The Shand CCS Feasibility Study Public Report

The Shand CCS Feasibility Study
Public Report
NOVEMBER 2018
ccsknowledge.com
I N T E R N AT I O N A L C C S K N O W L E D G E C E N T R E THE SHAND CCS FEASIBILITY STUDY PUBLIC REPORT

About this Study
The Shand CCS Feasibility Study and its associated documents reflect
the findings and opinions of the Knowledge Centre. SaskPower has
many factors that will determine if or when CCS will be deployed on
units beyond BD3.
i
ABOUT THIS STUDY CONTINUED
The Canadian province of Saskatchewan is a world-leader

in Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). Saskatchewan
and its provincial utility, SaskPower, pioneered the way Saskatchewan and
for full-scale carbon capture facilities around the world
with their fully-integrated carbon capture and storage its provincial utility,
demonstration project on Unit 3 of the Boundary Dam
coal-fired power plant (BD3). Operations at BD3 have
SaskPower, pioneered
steadily improved since initial startup. The facility has the way for full-scale
addressed safety issues and has recently started to
demonstrate a level of reliability that is consistent with carbon capture facilities
a thermal-generating facility, although still at below
design CO2 production levels. Once stable operation of around the world.
the facility is achieved, it will allow the plant operations
and support staff to focus on improving the efficiency
and cost effectiveness of the operation.
As with any world-first project, many lessons
were learned through the design, construction
and operations of the facility. These lessons have
resulted in novel optimizations, operating methods This detailed technical public document focuses
and overall learnings for the facility and its role as a specifically on the potential retrofit of the Shand Power
power generator in the power utility. While ongoing Station. While no decision has been made, should
improvements are anticipated, second-generation CCS SaskPower decide to proceed, the Shand CCS project
will undoubtedly realize many improvements over the would produce the second, full-scale capture facility
first generation – which this report will highlight. in Saskatchewan with a nominal capacity of 2 million
tonnes of CO2 (Mt) per year – twice the capacity of
The province and its Crown utility are now approaching
BD3. Information contained herein represents the
another important decision related to electricity supply
interpretation of the public and non-confidential
and considerations for CCS into the future. The utility
portion of this study to highlight both the overall impact
has a need to provide reliable and affordable base-load
on the cost of CO2 capture, as well as contrasting the
power, which regionally is only available from coal or
impact of the major design modifications with the BD3
natural gas, while meeting Canadian federal regulations
system.
limiting emissions from traditional coal-fired power
plants. The physics and economics that govern the design
and operation of thermal power plants is remarkably
The International CCS Knowledge Centre (Knowledge
similar throughout the world; as such, the methods and
Centre) is currently executing a feasibility study with
concepts explored in this report extend more broadly.
SaskPower to determine if a business case can be made
In fact, many of the same fundamental findings can
for a post combustion carbon capture retrofit of the
be further applied to other industrial processes such
305MW Shand Power Station. This report is therefore
as cement or iron and steel. General application of
titled the Shand CCS Feasibility Study.
this information to other facilities globally are further
articulated in the Knowledge Centre’s compendium
document Summary for Decision Makers on Second
Generation CCS.

Key findings of feasibility study
evaluates the economics of CCS
on a 300MW coal-fired power
plant in Saskatchewan
ͧͧDesigned to capture 2Mt/year
ͧͧ67% capital cost reduction (per tonne of CO2
captured)
ͧͧCost of capture at USD$45/t CO2
ͧͧCapture rate can reach up to 97% with reduced load
(i.e. integrates well with renewable electricity)
ͧͧFly ash sales can further reduce CO2 (potential
125,000t CO2/year reduced). Some believe this
means the facility can be carbon neutral.
How did costs come down?

ͧͧLessons learned from building and operating BD3
ͧͧConstruction at a larger scale using extensive
modularization
ͧͧEffective integration (a case-by-case imperative)
iii
Boundary Dam CCS Facility in Saskatchewan
About the International
CCS Knowledge Centre
The International CCS Knowledge Centre
is a non-profit organization created and
sponsored by BHP and SaskPower.
Its mission is to accelerate the understanding and use of CCS
as a means of managing greenhouse (GHG) emissions. The
Knowledge Centre houses seconded employees from SaskPower
who were instrumental in the development and operations
of the Boundary Dam CCS facility. Our team actively engages
financiers and decision makers to ensure high-level information
on CCS is conveyed with political, economic and other broad
considerations. We also add practical, hands-on development
experience, technical advice for planning, design, construction,
and operation of CCS.
The Knowledge Centre’s staff are available to provide experience-
based guidance for CCS projects, including case-by-case feasibility
analyses like the Shand CCS Feasibility Study.
Please visit our website at

www.ccsknowledge.com
or email us at
[email protected]
for more information.

Boundary Dam CCS Facility in Saskatchewan
Boundary Dam CCS Facility:

Building on Knowledge
Boundary Dam Power Station in Saskatchewan, Canada, retrofit and carbon capture plant was approximately
is one of three coal-fired power plants in the province. CDN$1.5 billion.
Boundary Dam consisted of six units, commissioned
In October 2014, BD3 went on line and became the world’s
between 1959 and 1978 and had a total capacity of 882
first utility-scale, fully-integrated post-combustion
MW. In 2010, SaskPower considered the future of its fleet
carbon capture facility on a coal-fired power plant.
and the implications of potential new environmental
Captured CO2 is used for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) in
regulations and made the decision to retire Units 1 and 2
a nearby oil field and for test injection into a deep saline
in 2013 and 2014 respectively. In addition, upgrades along
reservoir at a research project called Aquistore. Overall
with studies for a retrofit of carbon capture technology
the BD3 demonstration project transformed Unit 3 at
were considered and subsequently implemented at
Boundary Dam Power Station into a long-term producer
BD3. Among carbon capture technologies considered,
of more than 110 megawatts (MW) of clean, base-load
post-combustion capture was the most promising.
electricity, while demonstrating EOR potential in a fully
The BD3 project was aided by a one-time CDN$240 integrated process.
million grant from the Government of Canada. This
The startup of BD3 was the culmination of a decade’s
grant, coupled with an assumed sale of the CO2 for
worth of work by SaskPower focused on continued
Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR), and extensive re-use of an
operation of coal-fired power-generating stations which
end of life coal plant combined to create a project which
provide fuel diversity for its fleet, while mitigating the
evaluated to a Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) which
climate change impact of associated air emissions.
was equivalent to building a new Natural Gas Combined
Operations have steadily improved since initial startup.
Cycle (NGCC) plant at that time.
The facility has addressed safety issues and has recently
When completed, the integrated carbon capture plant started to demonstrate a level of reliability that is
was designed to capture 1 Mt per year, reflecting a 90% consistent with a thermal-generating facility, although
capture rate and extending the life of the plant by 30 still at below design CO2 production levels. Once stable
years. Approval for the construction of the facility on operation of the facility is achieved, it will allow the plant
BD3 occurred early in 2011 and construction began that operations and support staff to focus on improving the
spring. The total initial investment in the power unit’s efficiency and cost effectiveness of the process.
v
FIGURE 1: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Profiles and Performance Standards
in Saskatchewan
1100 t/GWh = Lignite Coal Plant

550-500 = Current Natural Gas Plant
420 = Canadian regulations on Coal Plant
CLEANER
375-400 = New Natural Gas Plant

300-325 = Wind (with peakers)
120-140 = CCS on Boundary Dam 3* *name plate capacity
Federal Regulations:
Abating Coal Emissions
The Reduction of Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Coal- Conventional lignite coal-fired power generation (used
fired Generation of Electricity Regulations, which came in Saskatchewan, Canada) emits roughly 1,100 tonnes of
in to effect July 1, 2015, set a stringent performance CO2/GWh (t/GWh). Traditional natural gas-fired power
standard for new coal-fired electricity generation units facilities emit in excess of 500 t/GWh. Newer combined-
and units that have reached the end of their useful cycle facilities operate as low as 375t CO2/GWh and
life (nominally 50 years). The level of the performance when used as a backup to intermittent non-emitting
standard is fixed at 420 tonnes of carbon dioxide per renewable energy can contribute to an effective
gigawatt hour (t/GWh). The aim of these regulations emission intensity less than 300t/GWh. In contrast, BD3
is to implement a permanent shift to lower- or non- was designed to capture up to 90% of the CO2 in the flue
emitting types of generation, such as high-efficiency gas and operate as low as 120-140 t/GWh. The greatest
natural gas, renewable energy, or fossil fuel-fired power gains in CO2 emissions reductions, in an electrical system
with CCS. CCS is the only method by which coal-fired without the ability to add hydro or nuclear facilities, are
power generation plants (old and new) can achieve realized with CCS.
these emission targets. Therefore, in Canada, a coal fired
power plant past its retirement date must be retrofitted
with carbon capture technology or be closed [2].

Rendering of Shand Power Station and
Carbon Capture Facility
Studying the Shand Power Station is a single unit plant located 12 km

from Boundary Dam. With a gross output of 305 MW,
Shand Power
Shand’s current capacity is approximately twice that of
BD3. Shand was originally designed with provisions for a
Station
second unit that was never built, and therefore has the
space to house a carbon capture facility. Commissioned
in 1992, Shand is also SaskPower’s newest coal-fired
power plant and is thought to be the best candidate for
a CCS retrofit if SaskPower were to consider another
CCS Project.
A fundamental driver in the utility industry has always
Commissioned been the economies of scale. In general, facilities that

are larger are more economic. Previous studies had
in 1992, Shand been completed on combining two 150 MW units with
a single carbon capture plant to increase the scale of the
is SaskPower’s capture plant (i.e. Boundary Dam Units 4 and 5 at the
newest coal-fired Boundary Dam plant). While this decreased the capital
cost of the capture facility on a full nameplate capacity
power plant and is basis, the realities of interaction of the maintenance of
the three plants resulted in a lower utilization factor
considered to be the which muted the improvements on capital cost.
best candidate for

another CCS Project.
vii
STUDYING THE SHAND POWER
S TAT I O N C O N T I N U E D
In Saskatchewan, the largest coal units are in the 300 Based on the early conversion timeline, the Shand CCS
MW class. SaskPower has four units that are in the facility could be commercially operational by 2024, which
300MW class: Boundary Dam Unit 6, Poplar River Units would clear the way for removing regulatory hurdles
1 and 2, and the Shand Power Station. With effectively that are forcing a retirement of SaskPower’s coal fleet.
double the total emissions of BD3, a 90% capture Furthermore, the design of all four of SaskPower’s 300
plant on these units would have an annual nameplate MW units are sufficiently similar to what was evaluated
capture size of 2Mt per year. Due to the proximity in this study. Therefore, the Shand feasibility study has
of the Shand facility to Boundary Dam (12km), an established the basis for a standard CCS retrofit design
infrastructural hub with access to the neighbouring oil that could be deployed with minor variations across
fields could yield increased economical consideration SaskPower’s 300 MW coal fleet and more importantly
for CCS applicability. has direct application to other global coal-fired power
plants and industrial applications.
In order to meet the emission performance standard that
would allow continued operation of the Shand power National policies play a role in the case-by-case
unit, a CCS retrofit would be required to be in operation circumstances surrounding CCS deployment. Such is the
in 2029. This points to a project final investment decision case for considering CCS in Saskatchewan at the Shand
as late as 2024/2025. Alternatively, a business case might CCS facility. The federal Canadian regulations which
be justifiable for an earlier conversion of the plant to CCS mandate the closure of all non-CCS equipped coal-fired
based on potential additional revenue streams which power plants as they reach 50 years of age can be
could include byproduct sales or avoidance of a carbon substituted by provincial regulations provided they are
tax, additional flexibility on the regulatory impacts to equal to or more stringent than the federal Canadian
the operation of other units in the generation fleet, and regulations – this is called an equivalency agreement. If
other considerations as are explored in this study. Under an equivalency agreement with the federal government
the direction of the International CCS Knowledge Centre is reached, the early conversion retrofit of Shand could
whose mandate it is the accelerate the deployment of potentially remove the regulatory hurdles that prevent
CCS, this study is based solely on this “Early Conversion” Boundary Dam Units 4 and 5 from running until their
(EC) option for Shand. scheduled retirement dates in 2021 and 2024. Should
an equivalency agreement not be reached, and the
In order to take next steps for the early conversion CCS
early CCS conversion of Shand be completed, the
facility at Shand, a development budget and 18 months
existing federal regulations could remove the emission
would be required. A Front End Engineering Design
restrictions on one of those two units and allow
(FEED) study would be executed to de-risk the process
Boundary Dam 5 to run to its scheduled retirement date
and allow a budget and provisional contracts to be put
in 2024. If no equivalency agreement is reached, and the
in place to support a Final Investment Decision (FID) as
early conversion schedule CCS retrofit of Shand is not
early as July 2020. Additional funds would be required
implemented, both Boundary Dam Units 4 and 5 will be
to complete the FEED studies for the target oil field
retired in 2019.
infrastructure and associated development, pipeline
infrastructure, designing and pricing of an expanded
deep saline storage facility, completing production trials,
as well as permitting and public engagement activities
that are beyond the scope of this report.

Shand Power Station in Saskatchewan
B U S I N E S S C A S E C O N S I D E R AT I O N S
FOR THE SHAND STUDY
Regulations in Canada are closing the window on coal-

fired power generation without carbon capture, and
while there is a significant revenue opportunity to utilize
and sequester CO2 for EOR operations, low oil prices
have softened the demand for the CO2. The economics
of retrofitting coal with CCS are further challenged by a
supply of natural gas which is available at all-time low
prices that have persisted long enough that the price
level is perceived to have found a new norm in North
America.
A second-generation CCS facility in Saskatchewan would
show improvements in capital and operating cost to
support additional EOR activity, while eliminating
the net CO2 emissions from the local coal resource.
CCS on coal represents a sustainable, long-term, and
environmentally superior solution that keeps investment
in the province while providing stable low-cost power
that is not subject to market forces or the uncertainty
associated with future regulations on CO2 emissions
from natural gas, and the importing of energy from
neighboring jurisdictions. The continued sustainable use
of coal will maintain, and in fact expand high quality local
employment, preserve value in existing assets, and will
extract value from the local coal reserves.
The proximity to BD3, along with the ability to connect
the two CO2 supplies by pipeline, would create a more
stable supply and would reduce operational costs
associated with delivery challenges. CO2 from BD3
that is currently not sold could be used to develop the
CO2-use market prior to the completion of the Shand The provincial Crown utility SaskPower owns BD3. The
CCS facility. Review by the Ministry of the Economy of Crown and Freehold royalty / tax regime allows for a
the Government of Saskatchewan indicates the potential near elimination of the royalties and taxes until capital
to store all CO2 from this project, while unlocking an costs are recovered, followed by a net income-based fee
incremental oil recovery of up to 40,000 barrels of oil structure. This improvement to the net revenue from a
per day from depleted oil fields in the area. If additional CCS plant combined with an EOR project could provide
capture projects and sources of CO2 become available incentive to motivate a CCS retrofit financed by private
then the total capacity for CO2 storage combined with industry. While this is a specific local incentive, it can
EOR is up to 230 million tons of CO2, while unlocking 660 specifically reduce the economic impact of the large
million barrels of oil. capital cost.
ix
KEY TECHNICAL FINDINGS OF THE
SHAND STUDY
Operating Costs:
The larger Shand CCS facility would also offer lower
Capital Costs:
operating costs compared with BD3. The anticipated
cost of capture from the Shand CCS Facility would be
Reductions in capital costs
$45US/tonne of CO2, assuming a 30-year sustained run-
time of the power plant and purchasing of lost power at
have been evaluated and
costs consistent with new Natural Gas Combined Cycle are projected at 67% less
(NGCC) power projects. However, the improvement in
the Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE), which includes expensive than they were for
the value of the existing assets, the price differential
between coal and natural gas, a return from selling BD3 on a cost per tonne of
the CO2 or avoidance of a carbon tax, along with the
associated operating cost differences, while certainly CO2 basis.
positive, are specific to each region, and not presented
in this public report.
Renewable Integration:
The requirement for power generation flexibility, to
accommodate variable renewables, was coupled with
the ability to maintain the capture facility capacity
such that the CCS plant increases its capture rate
when the load is reduced. While 90% CO2 capture is this burden by only requiring the use of water that
expected at a full power plant load, more than 96% CO2 has been condensed from the flue gas. Availability
capture could be achievable at 62% electrical load. This of water is often a key driver when siting a new
reduction in emission intensity at lower loads allows thermal power plant and is often the limiting factor
this plant to integrate with renewables and effectively for expansion of a facility. Limited water for cooling
multiplies their impact on emissions reduction. As well, will be a common theme for CCS retrofits of thermal
when combined with the effective emissions reduction power plants, making this solution broadly applicable.
from selling fly ash for use in concrete applications, the
result is an annual average emission intensity of 0. In
other words, a carbon-neutral coal-fired power plant Load:
is within reach.
The BD3 design was optimized to run at full load
of its power unit. The Shand capture facility would
Water: overcome this limitation through a design that could
follow the normal power output variation that has
Water supply at Shand is limited and additional water been historically required from Shand. These variations
draw for the capture facility would be a regulatory in power output are related to varying loads on the
hurdle, if possible at all. As a result, the system was electrical system, variable amounts of un-dispatchable
designed without the requirement for additional water. renewables, fuel price fluctuations, import and export
The proposed heat-rejection design would eliminate

