_11797_GreenTechnology 12534 Reads

209 p. Technical Documentation_ Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle S[1] Mo Hao 7529 Reads

350 p. Microgrids: High-impact Strategies - What You Need to Know: Definit... Gerard Blokdijk 11482 Reads $39.95

More From This User

161 p. Biomass to Hydrogen Production Detailed Design and Economics api_user_11797_GreenTechnology 2739 Reads

21 p. Hydrogen Plant for the New Millennium api_user_11797_GreenTechnology 2335 Reads

13 p. Towards the Hydrogen Economy api_user_11797_GreenTechnology 1186 Reads

Featured

54 p. Korea Magazine Republic of Korea

13 p. Non-Profit Best Practices Ken Yeung

19 p. Companies We Think We Love Beacon Press Comments

About

About Scribd Blog Join our team! Contact Us

Premium

Premium Reader Scribd Store

Advertise with us

Get started AdChoices

Support

Help FAQ Press

Partners

Developers / API

Legal

Terms Privacy Copyright

Copyright 2013 Scribd Inc. Language: English