Interior of Boundary Dam 3 CCS Facility
activity with neighbouring states and provinces, Carbon Capture Test Facility (CCTF). The CCTF’s flue gas
hydroelectric power plant water management, and supply is directly sourced from Shand, allowing rigorous
outages of other units on the Saskatchewan power evaluation of emissions and maintenance costs prior to
system. A CCS conversion for the SaskPower coal fleet a Final Investment Decision (FID). While this benefit is
that did not include flexibility in power generation specific to this facility, the Knowledge Centre is working
would be impractical from an electric-system operation with the CCS community in an effort to reduce the size,
standpoint. The requirement for variability is mirrored cost and complexity of systems required to validate the
throughout the world and has been exacerbated by maintenance and operation costs of a specific amine /
higher levels of variable renewable generation. The flue-gas combination.
addition of the capture facility would not result in any
new limitations to the operational flexibility of the
power plant itself. The power plant could continue to
run at its current full output if the CCS facility was taken
off-line for maintenance or in emergency situations.
Amine Maintenance Cost:

Potential project risks for increased operating costs
and barriers to project approval have been mitigated.
Proactive measures to evaluate amine maintenance
costs, which are of most concern for effective
management of ongoing operating costs, would be
realized by executing pilot testing at SaskPower’s
xi
Table of Contents
About this Study i
About the International CCS Knowledge Centre iv
About the Boundary Dam CCS Facility – Building on Knowledge v
About Federal Regulations – Abating Coal Emissions vi
About Studying the Shand Power Station vii
Business Case Considerations for the Shand Study ix
Key Technical Findings of the Shand Study x
Chapter 1. Basis of Design 1

1.1 An Overview of the Steam Cycle in a Coal-Fired Power Plant 2
1.2 An Overview of Shand Power Station 2
1.3 Current Performance of Shand Power Station 3
1.4 Design Inputs 3
1.4.1 Site Conditions 3
1.4.2 Flue Gas Composition 3
1.5 Performance Criteria and Drivers for CCS Implementation 4
1.5.1 Capture Plant Size 5
1.5.2 Power Plant Reliability / Capture Plant Partial Capacity 5
1.5.3 Thermal Integration and Host Selection 5
1.5.4 Grid Support and Ancillary Services 6
1.5.5 Over-Capture at Reduced Load 7
1.5.6 Flexible Load Operations and Integration with Renewable Energy Sources 7
1.5.7 Matching Capture Capacity to Regulatory Requirement 7
1.5.8 Increasing Capture Capacity From 90% to 95% 8
1.5.9 CO2 Market 8
1.5.10 Fuel Pricing and Common Services 9
1.5.11 Site Layout and Modularization 10
1.5.12 Flue Gas Pre-Treatment and Emissions Credits from Fly Ash Revenue 11
1.5.13 CCS Technology Vendor Selection 11
1.5.14 Heat Rejection Design Considerations 11
TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S C O N T I N U E D
1.5.15 Plant Maintainability 12

Chapter 2. Power Island Modifications 13
2.1 Modifications to the Existing Turbine 14
2.2 Pipe and Utility Bridge 15
2.3 Modifications to the Steam Cycle to accommodate Steam Supply to and Return 15
from the Capture Facility
2.3.1. Steam Supply to the Reboiler 16
2.3.2 Purpose of the Butterfly Valve in the IP-LP crossover 17
2.3.3 Steam Supply to the Reclaimer 18
2.3.4 Additional Condensate Supply Line 19
2.3.5 Condensate Return to the Power Plant 19
2.3.6 Auxiliary Steam 20
2.4 Modifications to the HP Feed-heating System 20
2.4.1 New Steam Extraction Line to the DEA 20
2.4.2 HP FWH 4 Bypass Drain 22
2.5 DEA Replacement 23
2.6 Modifications to the LP feed-heating system 24
2.6.1 System Description 26
2.6.1.1 Condensate Preheater 1 27
2.6.2 Condensate Piping 29
2.6.3 FGC Recirculating Water Lines 30
Chapter 3. Flue Gas Supply and Conditioning 31
3.1 Flue Gas Supply to the Battery Limit 32
3.1.1 System Description 32
3.1.2 System Equipment 33
3.1.2.1 Ductwork 33
3.1.2.2 Diverter Dampers 33
3.1.2.3 Guillotine Damper 34
3.1.2.4 Seal Air System 34
3.2 Flue Gas Pre-Conditioning 35
3.2.1 Flue Gas Cooler (FGC) 35

3.2.1.1 System Description 35
3.2.2 Flue Gas Desulphurization (FGD) 37
3.2.2.1 Limestone Feed System 37
3.2.2.2 Absorbing System 37
3.2.2.3 Gypsum Dewatering System 38
3.2.3 Quencher 38
Chapter 4. CO2 Capture and Compression 39
4.1 Post Combustion CO2 Capture Theory 40
4.1.1 CO2 Absorption 40
4.1.1.1 CO2 Absorption Section 40
4.1.1.2 Flue Gas Washing Section 41
4.1.2 Solvent Regeneration 42
4.1.3 Solvent Filtration 43
4.1.4 Solvent Storage and Makeup 43
4.1.5 Solvent Reclaiming (Intermittent Operations) 43
4.2 CO2 Compression 43
Chapter 5. Heat Rejection, Water Balance and Utilities 45
5.1 System Description 46
5.2 Current Heat Rejection System at Shand Power Station 47
5.3 Accounting for Additional Heat Rejection Load and Liquid Water Discharge Streams 47
5.4 New Hybrid Heat Rejection System Design 50
5.4.1 Design Parameters 51
5.5 Chemical Consumption 54
5.6 Waste Disposal 54
Chapter 6. CO2 Sale and Storage Options 55
6.1 Introduction 56
6.2 Current CO2 EOR Flooding in Saskatchewan 56
6.3 Screening Criteria in Field Selection for CO2 EOR 56
6.4 Suitable Fields for EOR and Potential Oil Recovery 57
Chapter 7. Performance 62
7.1 Power Plant Performance 63

7.1.1 Output at Full Load 63
7.1.2 Output at Variable Loads 63
7.2 Capture Performance at Variable Load 67
7.3 Emissions Profile of the Proposed Shand Integrated CCS Power Plant 67
7.4 Start-up Schedule and Limitations 69
7.5 Maintenance Requirements 70
Chapter 8. Cost of CCS 71
8.1 Introduction 72
8.2 Projected Project Costs 72
8.2.1 Capital Costs 72
8.2.1.1 Facility Costs 72
8.2.1.2 Owner’s Costs 73
8.2.1.3 OM&A Costs 73
8.3 Determining the Cost of Capture 74
8.3.1 The Energy Costs of CCS 75
8.3.2 Capital Costs per Tonne of CO2 Captured Comparison Between BD3 and Shand CCS 76
8.3.3 Determining the Levelized Cost of Capture 77
Chapter 9. Regulations Compliance and CCS Drivers 80
9.1 Introduction 81
9.2 Canadian Federal Regulatory Drivers for CCS 81
9.3 Equivalency Agreements 82
Chapter 10. Environmental Impact Comparison of CCS 83
10.1 Introduction 84
10.2 Power Generation Options 84
10.3 Low Emission Power Generation Options 85
10.4 Characterizing NGCC as Backup Power for Variable Renewable Generation 86
10.5 Characterizing Shand CCS as Backup Power for Variable Renewable Generation 86
10.6 A Case for Selecting a 95% Carbon Capture Rate 87
10.7 Aggregate Emission Intensity of Wind and Alternative Backup Generation Sources 88
10.8 Capture Rate Selection 91
Chapter 11. Proposed Project Implementation 92

11.1 Introduction 93
11.2 Proposed Project Schedule 94
11.2.1 Power Plant Modifications 94
11.2.2 Capture Facility Construction 94
11.3 Contract Strategy 95
11.4 FEED Study Deliverables 95
11.4.1 CCTF Pilot Testing of MHI’s Proprietary KS-1 Solvent 96
11.4.2 Proposed FEED Study Investigations 96
11.4.2.1 Refine Steam Cycle Integration and Heat Balances 96
11.4.2.2 Capture Rate at 95% 96
11.4.2.3 FGD Material Selection 97
11.4.2.4 Power Plant Modifications 97
11.4.2.5 Waste Disposal 97
11.4.2.6 Heat Rejection and Water Management 98
Works Cited 99
List of Tables
Table 1.1 Shand’s current operating performance 3
Table 1.2 Design conditions at Shand Power Station 3
Table 1.3 Flue Gas composition at Shand up to the FGD inlet with varying load 4
Table 2.1 Summary of CPH train heat duties 27
Table 5.1 Summary of chemical consumption for wet FGD and CO2 capture process 54
Table 5.2 Summary of wastes produced and proposed disposal methods 54
Table 6.1 Summary of Screening Criteria for CO2 EOR Implementation 57
Table 6.2 Reservoir Properties Summary of Oil Fields in South East Saskatchewan with CO2 58
EOR Potential
Table 7.1 Summary of Shand’s performance at full load 65
Table 7.2 Summary of Shand’s performance with flexible load 66
Table 7.3 Increased CO2 capture at reduced flue gas flowrates for Shand 67
Table 7.4 Summary of Shand emissions at varying loads assuming a 0.85 capacity factor 68
Table 7.5 Average annual performance for Shand CCS with 90% and 95% design capture at 69
full load
Table 7.6 Typical startup procedure for capture facility 70
Table 7.7 Planned maintenance outage frequency and duration at Shand 70
Table 8.1 Summary of total costs of a Shand CCS retrofit ($M) 72
Table 8.2 Summary of owner’s costs for Shand CCS ($M) 73
Table 8.3 OM&A costs summary (all costs are in 2030 dollars) 74
Table 8.4 Capture rate of BD3 and Shand 75
Table 8.5 Data used to calculate the levelized cost of capture 78
Table 11.1 Summary of FEED 93
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Proposed steam turbine modification 14
Figure 2.2 Proposed design and location of the pipe and utility bridge (highlighted in 15
pink)
Figure 2.3 Proposed design and location of the process steam extraction line to the 16
reboiler (highlighted in blue with the north wall of the powerhouse hidden)
Figure 2.4 Crossover pipe steam extraction point and butterfly valve location 17
Figure 2.5 Proposed design and location of reclaimer steam line (highlighted in blue 18
with the north wall of the powerhouse hidden)
Figure 2.6 Proposed design and location of condensate supply line (highlighted in 19
blue with the north wall of the powerhouse and the operating floor hidden)
Figure 2.7 Proposed design and location of condensate return line (highlighted in 20
blue with the north wall of the powerhouse hidden)
Figure 2.8 Proposed design and location of the new steam extraction line to the DEA 21
(highlighted in blue)
Figure 2.9 Proposed design and location of the new HP FWH 4 bypass drain 22
Figure 2.10 Drawing of the proposed new DEA 23
Figure 2.11 Proposed new DEA installation 24
Figure 2.12 Boiler feedwater enthalpy profile of the current steam cycle at Shand 25
Figure 2.13 Boiler feedwater enthalpy profile of the steam cycle with CCS integration 25
of Shand
Figure 2.14 Comparison of the associated duty for each component in the feed- 26
heating train between the current power plant and the potential CCS-integrated
power plant
Figure 2.15 proposed design and location of CPH 1 and associated piping 28
(highlighted in blue with some existing piping and steel hidden)
Figure 2.16 Proposed design and location of CPH 2 and associated piping 28
(highlighted in blue with CPH 3 hidden)
Figure 2.17 Proposed design and location of CPH 2 and associated piping 29
(highlighted in blue with existing piping and steel hidden)
Figure 2.18 Proposed design and location of the FGC recirculating water line 30
(highlighted in blue with the north wall, operating floor and existing piping and steel
hidden)
Figure 3.1 Proposed design and location of diverter and guillotine dampers 32
Figure 3.2 Configuration of flue gas diversion and path 33
Figure 3.3 Proposed ducting layout from the stack to the FGC 34
Figure 3.4 Location of FGC and FGD 35
LIST OF FIGURES CONTINUED
Figure 3.5 FGC modules, casing and transition 36

Figure 3.6 Schematic of wet FGD and flue gas quencher 38
Figure 4.1 Schematic of CO2 absorber 41
Figure 4.2 Schematic of CO2 regenerator 42
Figure 4.3 Eight-stage CO2 compressor 44
Figure 5.1 Shand Power Station current site layout 46
Figure 5.2 Block diagram of water usage and integration flows for the hybrid cooling 48
system
Figure 5.3 Simplified water usage diagram for the hybrid cooling water system 49
Figure 5.4 Proposed Shand hybrid cooling system 50
Figure 5.5 Site layout for Shand Power Station with SO2 and CO2 capture and heat 51
rejection systems
Figure 5.6 Monthly average humidity, dry bulb temperature and wet bulb 52
temperature in Southeastern Saskatchewan
Figure 5.7 Effect of ambient temperature on heat rejection load in dry and wet 53
cooling
Figure 5.8 Monthly power consumption in heat rejection system 53
Figure 6.1 Location of suitable reservoirs for CO2 EOR deployment in south east 60
Saskatchewan
Figure 6.2 Potential oil production with CO2 EOR in south east Saskatchewan 61
Figure 7.1 Relationships between CO2 produced and CO2 captured with load 68
Figure 7.2 Shand typical load distribution over a three-year period 69
Figure 8.1 Comparing the efficiency penalty of CO2 capture between BD3 and Shand 76
CCS
Figure 8.2 Cost reduction of the Shand second-generation CCS facility compared 77
with the BD3 project
Figure 8.3 Break down of LCOC for Shand CCS 79
Figure 10.1 Capacity of Centennial Wind-Power Facility represented as the percent 85
of time as a function of load between 2015 - 2018
Figure 10.2 Emission intensity of modern NGCC plant as a function of load 86
Figure 10.3 Emission intensity of the Shand CCS unit as a function of load 87
Figure 10.4 Emission intensity of the 95% sensitivity case unit as a function of 88
load
Figure 10.5 Emission intensity of NGCC and wind 89
Figure 10.6 Emission intensity of 90% CCS and wind 90
Chapter 1. Basis of Design
1.1 An Overview of the Steam Cycle in a
Coal-Fired Power Plant
Thermal power plants produce electricity by through the IP and LP turbines. The exhaust steam
manipulating the behaviour of steam. The main exiting the LP turbine flows to a condenser where the
components of a thermal power plant include a boiler, a low-pressure steam is cooled at constant pressure
turbine (which often is comprised of 3 distinct sections - forming a saturated liquid; this is referred to as
High Pressure (HP), Intermediate Pressure (IP), and Low condensate. Condensate Extraction Pumps (CEP) move
Pressure (LP)), a condenser, low-pressure Feed Water the condensate through Low Pressure (LP) Feed Water
Heaters (FWHs), a deaerator (DEA), and high-pressure Heaters (FWHs) before entering the DEA. The CEPs
feedwater heaters. A fuel source is combusted in the develop sufficient head to deliver the condensate to the
boiler to generate thermal energy which heats incoming DEA, which is located in an elevated position inside the
condensate, thereby producing steam. plant to provide adequate suction head for the Boiler
Feed Pump (BFP). The DEA is positioned between the
In the case of coal-fired power plants, thermal energy
LP and HP FWHs and, as its name implies, its purpose
is derived from the combustion of coal. Coal is burned
is to remove dissolved gases from boiler feedwater.
in the boiler’s furnace to generate hot flue gas that
This is accomplished by increasing the temperature
transfers its thermal energy to feedwater, thereby
of the condensate to its full saturation temperature at
producing superheated steam. The superheated steam
DEA pressure by utilizing steam from the turbine. FWHs
is fed to the HP turbine. As steam passes through the
preheat the condensate (or boiler feedwater) prior to
turbine, it expands. The high pressure and kinetic energy
its re-entry into the boiler. Preheating is accomplished
of the steam cause the turbine blades to rotate, which
by drawing steam from the turbine. The combined
turns the turbine shaft enabling the generation of work
arrangement of the LP FWHs, the DEA and the HP FWHs
that is converted into electricity by the generator.
are often referred to as the Feed-heating Train. Once
The expanded steam exiting the HP turbine is circulated condensate passes through the feed-heating train it
back into the boiler through a reheater to absorb re-enters the boiler and the cycle repeats.
additional thermal energy, before passing in sequence
1.2 An Overview of Shand Power Station

Commissioned in 1992, Shand Power Station is a 3. A zero-liquid discharge water management system
single-unit, coal-fired power generating station. Shand’s to ensure facility water is not discharged into the
current gross capacity is 305 MW. Shand was designed environment, except through evaporation; and
with various advanced environmental considerations
4. A high-efficiency, electro-static precipitator (ESP)
including:
that removes over 99 per cent of the fly ash prior
1. Finely-tuned burners with overfire separated air to flue gas exiting the power plant through its stack.
to stage the combustion of the coal, and reduce
the flame temperature in order to reduce nitrogen
oxides formation by up to 50 per cent;
2. The Limestone Injection into the Furnace and
Re-activation of Calcium (LIFAC) system that uses a
powdered limestone sorbent and water to reduce
sulphur dioxide emissions (which has been recently
taken out of service);

1.3 Current Performance of Shand Power Station
Table 1.1 shows a summary of the assumptions made for Shand’s current operating performance.
Table 1.1 Shand’s current operating performance
1.4 Design Inputs

1.4.1 Site Conditions
Site conditions influence the design of a power plant and its capture island. Parameters such as air temperature and
humidity are critical to the design of the capture facility since they directly affect the capture process. Table 1.2 shows
the design conditions used for the Shand CCS Feasibility Study.
Table 1.2 Design conditions at Shand Power Station
*85th percentile
1.4.2 Flue Gas Composition
A pre-requisite for implementing post-combustion efficiency of 99.74%. The ESPs have 2 casings: A side
capture is a well-understood flue gas composition. and B side with each casing including three fields. When
an ESP is operated, an electric field is produced by high
Current flue gas conditioning technologies installed at
voltage transformer-rectifiers that are connected to a
Shand include the LIFAC system for sulphur dioxide (SO2)
system of emitting electrodes. The electric field charges
control and Electrostatic Precipitators (ESPs) for removal
the ash particles, which are collected onto a system of
of particulates. The LIFAC process, as originally installed,
plates. Tumbling hammers strike the collection system
involved the combination of upper-boiler limestone
causing ash to fall off the electrodes and plates into the
injection, followed by post-boiler humidification to
ash hoppers.
desulphurize the flue gas. This system, which did not
perform well, has been recently taken out of service. Flue gas composition is monitored at Shand using
Upon integrating Shand with CCS, LIFAC would be the Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS)
replaced by a wet-limestone, flue gas desulfurization that employs an online Fourier Transform Infrared
process. The existing ESP system at Shand has a design (FTIR) spectrometry technology to measure flue gas
3
constituents. FTIR data, and in fact all measured 75% loads of the power plant. This data is summarized
operational data from the plant, is logged in a data in Table 1.3. Using the flue gas composition at various
historian supplied by OSI, which is often generally loads, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) and Mitsubishi
referred to as the Pi System. Flue gas stack testing is Hitachi Power Systems (MHPS) were able to predict the
performed annually to verify flue gas composition capture efficiency and turbine performance of the Shand
and to support emissions reporting. Coal composition integrated power plant and capture facility in order to
is key to predicting flue gas composition. Using the verify that the capture process was able to continue
combustion conditions and the quantity of excess air, operating at reduced loads. Section 1.4.3 considers
flue gas composition could be calculated. For this study, reduced load capture performance.
flue gas composition was determined at 100% and
Table 1.3 Flue Gas composition at Shand up to the FGD inlet with varying load
*Contaminant concentrations not confirmed for reduced load operation
1.5 Performance Criteria and Drivers for

CCS Implementation
Certain performance criteria are required of the power A tailored design
plant and the capture facility. Identifying these key methodology is crucial
performance parameters at the initiation of the study
influenced the design methodology utilized to achieve with industrial scale
these desired performance criteria. A tailored design
methodology is crucial with industrial scale CCS retrofits
CCS retrofits as each
as each power plant and its environment is unique in power plant and its
operating parameters and constraints. As such, each CCS
retrofit must be tailored for its specified host plant.
environment is unique
The key drivers that influenced the design methodology
in operating parameters
for the Shand CCS retrofit are outlined in this section. and constraints.

1.5.1 Capture Plant Size
A fundamental driver in the utility industry has always BD3, a 90% capture plant on these units would have
been the economies of scale. In general, facilities that an annual nameplate size of 2,000,000 tonnes/year.
are larger are more economic. Previous studies had The four units at SaskPower within the 300MW class,
been completed on combining two 150MW units with a are Boundary Dam Unit 6, Poplar River Units 1 & 2, and
single carbon capture plant in order to increase the scale Shand Unit 1. Boundary Dam and Shand are located near
of the capture plant. While this decreased the capital Estevan Saskatchewan, while the Poplar River Power
cost of the capture facility on a full nameplate capacity Station is located 200 km west of Estevan. Preliminary
basis, the realities of interaction of the maintenance review indicated that most components for the capture
of the three plants resulted in a lower utilization facility would still be at a reasonable size, with the
factor which muted the improvements on capital cost. exception of the CO2 compressor which would be larger
The operational experience with BD3 makes it seem than is currently commercially available, and the CO2
doubtful that a next generation capture plant could be regenerator, which may become too large in diameter to
more reliable and require less maintenance downtime be fabricated as a single pressure vessel. The four units
than the two accompanying coal-fired power units. are sufficiently similar such that a successful CCS retrofit
of Shand could pave the way for additional CCS retrofits
In Saskatchewan, the largest coal units are in the 300MW
on the remainder of the 300MW units.
class. With effectively double the total emissions of
1.5.2 Power Plant Reliability / Capture Plant Partial Capacity
Provisions for continued power plant operations in the reliability for the power plant, it is the ability to partially
event of issues with the capture facility were built into bypass the capture facility that is key in establishing its
the original design of BD3 as a risk mitigation strategy. operational flexibility. For the Shand study, the systems
This feature is generally referred to as dual mode. It would be the same, and partial bypass of the capture
worked, and was needed often, especially in the early facility would be designed to be the normal means of
days of operation for BD3. A key design characteristic dealing with lack of capacity in the capture facility for
allowed steam consumption to be varied somewhat any number of reasons. This allows design margins in
independently of capture plant demand while the use the capture facility to be tighter and assures continued
of diverter dampers allowed flue gas to be directed power plant reliability. The design of this system is
towards either the original stack, the capture facility, or presented in Chapter 3.
a combination of the two. While the dual modes provide
1.5.3 Thermal Integration and Host Selection
For this study, integration with the steam turbine for Units 4 and 5 at Boundary Dam have a similar turbine
the regeneration energy source was predetermined thermal design to the original BD3 turbine which was
based on the BD3 design. Although benefits for dispatch replaced as part of the conversion to CCS. To modify
flexibility are available with the addition of a large BD4 and BD5, the turbine would have to be replaced in
combined cycle facility to be used as the regeneration its entirety. As well, if the plant was optimized for CCS
energy source, none of the coal-fired power plants in steam delivery, it would not be able to reach full load
SaskPower’s fleet currently have adequate natural gas in non-CCS mode without the replacement of the entire
infrastructure to support such a facility. feed-heating plant as was done for BD3. The cost and
5
complexity of this modification is not trivial. parasitic load was determined at 22.2%. Details on
power plant performance are summarized in Chapter
All of the 300MW units at SaskPower have relatively
7. Further, it was determined that the modifications
similar turbine thermal designs. Rather conveniently,
would not preclude the unit from running at full load
the pressure at the crossover is much more amenable
when the CO2 capture facility was not drawing steam
for conversion and use for carbon capture. Preliminary
from the turbine. The thermal modifications suggested
modeling concluded the possibility that the
were reviewed, analyzed and refined by the turbine
regeneration energy could be sourced from the turbine
Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM), Mitsubishi
relatively efficiently with very few changes to the feed-
Hitachi Power System (MHPS). A budget proposal which
heating plant, and bolt in modifications to the steam
incorporated the main concept was found to be an
turbine. Use of rejected flue gas heat for low pressure
economic and workable solution. Modifications to the
condensate preheating along with modifications to the
power island are summarized in Chapter 2.
high-pressure condensate preheating train contributed
in reducing the associated output penalty. The overall
1.5.4 Grid Support and Ancillary Services
Large thermal power stations play an important role in At partial load, the CCS facility is essentially over-sized for
the electricity system as it relates to system response the amount of CO2 that needs to be captured. The only
to frequency disruptions and power factor correction. limitation is the amount of steam that is available from
In addition, these units are required to adjust their the steam turbine. The decision was made to design
load to maintain the supply-demand balance in the the thermal cycle so that it could meet full load with
electricity grid. If significant additional CCS units were the turbine as optimized, and then to add a butterfly
added to a grid, and if these units had been designed valve in the IP-LP crossover which would be fully opened
like BD3, with very limited capacity to adjust load, the except when the unit was at partial load, or when off
load adjustment range of the balance of the fleet would performance design margin was required. This valve
become un-workable. If CCS were to be viable for a would allow throttling of the steam flow at reduced
large build-out, it would have to maintain the flexible loads which enables continued capture operations at
operating range of the existing unit, and it would spend full capacity while the power plant operates at reduced
enough time at these loads, that CO2 capture rate would load. This would result in a plant operating profile that
need to be maintained. can maintain, and potentially increase its capture rate
across its normal dispatch range. This would eliminate
Considerations for planned curtailment were made in
the need for excess capital to be spent on equipment
designing the capture system for Shand. Power plants
that would be rarely utilized. Details of this design are
are designed to provide maximum output during peak-
presented in Chapter 2.
power consumption periods in their service area. In
many cases, these times coincide with the hottest days
of the year. The design of the proposed capture system
for Shand relies on planned curtailment of the capture
rate to avoid excessive design margins. The capture
system would reduce the rate of carbon capture on hot
days, or due to other restrictions such as off-spec fuel,
while maintaining power output.

1.5.5 Over-Capture at Reduced Load
The Shand Feasibility Study sought to capitalize on the From a CO2 supply point of view, this means more
inherent ability of a post combustion capture plant to consistent volumes of CO2 delivered while allowing
capture a higher fraction of the CO2 at reduced flue the plant to vary its load. From an emissions mitigation
gas flows. It was imperative that the capture facility at point of view, it means that the CCS equipped coal-fired
Shand be designed to allow significant load following power plant could be made responsive to variable
of the integrated unit during carbon capture mode. In renewable generation, and when it does, would emit
other words, the power plant should retain the ability less CO2 per MWh, effectively increasing the emissions
to adjust power output based on fluctuating demand reduction of the renewables. In contrast, a natural gas
during a given day while still being able to capture CO2. plant without CCS that is dispatched down in load to
Incorporating a butterfly valve in the IP-LP crossover support variable renewable generation increases its
to enable steam throttling at reduced loads enables emission intensity, somewhat muting the impact of the
this. A variable load design significantly reduces the environmental benefit of the renewable generation.
requirements for design margins. A sensitivity analysis The relative effectiveness of CCS on a dispatchable
was performed by MHI that showed probable capture thermal generation station as load support for variable
rates reaching in excess of 96% at 62% electrical load renewables, as opposed to the most modern and highest
on the power station. Details of this investigation are efficiency Natural Gas Combined Cycle power plant is a
summarized in Chapter 7. key unanticipated outcome of this study. See Chapters 7
and 10 for a more thorough review.
1.5.6 Flexible Load Operations and Integration with Renewable

Energy Sources
SaskPower’s Renewable Road map sets a target of in response to dispatches from the system operator.
up to 50 percent generation capacity system wide The proposed CCS integration of Shand would allow the
from renewable energy sources by 2030. Meeting this unit to maintain its range of dispatch and loading rate
target would necessitate the flexibility to increase the with the CCS island operating, while allowing increased
integration of variable renewable energy (VRE) into capture at lower loads. This builds an extremely
the power system. The performance of non-renewable desirable scenario in which a capture plant supports the
energy sources, such as coal and gas, must be able to integration of renewable power sources, while further
provide ancillary services for VRE during periods when reducing its own CO2 footprint. The opposite response
renewable power cannot match electricity demand. is encountered at a traditional natural gas plant that
Consequently, a high value is placed on the ability to supports VRE integration. Details and analysis on this
vary the output of any power plant in the overall system topic are presented in Chapter 10.
1.5.7 Matching Capture Capacity to Regulatory Requirement
With current regulations known in Canada as of 2012, 80% of the flue gas. Due to the economies of scale, the
and the focus on reducing capital cost, there is logic 80% sized capture plant had capital costs on a per tonne
in building the CCS plant only as big as it needs to be basis that increased by 7%, and the plant that processed
to capture the required amount of CO2. Studies were all of the flue gas at a lower capture rate increased the
undertaken to determine the amount of capital cost cost by more than 10%. It is clear that building the plant
reduction that could be realized, as well as determining smaller or designing the plant to capture less than 90%
the relative benefit of treating all of the flue gas to of the CO2 in the flue gas will ultimately increase the per
capture 70% of the CO2 or capturing 90% of the CO2 from ton cost of CO2 capture.
7
The regulations in Canada contain language that From a global perspective, in addition to the increased
encourages the provinces to draft their own equivalent per ton cost for lower capture rates, future regulatory
legislation that best fits their region and achieves the tightening makes building a plant that is less than best
same CO2 reduction [2]. For a staged reduction in the available technology a risk that is difficult to quantify
emissions from coal, a plan where the biggest units are and would be a barrier to any investment decision.
completed first, and are built to capture at least 90% Building too small could in fact undermine the value
of the CO2 produced is the most cost-efficient way of of the entire endeavor. To reduce the long-term risk
reducing the emissions from coal while maintaining it as of costs from tightening CO2 policy, it is likely that only
a fuel source. projects exceeding rates of 90% CO2 capture would be
planned and approved.
1.5.8 Increasing Capture Capacity From 90% to 95%
As a sensitivity case, the effects of capture efficiency tonne. The steam requirements however are increased
were also investigated by evaluating the cost increase when moving to higher capture capacity. Further
from a 90% capture rate to a 95% capture rate. An investigation reflecting overall changes in the NPV of
estimate for the increase in overall capital costs and the cost of capture must be done although preliminary
steam requirements were provided by MHI and MHPS. analysis results indicate a potentially lower cost of CO2
The increased volume of CO2 captured at a 95% capture capture at the higher capture rate. Investigating potential
efficiency was also calculated. These values were used increase in CO2 revenue from the added volume of
to determine the changes in capital costs and energy captured CO2 must also be considered to determine the
penalty per tonne of CO2 captured. Details of this point of diminished returns for capture efficiency. The
investigation and environmental benefits are further selection of a higher capture rate would appear to have
examined in Chapter 10. merit in situations where the unit is sufficiently base-
loaded so as not to benefit from the inherent increased
The overall increase in capital costs required to facilitate
capture rate at lower load.
the increase in capture produces a lower overall cost per
1.5.9 CO2 Market
Key to the approval of the BD3 project was the prospect develop and co-ordinate new CO2 EOR projects, as well
of a sale of the CO2 for use in EOR operations. In fact, the as improvements in knowledge for using CO2 EOR in the
revenue from the sale of CO2 was a required component Bakken. While there are no nearby EOR opportunities
of the business case for the project to be competitive in the area of the Poplar River Power Station, a long-
with Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC). While not in distance pipeline to transport CO2 to oil producing
place at the time of project approval for BD3, it was clear regions might be economically feasible if the amount
that an opportunity existed, and in fact a sale agreement of CO2 transported is large. The larger the pipeline
was entered into with an oil operator for their nearby the lower the cost per tonne of CO2 transported. The
Weyburn oil field - a field that had already been injecting potential market for CO2 and evaluation of the most
CO2 from another source for many years. probable fields is further explored in Chapter 6.
There are potential additional opportunities for CO2 EOR When CO2 is used in an EOR operation, the needs of the
within 100 km of Estevan, Saskatchewan [3]. However, oil field are somewhat inconsistent with the capability of
it is uncertain whether these opportunities can be a single carbon capture plant. The EOR facility requires
economically developed. The opportunity depends a reliable supply of CO2, as interruptions in availability
on oil prices that can support the associated higher of CO2 has impacts on the oil operation. As well, the
production costs, and an ability to attract companies to quantities of CO2 that can be injected into a new field

will gradually increase over the first three to five years of would be low. It is anticipated that the combined
operation. By contrast, a single capture facility is prone to reliability of the two facilities would exceed 98% in
interruptions and trips from either the capture process, comparison to the single facility reliability which was
or the associated power facility, and once on-line, the originally targeted at 85%. If the pipeline between the
economics and the facility work best at full output. The new EOR off-taker and Shand, and the connection to the
Aquistore CO2 storage facility, has similar characteristics BD3 pipeline was completed in advance of the carbon
to the EOR oil fields, taking significant periods of time to capture plant completion, the excess un-sold CO2
get to full capability after any interruption. Although the from BD3, could be delivered to the new fields so that
agreement between SaskPower and their EOR off-taker the fields could develop capacity to accept the higher
is confidential, there is significant public information on volumes of CO2 that would be available when the new
the operational costs that SaskPower has experienced capture facility comes on-line. This would also improve
due to the lack of reliability of the CO2 supply [4]. Not all the economics of the BD3 facility by increasing the
of the CO2 from the BD3 facility has been sold. number of off-takers and potential volumes of CO2 to be
sold.
The opportunity exists to join the Shand CO2 pipeline to
the BD3 pipeline. This would benefit the reliability, as the Interconnection of the two facilities increases the
two power units and associated capture units would not reliability and economic feasibility of both facilities.
be scheduled to do planned maintenance concurrently, Details on EOR potential in Saskatchewan are presented
and the probability of simultaneous unplanned outages in Chapter 6.
1.5.10 Fuel Pricing and Common Services
A consideration when determining where best to the price of the delivered fuel rises on a per ton basis as
site the next potential CCS facility, especially when the demand is decreased. This negative feedback loop
considering the economics and environmental policies results in ever increasing costs for coal as the demand is
that are making the future of coal-fired power plants decreased, and ever decreasing demand for coal as the
uncertain, is to ensure that critical mass of the industry price of the electricity from the coal-fired power plant
is maintained. increases. In the case of Shand, it is fed from a common
mine with Boundary Dam, and with BD3 already being
Coal mining is a capital-intensive undertaking, and there
converted to CCS, it is the coal fuel source with the best
is significant investment in being able to deliver the coal
long-term viability. CCS plants, especially those fed by
at peak demand. As has been seen in West Virginia and
mine mouth operations are likely to be concentrated for
other locations in the USA, scaling back on coal deliveries
this reason.
does not decrease the fixed costs of coal mining, and
Figure I. Coal mining in Saskatchewan
9
1.5.11 Site Layout and Modularization
The availability of space for the CCS plant footprint is a Modular construction for major infrastructure projects
factor in determining a suitable location. The distance in western Canada, specifically the Alberta oil sands, has
between the power facility and the capture facility been embraced as a means of controlling costs. Routes
on BD3 resulted in significant capital expenditures exist in Saskatchewan and Alberta that can support the
for interconnections between the two plants, that road delivery of modules and vessels that can be 30
amounted to almost 8% of the overall capital costs for feet (9m) high, 24 feet (8m) wide, and 120 feet (40m)
BD3. In addition, the physical distance between the long. This shop assembly of structural steel, equipment,
plants makes integration of the operations more difficult piping, electrical and instrumentation dramatically
and less likely. increases productivity, reduces travel costs and results
in shorter on-site construction time. Details on strategic
In contrast to the Boundary Dam site, the Shand site
factors to be considered in project implementation are
with its single unit is un-congested and open. The
presented in Chapter 10.
original project concept of locating the CCS plant parallel
to the existing power unit, with the CO2 absorber tower
aligned with the boiler house, the CO2 regenerator
aligned with the boiler house/turbine house wall, and
the CO2 compressor aligned with the power generator,
minimized the length of interconnections for flue gas,
steam, and electricity. The concept of sharing common
steel and adjoining the two plants was abandoned in
favor of construction access and to support modular
construction, although there may be merit of re-using
elevators and access in locations where modularity is
not a significant benefit.
Figure II. Examples of transporting a

modularized facilitytchewan

1.5.12 Flue Gas Pre-Treatment and Emissions Credits from Fly
Ash Revenue
The coal-fired power plants in Saskatchewan, would now be saleable for the concrete market would
with the exception of BD3, are similar in pollution create a valuable revenue stream.
control equipment, with generally low NOx burners
In addition, although not universally recognized, the sale
and separated over-fire air for NOx reduction, and
of fly ash for concrete use is itself a carbon offset when
electrostatic precipitators. A portion of the units are
compared to the emissions associated with producing
fitted with activated carbon injection for mercury
cement. While numbers vary on the impact, if an
abatement. The Shand unit was the only unit fitted
effective rate of 0.9 tons of CO2 reduction per ton of fly
with SO2 abatement, using a furnace-based limestone
ash is used, this translates into a carbon reduction offset
injection system. This system has been challenging
of 78 t/GWh [5]. Interestingly, the combination of these
to operate and not overly effective. In addition, the
fly ash sales emission offsets to cement production with
configuration of the system makes the fly ash from the
a plant designed for 95% capture as described above
unit un-saleable for use in concrete.
could result in a coal-fired power plant that is carbon
Preconditioning of flue gas is required prior to carbon negative as discussed in Chapter 11. The ability to sell
capture. This includes reducing the temperature and the fly ash, as an addition to the fly ash that is sold from
removing SO2. A Flue Gas Cooler (FGC) would be installed Boundary Dam, and to take advantage of the common
for flue gas heat rejection purposes and integrate with infrastructure to ship the product would be a benefit to
the power plant to provide condensate preheating. the project. As it has transpired, SaskPower has received
A wet-limestone FGD would replace the current SO2 approval to discontinue the SO2 abatement on Shand
abatement system. This new contemporary FGD would based on the SO2 that is now captured at BD3. The fly
improve the utilization efficiency of the limestone ash sale benefits are already being realized and can no
and reduce the amount of SO2 that would have to be longer be attributed to this project, and as such are not
removed in the SO2 polishing step. Details of flue gas included in the financial benefit that would be realized
pre-conditioning are summarized in Chapter 3. More from the project.
importantly, the 140,000 tonnes per year of fly ash that
1.5.13 CCS Technology Vendor Selection
MHI’s KM CDR ProcessTM is currently used at Petra able to assess the relative merits of the two technology
Nova, the world’s largest CCS plant. Details of this CO2 providers who have built systems at commercial scale,
technology are presented in Chapter 4. By evaluating Cansolv and MHI.
the KM CDR ProcessTM for Shand, the project team was
1.5.14 Heat Rejection Design Considerations
Experience has shown that the addition of CCS to a coal- the availability of cooling capacity will quite often be a
fired power plant results in a 50% increase in the heat major project impediment for a new CCS facility.
rejection requirement. Since the availability of cooling is
For the Shand facility, there is limited water in the area,
generally one of the first design concerns for siting a new
and an additional water use permit is not probable.
facility, and quite often ends up being the limiting factor
In addition, the plants operating license is based on a
for further expansion at a given site. It is anticipated that
Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) original plant design and
11
maintaining this designation would be an important the leakage of process fluids to the evaporation side
consideration for the plant. of the cooling tower, (2) allows the amount of water
evaporated to be controlled by biasing heat rejection
A major challenge in western Canada, where the ambient
duty between the two coolers, and (3) results in an air
temperature can range from +40deg C to -40deg C, is
cooler system with high approaches and an evaporative
the selection of the design temperature for the cooling
system which provides the lower approach final cooling
system. De-rates of the CCS facility are viewed as being
of the circuit. This type of cooling system has the
acceptable at high ambient temperatures, especially
potential to be a reasonable first approach to cooling
when the impact is slightly lower CO2 capture with
at any coal-fired power plant and is especially effective
increased power output during times of excessive
with high moisture low rank coals. Details on the design
temperatures, and more CO2 can be captured at low
and performance of the new hybrid heat rejection
ambient temperatures. To this end, the heat rejection
system are presented in Chapter 5.
system for Shand CCS was designed for the 85th
percentile. This became the basis for the design case and
provided reduced margins in favor of cost savings.
The only new water used in the system is the water
that is condensed out of the unit’s flue gas. The use of a
hybrid cooling system with dry coolers and wet surface
air coolers (1) provides a double layer of protections for
1.5.15 Plant Maintainability
The coal-fired power plants to which CCS facilities

are attached are the product of multiple generations
of revision. The economics, equipment and process
characteristics has led to designs that balance costs and
reliability which have been proven over and over again.
In a sub-critical coal-fired power plant the inclusion of
critical spares and capacity margins is common. For
instance, the large fans are sized for 2 x 50% capacity The economics,
while groups of heat exchangers can be bypassed to equipment and process
allow the process to continue to run with one or more
out of service. characteristics has led
This same level of refinement has not yet been achieved to designs that balance
for amine based CCS plants. The BD3 facility has
undergone complex and difficult renovation projects
costs and reliability
to add redundancy, isolation, and other modifications. which have been proven
In the short term, where the cost of adding equipment
after the original construction is an order of magnitude
over and over again.
more expensive than installing as part of the original
design, it is believed that there is value in including
additional process isolations and redundancy at selected
locations in the process. To this end, the capital cost
estimate presented in this report includes additional
funds to cover this enhanced functionality.

Chapter 2. Power Island Modifications
2.1 Modifications to the Existing Turbine
The turbine is the fundamental component in a thermal It is imperative for the CCS retrofit to minimize any power
power plant, and steam is the main working fluid. Steam generation losses such as parasitic load. Several turbine
is also an essential requirement for the carbon capture modifications would help to minimize net output losses
process. Steam may either be sourced from an external with CCS in service. These modifications would include
dedicated steam generator (such as the one deployed at changes to the High Pressure (HP) and Intermediate
the Petra Nova Project) or it could be extracted from the Pressure (IP) turbine including its rotor, blades, all
power unit’s steam cycle using an integration philosophy diaphragms, inner casing, and packing. Low Pressure
(such as the installation at BD3). The proposed CCS (LP) turbine modifications would include changes to the
retrofit of Shand would entail the steam extraction for first through the third blade stages and diaphragms with
the capture island to be sourced from the power island’s packing. In particular:
steam cycle. This integrated approach, however, would
• The HP turbine stages would be increased from 6
reduce the quantity of steam available for electricity
to 11 stages.
generation which would result in a production output
penalty. This type of reduction is also commonly referred • The IP turbine stages would be increased from 4 to
to as the “parasitic load”. 5.
• And all HP, IP and LP stage replacements would be
designed based on the Continuous Cover Blade
(CCB) structure. CCB structure would reduce
leakage which would ensure higher reliability by
It is imperative for the avoiding tenon caulking and the labyrinth effect at
CCS retrofit to minimize the tip portion of the blades.

MHPS has indicated that turbine modifications (see
any power generation Figure 2.1) could be completed within a 65-day outage
losses period.
11-staged HP 5-staged IP LP Turbine blades

Turbine Turbine
Figure 2.1 Proposed steam turbine modification

2.2 Pipe and Utility Bridge
A Pipe and Utility Bridge would be installed between the required for steam extraction to meet the requirements
Powerhouse and the CCS facility to support and provide of the capture facility would run along the west side of
access to new piping and utilities (see Figure 2.2). The the bridge, with all other piping and utilities supported
Pipe and Utility Bridge would span the 56-metre distance along the east side of the bridge. The piping bridge
between the north wall of the Powerhouse and the CCS would also handle all interconnections between the
facility. It is assumed that the Pipe and Utility Bridge power plant and the capture facility including steam,
could terminate at any location along the CCS facility condensate, demineralized and potable water, and all
boundary limit and that piping inside the CCS facility interconnecting utilities.
could be routed to this terminal point.
It is assumed that the Pipe and Utility Bridge would
The bridge would be an open design without an be fabricated in modules off site and set in place on
enclosure. There would be a walkway in the middle site. It is expected that modular construction would
of the bridge to provide access to piping. Access to result in capital and labour cost savings due the higher
the Powerhouse and CCS facility would be provided at productivity associated with shop fabrication over field
each end of the bridge. The 42-inch Process Steam line erection.
Power plant
Utility bridge
Capture
facility
Figure 2.2 Proposed design and location of the pipe and utility bridge (highlighted in pink)
2.3 Modifications to the Steam Cycle to accommodate

Steam Supply to and Return from the Capture Facility
The proposed CCS retrofit would require Process CCS island is on-line. Steam for the reclaimer would be
Steam to provide the necessary reboiler heat duty for sourced from the cold reheat steam pipe. Various other
the regenerator and for solvent reclaiming. The CCS modifications to the steam cycle would also be required
facility would be fully integrated with the power plant. to facilitate full integration of the power island with
Steam for the reboiler would be sourced from the IP-LP the capture island. They are presented in the following
crossover and would be in continuous supply while the sections.
15
2.3.1. Steam Supply to the Reboiler
A Process Steam line from the IP-LP turbine crossover equipped with drain pots for line warming, relief valves
to the reboiler at the capture facility would be installed. and appropriate instrumentation. The steam-extraction
Steam would be extracted continuously to the reboiler at line would be tied-in at the east side of the crossover,
the necessary conditions to satisfy the reboiler heat duty routed along the Operating Floor, through the north wall
requirements. The extraction point would be a single, of the Power Plant and along a pipe bridge to the CCS
42-inch (1066.8 mm) diameter, steam line that would be facility (see Figure 2.3).
Steam to reboiler
Turbine
Figure 2.3 Proposed design and location of the process steam extraction line to the reboiler
(highlighted in blue with the north wall of the powerhouse hidden)
The IP and LP would be customized for CCS operations. the latter stages of the IP. The last stage of the LP would
However, the lowest possible IP exhaust pressure would be operated in a moist atmosphere to prevent it from
be limited by IP turbine blade strength. Two air-assisted, heating. Further design detail would be studied during
Non-Return Valves (NRVs) and one motor-operated, the execution stage of the retrofit.
shut-off valve would be installed for overspeed
Pressure and temperature would be monitored at the
protection, water-induction prevention, and operation
tie-in location of the IP-LP crossover and at the boundary
of the line. The first NRV must be no more than 6 m
limit of the north wall of the powerhouse. Flow rate
away from the flange on the crossover to meet energy
would be monitored at the boundary limit. Temperature
storage and overspeed requirements. Pipe hangers and
would be monitored along the exterior portion of
structural steel additions, including personnel access to
the line on the Pipe and Utility Bridge. Drip legs with
the NRVs, would be included in the scope of supply.
automatic drains, high-point vents and low-point drains
A new pressure control valve (PCV), referred to as the would be installed as required. The line would be
“butterfly valve”, would be installed in the existing IP-LP wrapped with 3 inches of mineral-wool insulation and
crossover that would enable throttling of the steam aluminum jacketing. Preliminary routing of the Process
supply at reduced loads (Figure 2.4). At less than 75% Steam piping would provide sufficient flexibility in the
load, the amount of extraction steam would be restricted line to withstand the effects of thermal expansion. A
by the moisture contents at the last stage of the LP and full piping stress analysis would be completed in the
the turbine blade load due to irregular flow conditions at detailed design phase.

Figure 2.4 Crossover pipe steam extraction point and butterfly valve location
2.3.2 Purpose of the Butterfly Valve in the IP-LP crossover
The Shand CCS facility would be designed for seamless duty to the reboiler however is disproportional
and continuous capture operation at 90% capture during to the reduction in power plant load, resulting in
decreased power plant output as dictated by a reduction a greater percentage of the steam consumed for
in grid load demand. The modified design of Shand’s capture operations.
steam cycle, that incorporates insertion of a butterfly
• At reduced loads with an uncontrolled IP-LP
valve in the IP-LP crossover between the steam extraction
crossover extraction, the pressure drops in
point and the inlet to the LP turbine, would facilitate
proportion to the steam flow to the LP turbine.
operational flexibility of the capture plant by enabling
Eventually the pressure at the IP-LP crossover
the thermal cycle to operate under planned curtailment
drops below the pressure required for the reboilers
conditions. It is worth noting that traditionally, butterfly
and solvent regeneration cannot be maintained.
valves are often employed to maintain the pressure
This limiting factor prevents continued capture
at the back end of the IP turbine, thus avoiding costly
operations at reduced loads.
modifications to the turbine itself, albeit at the cost of
reduced efficiency of power generation. However, for Throttling the steam at reduced loads, via the butterfly
the Shand design at full load the butterfly valve would valve, would maintain sufficient flow and energy density
remain completely open to maximize efficiency. to the reboiler for continued capture operations.
Reduction in power plant load would reduce the The butterfly valve would also enable over-capture
quantity and quality of the main supply of steam. This (beyond the 90% capture design parameter) at reduced
would hinder the performance of the capture facility for loads by increasing extraction steam pressure. From
the following reasons: a CO2 supply point of view this would mean more
consistent volumes of CO2 would be delivered while
• As the power plant load decreases, the quantity
enabling load variation of the Power Island. From an
of steam flowing through the turbine decreases in
emissions-mitigation point of view, CCS equipped
proportion to load. The reduction in the desired
17
coal-fired power plants could be made responsive to at partial load when supporting a wind power facility
variable renewable generation and would emit less CO2 is six times less than the emission intensity that can be
per MWh, thereby effectively increasing the emissions achieved with a modern NGCC plant serving the same
reduction contribution of renewable power. duty. For further details refer to Chapter 11.
The emission intensity realized by coupling a carbon
capture plant that is capable of exceeding 90% capture
2.3.3 Steam Supply to the Reclaimer
A new Reclaimer Steam line from the cold reheat steam automatic drains would be installed in the line. Pressure
piping would be installed to the CCS facility to provide and temperature would be monitored. Piping would
intermittent steam to the CCS Thermal Reclaimer. The be wrapped with 1-inch mineral wool insulation and
tie-in would be located at Operating Floor elevation aluminum jacketing. The line would be supported every
between LP FWH 2 and HP FWH 4. The line would be 6.4 metres (21 feet), or as required, to accommodate the
routed along the Operating Floor, through the north effects of thermal expansion.
wall of the Powerhouse and along the Pipe and Utility
Originally, two options were considered for the Reclaimer
Bridge to the boundary limit of the CCS facility (see
Steam source: (1) IP intermediate extraction steam or (2)
Figure 2.5). Steam would be sourced prior to the reheat
cold reheat steam. Results from this study indicated that
attemperator and, would be tied into the single 8-inch
the difference in heat rate (or kW power) between these
steam-extraction piping that enters the HP FWH 6
options was negligible. However, it was noted that the
feedwater heater. The line would supply steam when
IP extraction-line steam velocity would be relatively high
the Thermal Reclaimer is in service. The line would be
at approximately 110 m/s, which could potentially lead
designed to the 150# carbon-steel piping specification
to noise and/or vibrations. Therefore, the cold reheat
and would be constructed of NPS 6 SCH 40 A106 GR B
source was selected.
piping. One free-swing NRV and one motor operated
shut-off valve would be installed for back-flow and water-
induction prevention. High-point vents and low-point
drains would be installed as required. Two drip legs with
Steam to reclaimer
Turbine Steam to reboiler
Figure 2.5 Proposed design and location of reclaimer steam line


2.3.4 Additional Condensate Supply Line
A new condensate supply line from the powerhouse along the Pipe and Utility Bridge to the boundary limit
to the CCS facility would be installed. The line would of the CCS facility (see Figure 2.6). Piping would be
supply condensate to the CCS facility to sub-cool designed to the 150# carbon-steel piping specification
condensate from the reboiler and the thermal reclaimer and would be constructed of NPS 2 SCH 80 A106 GR B
prior to return to the powerhouse. Condensate would piping. Double-block and bleed valves would be installed
be sourced from the existing gland steam condenser at the tie-in location for isolation purposes as well as
outlet line (SD-PIP-006-10”) beneath the Operating high-point vents and low-point drains as required. Piping
Floor. The line would be routed along the Operating would be supported every 3 meters, or as required, to
Floor, through the North wall of the Powerhouse and accommodate thermal expansion.
Steam to reboiler
Condensate supply line
Turbine
Figure 2.6 Proposed design and location of condensate supply line

(highlighted in blue with the north wall of the powerhouse and the operating floor hidden)
2.3.5 Condensate Return to the Power Plant
Condensate from the reboiler and reclaimer would elevation between LP FWH 2 and HP FWH 4. The line
accumulate inside the steam condensate drum before would be routed along the Pipe and Utility Bridge,
returning to the power plant steam cycle. A condensate through the north wall of the Powerhouse and along the
return line from the CCS facility to the Powerhouse Operating Floor to the tie-in location (see Figure 2.7).
would be installed. The line would deliver condensate
Piping would be designed to the 150# carbon steel piping
produced in the CCS Reboiler and its Thermal Reclaimer
specification and would be constructed of NPS 10 SCH
to the Powerhouse and would tie into the existing
40 A106 GR B piping. A check valve and an isolation valve
condensate inlet line (SD-PIP-012-10”) to the DEA.
would be installed in the Condensate Return line, as well
Condensate-forwarding pumps would be used to return
as high-point vents and low-point drains, as required.
the condensate to the power island from the capture
Provisions to reroute the condensate away from the
facility. The tie-in would be located at Operating Floor
power cycle, in the event of any quality deficiencies,
19
would be included in the design, and the condensate line would be wrapped with 1-inch mineral wool insula-
would be sent to the LLRFW tank or to the sump until tion and aluminum jacketing. Piping would be supported
the water quality meets boiler water specifications. Flow every 6.5 metres, or as required, to accommodate the
would be monitored in the Condensate Return line. The effects of thermal expansion.
Steam to reboiler
Condensate return
Turbine
Figure 2.7 Proposed design and location of condensate return line

2.3.6 Auxiliary Steam
New Auxiliary Steam lines would be installed to warm valves and high point vents and low point drains would
the Process Steam piping and to supply heat to the Seal be installed as required. Piping would be designed to
Air Heater. Lines would tie into the existing Auxiliary the 150# carbon steel piping specification and would be
Steam system at a location to be determined. Isolation constructed of A106 GR B piping.
2.4 Modifications to the HP Feed-heating System
2.4.1 New Steam Extraction Line to the DEA

DEAs prevent corrosion of steam-cycle components heat the condensate to the full saturation temperature
by removing dissolved gases from boiler feedwater. corresponding with the steam pressure in the DEA to
A DEA acts similarly to a FWH by drawing steam from enable scrubbing and removal of dissolved gasses. A
the turbine to heat boiler feedwater. Steam is drawn to prescribed, minimum temperature increase across

the DEA, as per manufacturer’s specification, must be higher-energy steam extraction supply. Therefore, a new
achieved using steam extraction. For Shand the required extraction steam line to the DEA at Floor EL. 602.4 (+44.4)
temperature increase would be 15°C. would be installed. The line would tie into the existing
extraction steam line (SE-PIP-007-10”) to HP FWH 5 at
Currently, the DEA at Shand extracts steam from the LP
Floor EL. 579.9 (+21.9), downstream from the existing
turbine. During CCS operations, the steam extraction
motor-operated valve SE-MOV-043 (see Figure 2.8). The
required for the capture facility would be sourced from
line would be tied into the existing extraction steam line
the IP-LP crossover. This would reduce the pressure
to the DEA to enable the existing steam source to supply
of the usual LP steam extraction supply to the DEA.
the DEA with steam while the CCS facility is off line. The
Furthermore, integrating Shand with CCS would
new line would operate at 1,534 kPa (absolute) and
generate a return condensate stream from the capture
434.8 °C with a flow rate of 18,860 kg/hr. The line would
facility. The condensate return would tie into the
be designed to the 150# alloy steel-piping specification
feedwater condensate stream between the LP FWH 2
and would be constructed of NPS 10 SCH STD A335 P11
and DEA. The enthalpy of the return condensate stream
piping. Isolation valves, high-point vents and low-point
would be higher than the current feedwater saturation
drains would be installed as required. Pressure and
condition. Furthermore, using rejected flue gas heat for
temperature would be monitored at the tie-in location
condensate preheating would increase the enthalpy of
and at the DEA. The line would be wrapped in 4-inch
the feedwater condensate during capture mode. The
mineral wool insulation and aluminum jacketing. Piping
combined effects of these two factors would increase
would be supported every 8.2 meters, or as required to
the temperature of the condensate entering the DEA
accommodate the effects of thermal expansion.
from 115.7oC, current Maximum Design Flow conditions
(MDF), to 136.1oC (MDF with CCS). In summary these modifications would allow the DEA
to continue operating at current conditions with the
Currently, steam extraction would not provide
existing extraction to the DEA from the LP turbine when
sufficient energy to adequately deaerate by providing
CCS is off line. With CCS online, however, the extraction
the required 15-degree temperature increase in the
from the DEA would change and be sourced from the HP
condensate as it passes through the DEA. To adjust for
FWH 5 extraction line while also bypassing HP FWH 4.
this, the temperature and pressure of the DEA would be
increased by changing its steam extraction source to a
Steam to DEA
Figure 2.8 Proposed design and location of the new steam extraction line to the DEA
21
2.4.2 HP FWH 4 Bypass Drain
The increased LP condensate preheating, combined Alternatively, the condensate could be sent to the
with the increased temperature and pressure of the Condenser Hot Well. With the CCS facility off-line, the
condensate exiting the new DEA, would eliminate the HP FWH 5 would drain through the existing cascading
need for HP FWH 4 while CCS is on line. Therefore, HP drains. The new drain lines would be designed to the
FWH 4 would be taken out of service during capture 150# carbon steel-piping specification with lines being
operation. Currently, HP FWH 5 drains into HP FWH 4. constructed of NPS 8 SCH 40 A106 GR B piping. Isolation
With HP FWH 4 out of service, a bypass drain around valves, high-point vents and low-point drains would
the heater to the DEA would be required. The tie-in be installed as required. The line would be wrapped
location would be on the Operating Floor downstream in 38.1 mm of mineral wool insulation and aluminum
of the existing level control valve SN-LCV-011. The line jacketing. Piping would be supported every 5.8 metres,
would be routed to the DEA on Floor EL. 602.4 (+44.4). A or as required, to accommodate the effects of thermal
separate line would also be routed to the Condenser Hot expansion.
Well at Floor EL. 558 (+0.0) (see Figure 2.9). With the CCS
facility on-line, 135,466 kg/hr of condensate at 161.5 °C
would drain to the DEA.
HP FWH4
HP FWH4
bypass drain
Figure 2.9 Proposed design and location of the new HP FWH 4 bypass drain

2.5 DEA Replacement
The source of steam extraction for the DEA from the IP this subsection: a spray-type DEA and a replacement
to FWH 5 extraction line would increase the pressure tray-type DEA.
of the DEA from 303.6 kPa to 517.3 kPa, which would
A new spray-type DEA (see Figure 2.10) would be
be beyond the current DEA design limit. Therefore, DEA
installed to replace the existing tray-type DEA. The spray-
replacement would be necessary. MHPS has undertaken
type DEA comprises a single vessel design that effectively
a preliminary investigation and has verified that all
combines the DEA and the storage tank into a single tank
piping to and from the DEA could adequately handle
without any trays. The DEA would be fabricated using
the aforementioned pressure increase. Assumptions
A516 GR 70 carbon steel.
for this investigation would be verified during the FEED
study. Two alternatives were evaluated as discussed in
Figure 2.10 Drawing of the proposed new DEA
When the CCS facility is off line, the existing LP Extraction a significantly lower profile due to the single-tank
Steam line to the DEA would be used. However, when design compared with the dual-tank design of the
the CCS facility is on line, a new extraction line tie into existing tray-type DEA. Consequently, it would easily
the IP to HP FWH 5 extraction would be used to supply fit into the existing DEA installation location whereas a
steam to the DEA. Given the higher temperature and replacement tray-type DEA would not. A replacement
pressure of the cold reheat steam source when the CCS tray-type DEA would be larger than the existing DEA and
facility is on-line, non-standard materials of construction would not fit within the existing steel structure, thereby
would be required for the supply of a replacement necessitating significant modifications to the power
tray-type DEA. However, a new spray-type DEA could be island infrastructure. Consequently, it is expected that
fabricated using standard carbon-steel plate. a new spray-type DEA would result in significant cost
savings compared with a replacement tray-type DEA.
A distinct advantage of the proposed spray-type DEA
is important to consider. The new spray-type DEA has
23
The existing DEA and its overlying access platform would the new DEA and set it outside the north wall of the
be demolished and removed from the Powerhouse via Powerhouse. Building siding would be removed from
the adjacent lifting bay. Any piping connections within the north wall of the DEA bay and temporary steel would
the immediate vicinity of the existing DEA would be be erected upon which to set the DEA. The DEA would
demolished to accommodate the demolition and be put into place and new piping would be used to
installation of the new DEA tank. A crane would lift reconnect all existing lines to the DEA (see Figure 2.11).
DEA
Figure 2.11 Proposed new DEA installation
2.6 Modifications to the LP Feed-Heating System

Modifications to the LP feed-heating system would Modification of the feed-heating train must account
include the installation of three Condensate Preheaters for the need to conserve steam-cycle performance
(CPHs). During CCS operation, the steam extraction line and overall power plant efficiency that are associated
for the reboiler from the IP-LP crossover hinders the use with maintaining increased enthalpy from the boiler
of LP FWH 1 and 2 for normal condensate preheating. feedwater that is passed through the train. The steam
Flue gas would be cooled to the desired temperature cycle would be optimized to ensure that boiler feedwater
prior to entering the capture facility to facilitate favorable re-entry into the boiler preserves sufficient thermal
reaction kinetics and to avoid thermal degradation of energy to mitigate any impact on the steam output of
amine solvent used for CO2 capture. The rejected flue the boiler. A decrease in boiler feedwater enthalpy would
gas heat could be recovered for LP feed-heating using require more work from the boiler and additional fuel to
heat integration methods. The low-grade heat rejected generate thermal energy thereby reducing the efficiency
from the flue gas is available in excess. However, of the steam cycle and increasing the heat rate of the
applications to fully utilize the heat are limited. The power plant. This would be an undesirable scenario.
proposed modifications to the feed-heating system, The boiler feedwater enthalpy profiles of the current
primarily involving the increase in DEA temperature steam cycle and the steam cycle integrated with CCS
and pressure, enables maximizing the usage of this low- are summarized in Figures 2.12 and 2.13, respectively.
grade heat. This would fittingly lower the production The duty comparisons of each component in the feed-
penalty or parasitic load associated with CO2 capture heating train between the two cases are summarized in
operation. In total, 47.24 MWth would be incorporated Figure 2.14.
into LP condensate preheating utilizing the rejected low-
grade heat from the flue gas through heat integration.

Figure 2.12 Boiler feedwater enthalpy profile of the current steam cycle at Shand
Figure 2.13 Boiler feedwater enthalpy profile of the steam cycle with CCS integration of Shand
25
Figure 2.14 Comparison of the associated duty for each component in the feed-heating train between the
current power plant and the potential CCS-integrated power plant
Comparisons may be drawn between the two enthalpy would be lower in the CCS integrated case. This is
profiles. The resulting final enthalpies of the boiler compensated by the large extent of duty supplied by the
feedwater are similar for the two cases. HP FWH 6 and the stream of condensate returning from the capture facility
DEA also experience similar duties in both cases. HP FWH (condensate return). The condensate return has a higher
4 would be taken out of service during CCS operations, energy density than the power plant condensate stream
as it becomes redundant due to the lowered pressure at that it ties into. Consequently, a condensate returning
the crossover, which was the original extraction point for with higher energy would greatly improve boiler
this FWH and the new higher pressure extraction point feedwater warming and reduce its heating requirement.
to the deaerator. The new higher pressure deaerator The CCS-integrated model would experience a 3.7%
would only partially compensate for the duty make up decrease in overall duty within the entire feed-heating
requirements, as such, the duty and steam extraction train. This could be attributed to operational changes in
volume of HP FWH 5 would increase.This would be the LP feed-heating train when CCS is on line. During CCS
attributed to the increased pressure difference between operation, the DEA would experience an 87% increase in
the HP FWH 5 extraction and the crossover, which is the pressure and a 17% increase in temperature. Changes
next lowest pressure extraction. The LP feed-heating in the DEA operating parameters combined with the
requirements would be compensated by CPH 1, 2 and preheating effects of the condensate return would alter
3. However, the total duty of the LP feed-heating system the feed-heating profile of the LP feed-heating train.
that would result from the LP feed-heating equipment
2.6.1 System Description
At BD3, the intent was to leave FWH 1 and 2 out of the capture island would shut down, while the power
service while CCS was on line. Should the FGC come plant would continue to operate with the LP FWHs out
off line, the flue gas would be diverted to the stack and of service. In this instance, the DEA would be required

to compensate for the loss in condensate preheating by be primarily supplied by the CPH. However, the amount
increasing the volume of its steam bleed. A differential of heat transfer through each of the CPHs would need
pressure would be established between the DEA and to be adjusted with a bypass temperature-control
the turbine extraction point that would generate high valve to ensure that LP FWHs 1 and 2 would continue
flow velocity conditions inside the steam extraction line. to consume a small amount of steam (~5% of MDF
This would be an unacceptable situation for continuous heat duty). This would help to facilitate the transition
operation and would require the implementation of an between power plant operating with the capture island
automated system to return the LP heaters to service in and out of service. The “cool” condensate would be
within a relatively short delay. configured to flow from CPH 1 to CPH 3 while the “hot”
circulating water from the FGC would flow from CPH 3
To avoid this situation at the proposed Shand CCS-
to CPH 1 enabling countercurrent flow. Table 2.1 shows
integrated plant, three smaller CPHs would be
a summary of CPHs train heat duties.
configured in series with LP FWHs 1 and 2. With the
capture island on line, LP condensate preheating would
Table 2.1 Summary of CPH train heat duties
It was assumed in this study that the additional study. The FEED study would also evaluate if improved
differential pressure caused by the CPHs, when combined performance and lower power consumption for the use
with the changes in pressure in the DEA and the lower of Variable Frequency Drives (VFD’s) for the CEPs would
condensate flow, would be within the capacity of the compensate for the additional capital costs and would
existing CEPs. This must be verified during the FEED be justifiable as it was for BD3.
2.6.1.1 Condensate Preheater 1
CPH1 would be located on the Mezzanine Floor and drop of 10.0 kPa across the exchanger. Condensate
would be installed in series before LP FWH 1 (see Figure would enter the cold side of CPH1 at 45.02°C and exit
2.15). CPH1 would be a plate-and-frame heat exchanger at 80.47°C with an associated pressure drop of 9.95 kPa
with 419 304 stainless-steel plates, a total heat transfer across the exchanger. CPH1 would have NPS 12 ANSI 16.5
area of 442.85 m2 and a heat duty of 18,986 kW. FGC 150# carbon-steel process connections and a footprint
Recirculating Water would enter the hot side of CPH1 at of 1099mm W x 4382mm L x 2010mm H.
92.72°C and exit at 57.47°C with an associated pressure
27
CPH
Figure 2.15 proposed design and location of CPH 1 and associated piping
(highlighted in blue with some existing piping and steel hidden)
CPH2 would be located on the Operating Floor and an associated pressure drop of 9.97 kPa across the
would be installed in series between LP FWHs 1 and exchanger. Condensate would enter the cold side of
2 (see Figure 2.16). CPH2 would be a plate-and-frame CPH2 at 84.53°C and exit at 99.10°C with an associated
heat exchanger with 187 304 stainless-steel plates, a pressure drop of 9.91 kPa across the exchanger. CPH2
total heat transfer area of 253.63 m2 and a heat duty would have NPS 14 ANSI 16.5 150# 316L SS process
of 7,835 kW. FGC Recirculating Water would enter the connections and a footprint of 1186mm W x 2718mm
hot side of CPH2 at 107.33°C and exit at 92.86°C with L x 2353mm H.
CPH 2
Figure 2.16 Proposed design and location of CPH 2 and associated piping
(highlighted in blue with CPH 3 hidden)

CPH3 would be located on the Operating Floor and drop of 9.95 kPa across the exchanger. Condensate
would be installed between the LP FWH 2 and the DEA would enter the cold side of CPH3 at 100.59°C and exit
(see Figure 2.17). CPH3 would be a plate-and-frame heat at 133.94°C with an associated pressure drop of 9.77
exchanger with 380 304SS plates, a total heat transfer kPa across the exchanger. CPH3 would have NPS 12
area of 666.04 m2 and a heat duty of 18,094 kW. FGC ANSI 16.5 150# carbon-steel process connections and a
Recirculating Water would enter the hot side of CPH3 at footprint of 1099mm W x 4382mm L x 2590mm H.
140.66°C and exit at 107.57°C with an associated pressure
CPH 3
Figure 2.17 Proposed design and location of CPH 2 and associated piping
(highlighted in blue with existing piping and steel hidden)
2.6.2 Condensate Piping
The CPHs would be installed in series with the LP FWHs, High-point vents and low-point drains would be installed
locating CPH1 before the LP FWH 1, CPH2 between as required. Double block and bleed would be added to
the LP FWH 1 and 2 and CPH3 after the LP FWH 2. existing valves for isolating exchangers to facilitate ease
Existing condensate piping would be modified to divert of maintenance. Experience from BD3 suggests that this
condensate through each preheater. Piping would be equipment is highly reliable and resistant to fouling due
designed to a 150# carbon-steel piping specification and to its service.
would be constructed of NPS 10 SCH 40 A106 GR B pipe.
29
2.6.3 FGC Recirculating Water Lines
A single new FGC Recirculating Water supply line would 2.18). Piping would be designed to a 150# carbon-steel
be installed from the FGC building to each of the three piping specification and would be constructed of NPS
CPHs. A new return line would also be installed from 14 SCH STD A106 GR B pipe. A control valve would be
the preheaters to the FGC building. The recirculating installed around each CPH to manage the heat duty
lines would supply 462,536 kg/hr of hot flue gas cooling of the exchangers that would maintain some heating
water to the CPHs to recover heat for utilization in the in the LP Heaters and assure an acceptable minimum
condensate system. The lines would be routed from the temperature rise in the DEA. High-point vents and low-
FGC building boundary limit, through the CCS facility and point drains would be installed as required. The supply
onto the Pipe and Utility Bridge. The lines would come line would be wrapped in 1-inch mineral wool insulation
through the north wall of the Powerhouse and along and aluminum jacketing.
the Operating Floor to and from the CPHs (see Figure
Steam to reboiler
FGC recirculating
water
Figure 2.18 Proposed design and location of the FGC recirculating water line
(highlighted in blue with the north wall, operating floor and existing piping and steel hidden)

Chapter 3. Flue Gas Supply and
Conditioning
3.1 Flue Gas Supply to the Battery Limit
A new flue gas duct would be installed to supply system would be installed to seal the diverter dampers.
combustion gas from the boiler to the CCS facility. Flue A guillotine damper would be installed to isolate the flue
gas would be diverted from the existing stack through gas duct.
a large duct using two diverter dampers. A seal-air
The combustion gas from the boiler is divided into two capture plant and diverting combustion gas to the stack.
streams before the primary and secondary air heater. The seal-air system would seal against gas leakage with
These two flue gas streams flow to one common duct the blade in the closed position. The guillotine damper
and then pass through the ESP and the Induced Draft would also be in the closed position.
(ID) fans before reaching the diverter dampers. The two
During normal operation with the capture plant in
diverters would be used to direct the combustion gas to
service, the diverter dampers would be in the open
either the stack or to the CCS facility or a combination
position diverting the combustion gas to the capture
of the two. The guillotine damper provides positive
plant. The seal-air system would be activated and seal
isolation of the combustion gas to the capture plant. The
against gas leakage with the blade in the open position.
location of the diverter dampers and guillotine damper
The flue gas booster downstream from the flue gas
is illustrated in Figure 3.1.
quencher would draw flue gas through the FGC, the flue
During boiler startup and under normal operation gas desulphurization (FGD) and the flue gas quencher
without SO2 and CO2 capture in service, the diverter (see Figure 3.2).
dampers would be in the closed position, isolating the
Stack ESP
Guillotine
Damper
Diverter
Dampers
Ductwork
Figure 3.1 Proposed design and location of diverter and guillotine dampers

Figure 3.2 Configuration of flue gas diversion and path
3.1.2 System Equipment
3.1.2.1 Ductwork
The flue gas ductwork would carry flue gas from the the stack to the FGC casings and would be constructed
diverter dampers at the flue gas stack to the inlet of of carbon steel. The ductwork would be constructed
the FGC which would be located at the east side of the in sections along its length, each section would be
capture building. The ductwork would have a 6.6 x 6.6 separated by an expansion joint.
m2 crossection, would be 325 meters in length from
3.1.2.2 Diverter Dampers

The goal would be to
The diverter dampers would consist of structural casing,
a diverter blade, a shaft, seals, a seal-air system and a isolate capture plant
drive assembly. The diverter casing provides structural disruptions from
support for the diverter blade and drive system. It
would be constructed of a carbon-steel plate and would having an impact on
include structural beam reinforcement. The diverter
blade would direct flow by pivoting on a shaft within the
the reliability of the
diverter casing. When the blade is fully seated, seals at power plant.
the edge of the blade would contact seal-landing bards
mounted on the walls of the diverter housing which
accumulators and emergency provisions such that
would form a chamber around the perimeter of the
failure results in the diverters opening to the exisitng
blade. This chamber would be pressurized by the seal-
stack. The system would also require capacity to position
air system which would be supplied from the seal-air fan
the diverters quickly in response to pressure variations
and heated by auxiliary steam drawn from the steam
that would result from loss of the capture plant booster
cycle.
fan. As was done with BD3, the goal would be to isolate
The diverter dampers would be positioned by a capture plant disruptions from having an impact on the
servo hydraulic system. This system would include reliability of the power plant.
33
3.1.2.3 Guillotine Damper
The guillotine damper would consist of a port-frame actuator, and a gearbox at which point the drive system
assembly, corrugated-structural blade, drive-housing would penetrate the pressure envelope. The pressure
assembly and bonnet assembly. It would be operated envelope would be a high-alloy labyrinth assembly to
using an electric actuator to open and close the damper. seal against leakage. The bonnet would be fully enclosed
Blade-guide tracks would be attached to the inside to prevent fugitive emissions when the blade is in its
sidewalls of the damper frame and would control side retracted position. The bonnet would be heat-traced to
motion within allowable limits and hold the seals in maintain the system at 150°C and to prevent corrosion
place. The drive system would consist of two pin racks due to flue gas condensation.
attached to the blade, a drive pinion on each rack, drive
3.1.2.4 Seal Air System
Unlike tubular-type primary air heaters installed at BD3, the steam cycle in the powerhouse and its energy would
the Shand air preheater is a rotary, regenerative, air be transferred to the seal air via the seal-air steam
heater with the potential for cross-contamination of fly heater located near the ESP. The seal air system would
ash from the flue gas to the air. If this hot, primary air be designed to supply 93.5 m3/min of seal air to the
were used as the seal air for the diverter dampers, as diverters to prevent flue gas leakage affording a higher
installed at BD3, the contaminated seal air could lead pressure than the cavity between the front and back seal
to corrosion problems on the damper and stack. In the perimeters. Each diverter would be supplied with seal air
Shand design, auxiliary steam would be extracted from at 129°C to avoid flue gas condensation.
Flue Gas Cooler
Flue Gas
Stack CCTF
Flue Gas Duct
Diverter Dampers
Coal Conveyer
Figure 3.3 Proposed ducting layout from the stack to the FGC

3.2 Flue Gas Pre-Conditioning
Flue gas pre-conditioning is essential for the CO2 capture kinetics and mitigates solvent degradation. The flue gas
process as it reduces impurities to ensure suitable flue conditioning train would comprise of a FGC, a FGD and a
gas conditions prior to the CO2 capture process. Pre- flue gas quencher (see Figure 3.4).
conditioning results in favorable CO2 absorption reaction
Shand Flue Gas Quencher

and FGD CO2
Powerhouse
CO2 Absorber Compression
Building
CO2 Capture
Duct Building
Flue Gas
Cooler (FGC)
Gypsum Dewatering
Handling System
Figure 3.4 Location of FGC and FGD
3.2.1 Flue Gas Cooler (FGC)
3.2.1.1 System Description
The FGC removes sensible higher-grade heat from the subsequently transferred to the circulating water
flue gas. The FGC design for Shand would be based loop that is a common system shared by the FGC,
on the existing BD3 FGC supplied by Babcock Borsig the trim cooler, and the CPHs. The circulating-water
Steinmuller (BBS). It would be located at the east side flow rate required to cool the flue gas would be
of the CCS building consisting of two units connected in 462.5 tonnes/hr.
parallel. The FGC would interface with the flue gas duct
• The FGC bundles for each of the two parallel units
receiving flue gas from the boiler, the LP FWHs in the
would contain ten G-FLON (fluoroplastic material)
steam cycle at the powerhouse, and the MHPS-designed
heat exchangers, featuring five modules installed
FGD. The following design basis would be used for the
parallel to gas flow; two modules would be in series.
FGC:
Configuration of the FGC modules requires isolation
• Flue gas at an operating temperature of 175°C would of two modules in series if a repair should be
enter the FGC at a flow rate of 1,737 tonnes/hr and required on a single module. A schematic is shown
exit at a temperature of 85oC. This would have an in Figure 3.5.
energy value of 47.24 MWh that would be used
• Two pumps would be used to circulate water from
for condensate preheating with the condensate
the FGC to the three new CPHs located in the
35
powerhouse. The FGC circulation pumps would • Each module would be equipped with a cleaning
operate at 462,540 kg/hr at a total dynamic head system upstream of the module. The cleaning
(TDH) of 53 metres with a power input of 112 kW. system would consist of a series of perforated tubes
To accommodate variable flue gas flows and the connected to spray pipes that would be equipped
associated amount of heat transfer, the circulation with automated ON/OFF valves. The valves would
pumps would be fitted with variable-speed drives be activated to wash one module approximately
to match the water-circulation rate to the amount every 18 minutes, giving each module 4 wash
of flue gas. cycles per 24 hour period. This would prevent ash
deposition on the tubes and maintain thermal
• Additional heat removed by the FGC to maintain
conductivity of the FGC tubes.
the flue gas temperature below 85°C that cannot
be used for condensate preheating would be • The wastewater system would be used to collect
rejected into the trim cooler. A plate-and-frame and transfer the wastewater stream generated from
heat exchanger would serve as the trim cooler with periodic washing of the FGC tube bundles. Wash
a heat duty of 2,215 kWth. water and condensates would be drained from the
bottom of the FGC casing to the FGC wastewater
• A pressurization system would be installed before
tank at a rate of approximately 33 tonnes/hour. A
the FGC circulation pumps to maintain pressure
crystallizer would be required to dispose of the net
at the level necessary to prevent boiling in the
wastewater that is currently evaporated into the
system. It would also serve as a cushion for thermal
flue gas as detailed in section 5.6.
expansion of water in the circuit.
• Approximately 88% of the FGC wastewater would be
• The demineralized water for the FGC circulating-
directed to the CCS facility for FGD water makeup.
water cycle makeup would be sourced from
Fly ash and water-soluble flue gas constituents,
the existing demineralized water tank. Two
such as chlorides and fluorides, deposited on the
demineralized-water pumps located in the
FGC tubes would result in acidic FGD makeup water.
powerhouse would take water from the tank and
The pH of the makeup water would be increased to
deliver it to the CCS facility and the FGC building
6 prior to sending it to the FGD unit.
through a common 4-inch line running from the
pump discharge to an outside rack positioned
between the powerhouse and CCS facility.
Figure 3.5 FGC modules, casing and transition

3.2.2 Flue Gas Desulphurization (FGD)
The reaction of SO2 with amines could form problematic matter and halide removal are additional benefits of this
degradation products known as heat-stable salts (HSSs). system. The FGD train would consist of a limestone feed
Removal of SO2, prior to CO2 scrubbing is required to system, an absorbing system, and a gypsum dewatering
minimize HSS formation. The FGD process selected in system.
this study was a wet limestone FGD system. Particulate
3.2.2.1 Limestone Feed System
Pulverized limestone would be trucked to site and limestone powder would be mixed with bleed-return
transported to the limestone silo using compressed gypsum slurry, filtrate return from the filtrate sump,
air. Limestone powder would be directly transferred and absorber make-up water. The resulting limestone
to the limestone hopper from the limestone silo (near slurry would be injected into the absorber tank from the
the SO2 absorber) by conveyor belt. From the hopper, bottom section of limestone hopper.
3.2.2.2 Absorbing System
The purpose of the absorbing system is twofold. First, the absorber, to remove liquid droplets before entering
it first removes SO2 from the flue gas and facilitates its the next downstream unit - the flue gas quencher. Liquid
oxidization to form the stable gypsum byproduct. SO2 droplets collected in the mist eliminator are returned to
would be absorbed by the circulating gypsum/limestone the absorber as makeup liquid.
slurry inside the absorber. The overall SO2 content of
The absorbed SO2 is partially oxidized by O2 in the flue
the flue gas would be reduced to 12 ppmv-d. The main
gas. Any remaining oxidation occurs in situ via the Jet Air
components of the absorber would include: a double-
Sparger (JAS) oxidation system. JAS is a forced oxidation
contact-flow scrubber (DCFS), a mist eliminator, and an
system utilizing fluid dynamics that eliminate the need
integrated tank to hold the slurry. Flue gas would exit the
for oxidation air blowers. Part of the circulated slurry
FGC at a temperature of 85oC and enter the bottom of
from the recirculation pumps is diverted through several
the absorber. Flue gas would then travel upwards though
JAS nozzles before reaching the reaction tank of the
the absorbing section and contact the liquid absorbent
absorber. Orifice plates generate a negative pressure
(gypsum/limestone slurry).
downstream of the plates and inside the JAS nozzles.
Liquid absorbent would be sprayed upward by several This facilitates the natural induction of oxidation air
simple nozzles installed on the spray pipe located at the from the atmosphere into the air induction nozzle by
bottom of the absorbing towers. This arrangement forms differential static pressure. By mixing the air and slurry
a slurry fountain or “liquid column” which effectively in the JAS nozzle under turbulent flow conditions, fine
removes SO2, particulate matter and halides. Absorber air bubbles are generated that effectively disperse in the
recirculation pumps circulate the slurry between the tank to produce efficient air-slurry contact and agitation
tank and the sprayers. Flue gas would then be directed conditions that cause the partial oxidation of the SO2 in
into a two-stage mist eliminator, located at the top of the flue gas.
37
3.2.2.3 Gypsum Dewatering System
Gypsum would be produced as a waste product from the would be collected to the filtrate sump and sent back to
FGD system at a rate of 6.7 ton/hr. The gypsum would be the absorber through the limestone hopper. Discharged
dewatered, resulting in a product with 12 wt% moisture gypsum would be temporarily stored in the gypsum
content. The selected gypsum dewatering system storage building . The proposed location of the gypsum
would include equipment for pumping and dewatering storage building is north of existing flue gas stack. It
the gypsum slurry from the absorber and for storing/ would have three days of storage capacity. Gypsum
pumping capacity to return the filtrate to the absorber. disposal would be combined with the existing bottom-
The slurry from absorber would be directly fed onto ash waste-hauling arrangements yielding negligible
the filter cloth of a vacuum belt filter. Water would be additional disposal cost.
removed by vacuum pump. The resulting filtrate water
3.2.3 Quencher
A quencher would be used to cool the flue gas prior to To further cool the flue gas and remove residual SO2,
the CO2 amine absorption process. It is composed of two a 50 wt% caustic-soda solution would be injected into
components: (1) a trim FGD and (2) a flue gas cooler (see the quencher column and circulated. This would reduce
Figure 3.6). the concentration of SO2 in the flue gas to sufficiently
low levels. Caustic soda would be injected using a
As previously indicated, flue gas exiting the absorber
caustic-soda makeup pump and introduced at the top
section of the wet limestone FGD would have a low
of the packing. Circulated water would be chilled by
residual SO2 concentration. However, this level still
the flue gas cooling-water cooler, resulting in a flue gas
poses a threat to amine solvent health in the CO2 capture
temperature suitable for CO2 absorption. The cooled
system. Furthermore, CO2 absorption by amine solvent
condensate would be collected for use in FGC washing
is an exothermic reaction, consequently the efficiency
and FGD makeup. Any remaining water would be sent to
of absorption increases as temperature decreases. It is
the heat-rejection system for disposal in order to adhere
therefore advantageous to ensure the flue gas is as cool
with the ZLD policy of the power plant.
as reasonably possible prior to the absorption process.
Figure 3.6 Schematic of wet FGD and flue gas quencher

Chapter 4. CO2 Capture and Compression
4.1 Post Combustion CO2 Capture Theory
Flue gas pretreatment would be followed by CO2 filtration, solvent storage, solvent reclaiming and CO2
removal. The CO2 capture system comprises the following compression.
processes: CO2 absorption, solvent regeneration, solvent
4.1.1 CO2 Absorption
The CO2 absorber would consist of a rectangular tower transfer, maximizing gas-liquid heat transfer to improve
with dimensionally-configured structured packing. The CO2 recovery and assuring optimal fluid circulation and
proposed CO2 Absorber would have two sections: (1) mixing. Structured packing would be selected versus
CO2 absorption section at the bottom and (2) flue gas random packing to increase the surface area that
washing section at the top (see Figure 4.1). would further improve gas-liquid contact by maximizing
solvent spreading, reducing the resistance to flow,
Traditionally, absorber towers were designed in the same
and reducing the pressure drop across the column. In
manner as distillation columns and used trays or plates
situations with lower gas flow rates and lower pressure,
to optimize the gas absorption process by solvents. The
the performance benefits of structured packing are
packing in the CO2 absorber tower facilitates continuous
significant. Packed columns also handle foaming better
contact between the flue gas and the amine solvent
than trays, which is a known potential challenge of CO2
compared with step-wise contact using trays, while
absorption amines.
improving the contact efficiency for gas-liquid mass
4.1.1.1 CO2 Absorption Section
The cooled flue gas exiting the quencher would be The exothermic CO2 absorption process results in a
introduced into the bottom of the CO2 absorber and temperature increase as the solvent travels down the
flow upward through the packing (see Figure 4.1). CO2 absorber. An intermediate cooling section would
Movement of the flue gas would be facilitated by the be paired with the absorber tower to enhance CO2
flue gas booster fan located between the quencher and absorption performance. Solvent would be extracted
the CO2 absorber. Amine solvent with low CO2 loading, from the middle of the CO2 absorption section by the
often termed “lean amine”, would be supplied at the top absorption intermediate cooling solution pump and
of the absorption section and move downward through cooled by the bottom absorption intermediate cooler
the packing. The flue gas would contact the solvent in before returning to a point just below the extraction
a countercurrent fashion at the surface of the packing, point.
where 90% of the CO2 in the flue gas would be absorbed
by the solvent. Solvent bearing absorbed CO2 would
move down the absorber tower; this solvent is often
termed “rich amine”. Rich-amine solvent would collect
at the bottom of the CO2 absorber before being pumped
through a heat exchanger by the rich-amine solution
pumps to the top of the regenerator.

4.1.1.2 Flue Gas Washing Section
Flue gas would flow from the lower absorption section bottom of the chimney tray through the wash-water
of the absorber tower upward into the flue gas washing cooler before returning the cooled water to the top
section at the top of the column (see Figure 4.1). The of the packing. An MHI proprietary amine emission
washing section would be similar to the flue gas quencher reduction system would be installed at the outlet of
(see Section 3.2.3) with cooled water directly in contact the absorption section to recover amine mist from the
with the flue gas to enable recovery of entrained amine treated gas. Following the flue gas washing sections, the
solvent while also cooling the gas to maintain water treated gas would be exhausted to the atmosphere from
balance in the system through condensation. The wash the top of the CO2 absorber tower.
water circulation pump would circulate water from the
Figure 4.1 Schematic of CO2 absorber
41
4.1.2 Solvent Regeneration
Solvent based post combustion capture processes the bottom of the regenerator using the solution heat
exploit the reversible nature of the amine - CO2 molecule exchanger. Preheated, rich solvent would be introduced
bond. The bond formed between the molecules is into the upper section of the regenerator; steam
broken through the application of heat, which would sourced at the reboiler from the IP-LP crossover would
be supplied in the regenerator column. The proposed be supplied to the reboiler for regenerator column
regenerator would comprise a cylindrical column with heating purposes. The rich solvent would contact the
structured packing (see Figure 4.2). It would provide the steam in a countercurrent fashion. This would desorb
necessary heat required to break the CO2-amine solvent CO2 from the solvent. Solvent regeneration would apply
bond which would separate CO2 from the rich solvent by MHI’s proprietary energy saving process to reduce steam
steam-stripping. Rich solvent exiting the bottom of the consumption.
absorber would be preheated by the lean amine exiting
Figure 4.2 Schematic of CO2 regenerator

4.1.3 Solvent Filtration
The majority of residual fly ash in the flue gas entering ash could cause flooding, corrosion, and fouling in the
the capture island would be removed by the flue CO2 facility. Therefore, continuous removal of particulate
gas quencher (see Section 3.2.3). However, a small matter from the CO2 solvent would be implemented at
portion would pass through the flue gas quencher and the solvent circulation system.
accumulate in the CO2 capture solvent. Accumulated fly
4.1.4 Solvent Storage and Makeup
During normal operation, variations in system volume be required. The solvent could readily be drained at any
are compensated by makeup or surplus to the amine point in the plant into the underground drain collection
solution sump tank. The solvent storage and makeup system which would be connected to the Solution Sump
system would also be used during periodic maintenance Tank. Since the amine solvent does not easily oxidize,
and inspection should draining of process equipment nitrogen blanketing would be unnecessary.
4.1.5 Solvent Reclaiming (Intermittent Operations)
Reclaiming would remove solvent degradation products, to the Regenerator. The solvent would be doused with
such as HSSs, and suspended solids from the system. caustic inside the Reclaimer to release HSSs. After the
The Reclaimer would operate as a simple batch distiller reclaiming operation has been completed, the reclaimed
using medium pressure (MP) steam. Since solvent waste would be drained from the Reclaimed Waste Tank
degradation products have a higher boiling temperature by the Reclaimed Waste Pump and treated offsite by a
than water or solvent, they remain in the Reclaimer third party.
while evaporated water and solvent would be returned
4.2 CO2 Compression
Following the capture process, the pressure of the was investigated. Additional analysis would be required
CO2 gas would be increased above super critical to determine the optimum configuration and supply
conditions to a specified pressure of 17,513 kPag before option for CO2 compression.
transport through pipeline. Auxiliary power required for
Current study results indicate that the CO2 Compression
compression is significant and constitutes a significant
Unit would consist of low pressure (LP) and high pressure
part of the parasitic load associated with carbon
(HP) compression sections. A CO2 Dehydration Unit
capture. While there would be economic benefit to a
utilizing a triethylene glycol (TEG) process would also
single CO2 compressor, it would be the largest of its kind
be installed between LP and HP compression sections
in the world and be accompanied by first of a kind risks.
to remove moisture from the CO2 gas. The LP and HP
Alternatively, using two CO2 compressors modelled after
compression sections would each have anti-surge lines.
the current CO2 compressor at BD3 could be beneficial.
As such, for this study the two-compression train design
43
The LP CO2 compression unit would have four stages, The HP compression unit would involve of four stages
each referred to as “wet-stage” compressors due to high (5th to 8th). The CO2 exiting the TEG dehydration unit
moisture content in the CO2 gas. Moisture would be would be introduced into the 5th stage compressor and
removed from the partially-compressed CO2 using inter- an inter-stage cooler before entering the 6th, 7th, and 8th
stage coolers between each of the compression stages. stage compressors – all of which would be “dry-stage”
Condensate from wet-stage CO2 compression would be compressors. After compression, the CO2 gas would be
sent back to the capture system as to avoid generating a cooled by the Final Stage Discharge Cooler and delivered
water discharge stream. to the pipeline for transport to the contracted offtaker(s)
or long-term, dedicated geological storage.
Figure 4.3 Eight-stage CO2 compressor

Chapter 5. Heat Rejection, Water Balance
and Utilities
5.1 System Description
Thermal power plants are often sited and constrained

in size by water availability. Water management at the
power plant would therefore be impacted. Shand is a Shand is a zero-liquids
zero-liquids discharge (ZLD) facility. Maintaining Shand’s discharge (ZLD) facility.
ZLD status was made a requirement for the study, as
it (1) avoids the exercise of determining if a further Maintaining Shand’s
water draw could be arranged, (2) eases the regulatory
approval burden, and (3) removes a barrier to CCS
ZLD status was made a
deployment at other SaskPower sites. requirement for the study
A CCS retrofit of Shand would increase both the heat
rejection load and water consumption of the plant. The the IP-LP crossover. Additional cooling capacity would be
FGC system, described in section 3.2.1, would produce required for the capture facility while CCS is in service.
an additional condensate stream. Water produced from A new hybrid cooling-water system would necessitate
the FGC would be integrated into the power plant for a 245 MWth load, while the remaining 98 MWth in
use as additional heat rejection capacity. A new 341.3 additional new load would be associated with the
MWth heat rejection system would be required to existing evaporative cooling tower. The hybrid cooling
accommodate the SO2 and CO2 capture processes. The system would consist of wet and dry cooling systems.
condenser would experience offloading of 119 MW This would enable Shand to remain compliant to the
during CCS operations due to the steam extraction from restrictions of a ZLD facility.
Figure 5.1 Shand Power Station current site layout

5.2 Current Heat Rejection System at Shand
Power Station
Shand currently rejects 425.7 MWth of heat through wet site layout). In side-stream operation mode, the existing
cooling towers. Shand draws a volume of 3,512 dam3/ cooling tower receives water from the Raw Water
year of water from three sources: Pond and the cold lime softener receives water from
the existing condenser blowdown. The treated water
1. Surface water from Rafferty Dam
is collected in the soft water pond for the existing
2. Secondary treated sewage water from the city of evaporative cooling tower makeup. The blowdown
Estevan after its passage through a constructed water from the cooling tower is sent either to the cold
wetland lime softener in the water treatment plant to produce
soft water or to the blowdown pond and subsequently
3. Snow melt, rain and runoff from a Shand yard
to the vapour-compression evaporation unit (VCE) to
drainage collection system.
produce distilled water. The residue from VCE is sent
In full-stream operation mode, the water is pumped to to the Decant Pond and used in LIFAC to maintain the
the Raw Water Pond and sent to the cold lime softener plant as ZLD. The LIFAC system is used to evaporate
to be clarified and softened (see Figure 5.1 for current wastewater in the latter sections of the flue gas path.
5.3 Accounting for Additional Heat Rejection Load

and Liquid Water Discharge Streams
Integrating Shand with a post-combustion CO2 capture The new supply and return lines for the 98 MWth flue
process would introduce a new combined heat rejection gas cooling-water cooler would be tied into the existing
load of 341.3 MWth. The additional cooling load would cooling water lines at the south side of the powerhouse
be attributed to the flue gas cooling water cooler, wash between the powerhouse and existing cooling tower.
water cooler at the top of absorber, CO2 absorber The new lines would be designed to connect to the
and regenerator cooler, and CO2 compression and existing cooling water supply line and to the existing
dehydration unit. Due to the steam extraction for solvent cooling water return line.
regeneration, the existing condenser would experience
The addition of a capture facility at Shand would generate
duty offloading of approximately 119 MWth. Condenser
three new water discharge streams. These streams
offloading would free up heat duty from the existing
need to be integrated into the overall water use and
cooling tower. However, the use of rejected flue gas
treatment on site in order to maintain a neutral water
heat for condensate preheating would reduce the steam
balance and to avoid creating a waste water stream. The
bleeds to LP FWHs 1 and 2 to a minimum. This steam
three discharge streams of concern would include:
would end up in the condenser which would decrease
the extent of duty offloading experienced by the 1. Quench water generated from the CCS facility (124
condenser. Overall, the resulting condenser offloading tonnes/hr)
would enable the flue gas cooling load (98 MWth) to be
2. Acidic water (pH ≈ 4) from FGC wash water
serviced using the existing cooling tower while freeing
up some of the makeup water allowance that could be 3. Blowdown water from the Wet Surface Air Cooler
used in the new hybrid cooling system. (WSAC) basin
47
These generated water discharge streams would be Water in the blowdown pond is naturally evaporated
managed as follows: while some water is drawn to be treated by VCE. Figures
5.2 and 5.3 depict a simplified water usage and waste
• 91 tonnes/hr of quench water would be dosed with
block diagram for the hybrid cooling water system.
caustic to adjust pH then combined with 31 tonnes/
hr water from the soft-water pond to be used as
makeup in the WSAC.
• 33 tonnes/hr of quench water would be used as
FGC wash water.
• A portion of the acidic FGC wastewater would
be mixed with the WSAC water blowdown at 13
Cycles of Concentration (COC) and directed to the
blowdown pond.
• The remaining water from FGC wash water would
be dosed with caustic prior to using it at the FGD as
water makeup.
Figure 5.2 Block diagram of water usage and integration flows for the hybrid cooling system

Figure 5.3 Simplified water usage diagram for the hybrid cooling water system
Water condensed out of the flue gas residing in the to the blowdown pond without adjusting its pH. Based
direct contact cooler (also referred to as the quencher) on water analysis, the WSAC could be operated with 13
would be used in the hybrid heat-rejection system. Cycles of Concentration (COC). The WSAC blowdown
The designed quenching system would generate 124 would be mixed with the excess water from FGD make
tonne/hr of liquid water. Most of this stream would be up in the blowdown pond. Some of the water in the
used for the makeup requirements of the WSAC with blowdown pond would be naturally evaporated while
a small portion being utilized for the FGC wash. After some of the water would be drawn and treated by VCEs
washing the FGC, this water would be acidic (pH ≈ 4) which demineralize the water. The demineralized water
due to the dissolution of contaminants in the flue gas. produced would be used as boiler makeup with the
The spent wash water would be pH adjusted and used excess recycled into the heat rejection system.
as FGD makeup; any unrequired surplus would be sent
49
5.4 New Hybrid Heat Rejection System Design
The hybrid heat rejection system would consist of the atmosphere, while the cooling water would flow
twenty six air-cooled heat exchangers (ACHE) and four down to the basin. Blowdown would be withdrawn to
WSACs connected in series. Warm cooling water with maintain certain limitations, such as conductivity and
a mass flow of 10.8×106 kg/hr from the CO2 capture total dissolved solids (TDS). Losses in water volume in
plant would be treated initially by the ACHE, where the the WSAC through evaporation, blowdown and drift
process water would flow through a bundle of finned would be compensated by makeup water as described
tubes while forced air would pass over the surface of the above.
tubes in a cross-flow direction. The ACHE would consist
The hybrid cooling system would be installed north of
of 26 bays; each equipped with three fans. The cooling
the facility. The WSAC units would be installed at the
water would exit the ACHE at a temperature of 31°C
north of the dry air cooler so that the collective plume
and enter the WSAC through bundles of heat-exchanger
would not impact the air intake at the power plant based
tubes. Cooling water in the WSAC basin beneath the
on prevailing wind direction. The closed-circuit cooling
tube bundles would be deluged through spray nozzles
water pumps and the expansion tank would be installed
installed above the exterior surfaces of tube bundles.
at the pump suction side located in a pumphouse on the
Cooling air and deluge water would flow downward
east side of the CO2 compression building. Figure 5.4
over the tubes in the same direction as the nozzle spray.
and 5.5 shows the proposed design and layout of the
Air would be drawn over the tubes and a demister
new hybrid cooling system.
before entering the fan, where it would be released to
Figure 5.4 Proposed Shand hybrid cooling system

Figure 5.5 Site layout for Shand Power Station with SO2 and CO2 capture and heat rejection systems
5.4.1 Design Parameters
The annual temperature in Saskatchewan, Canada can during the 1991 to 2017 period. Relative humidity is the
vary between -40°C and 40°C. This temperature range ratio of the amount of water in the air as a percentage
affects the cooling system as well as the quantity of of the amount of water needed for saturation at the
water discharge from the overall facility and its process same temperature and pressure. It should be noted in
units. Ambient temperature and air humidity influence Figure 5.6 that the relative humidity in summer months
moisture content in the air fed to the boiler, which is lower than in winter months. However, the amount of
subsequently affects the flue gas moisture composition. water in the air in summer months is far higher than in
Figure 5.6 summarizes the Environment Canada winter months, there is about 10 times as much water in
data for the average monthly dry-bulb and wet-bulb the air in July when compared to January, due to higher
temperatures, along with relative humidity near Estevan ambient temperatures.
51
Figure 5.6 Monthly average humidity, dry bulb temperature and wet bulb temperature in
Southeastern Saskatchewan
Changes in ambient temperatures and humidity would water and the ambient air. Cold ambient air draws
affect the performance of both the wet and dry cooling heat out of the water, which in turn decreases the
systems. While the dry-cooling system is directly affected temperature of the cooling water without the need for
by the dry-bulb temperature, the wet-cooling system is evaporation. In contrast, during the summer months
affected by the wet bulb temperature that is a function when the ambient temperature is higher, increased rates
of both temperature and humidity. Condensed water of evaporation would be required to sufficiently reduce
from the flue gas cooling would serve as water makeup the temperature of the cooling water. The cooling load
to the wet-cooling system. Accordingly, water availability would therefore shift from wet cooling to dry cooling.
for the wet-cooling system would be dependent upon Overall, the total designed heat rejection load of the
flue gas moisture content. hybrid cooling system would be 245 MWth. Cooling load
between the design case and the annual average values
The total heat rejection load would be comprised of a
was compared. In the design case the composition of
combination of wet and dry cooling. Changes in weather
the heat rejection load would be 67% dry cooling and
throughout the year would alter the composition of this
33% wet cooling. However, taking into consideration
combination. Monthly variations in total heat rejection
annual variations in temperature, the annual average
composition are summarized in Figure 5.7. During the
cooling load would be 58% dry cooling and 42 % wet
winter months when the ambient temperature is low,
cooling.
the heat rejection load would shift to favour more wet
cooling compared with the summer months. This could
be attributed to the interaction between the cooling

Figure 5.7 Effect of ambient temperature on heat rejection load in dry and wet cooling
The size and power consumption of the hybrid heat- a nearly constant amount of power throughout the
rejection system requires evaluation. The pumps and year with an average of 0.8 MWe. During the summer
fans in the circulating water loop and wet-cooling months, power consumption for the dry-cooling system
towers would require significant amounts of electricity. would increase significantly due to increased fan usage.
The proposed power consumption for the heat rejection Overall, power consumption for the design case would
system is summarized in Figure 5.8. It should be noted be 4.96 MWe compared to the annual average of 2.58
that the circulating cooling-water pump would consume MWe
Figure 5.8 Monthly power consumption in heat rejection system
53
5.5 Chemical Consumption
Quantities of materials related to the capture process facility were calculated by Stantec and the Knowledge
were estimated based on MHI’s experience and Centre. Table 5.1 summarizes the primary chemicals and
its detailed knowledge of the KM CDR ProcessTM their required quantities for the capture process.
chemistry. Chemicals for use in the water treatment
Table 5.1 Summary of chemical consumption for wet FGD and CO2 capture process
5.6 Waste Disposal
The primary wastes, their quantities and proposed VCE waste was undertaken by the Knowledge Centre.
disposal methods are summarized in Table 5.2. Disposal Specifications for the crystallizer include: an 8L/s
methods for wastes were not recommended by MHI, capacity, a power requirement of 1300 kWe, and an
however Stantec and the Knowledge Centre determined energy consumption for steam generation of 1200
appropriate methods, also shown in Table 5.2. Further kW. Total installed costs have been estimated at
investigation of an appropriate integrated waste-disposal approximately US$15 million. This analysis is based on
system would be conducted during the FEED study. the systems available from SUEZ Water Technologies &
Solutions in Montana, USA.
Preliminary investigation of the purchasing and
installation options for a crystallizer to handle the
Table 5.2 Summary of wastes produced and proposed disposal methods

Chapter 6. CO2 Sale and Storage Options
6.1 Introduction
The information presented in this Chapter was provided

by Gavin Jensen, M.Sc. P.Geo., from the Government of
Saskatchewan, Ministry of Energy and Resources. Potential CO2 EOR oppor-
Potential CO2 EOR opportunities within Saskatchewan tunities within Saskatche-
exist due to the large number of depleted oil fields within
the province; some of which have been producing since
wan exist due to the large
the 1950s. Most of these fields have been developed by number of depleted oil
vertical, horizontal and infill drilling. Water flooding has
also been employed to prolong their production.
fields within the province;
In general, once primary and secondary production
some of which have been
methods have been exhausted, tertiary production producing since the 1950s.
projects can be implemented. One of the most common
tertiary production methods include the injection of a
miscible gas to increase the pressure in the reservoir
subsequently leading to increased oil production. This
method is referred to as Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR).
Commonly, CO2 is used as the gas in EOR miscible
flooding operations. The aforementioned depleted oil
fields of Saskatchewan are prime candidates for tertiary
CO2 EOR injection.
6.2 Current CO2 EOR Flooding in Saskatchewan
The Weyburn and Midale fields, located in southeastern production methods. During CO2 EOR production, daily
Saskatchewan, are an example of successful CO2 EOR oil production is 28 000 barrels (176 120m3), of which 18
applications. Traditional water flooding techniques could 000 barrels (113 220m3) is incremental oil resulting from
not access oil still contained within these reservoirs, as the injection of CO2 [6]. Over the life of the Weyburn CO2
such, CO2 injection began in 2000 and continues until EOR project it is projected that 155 million barrels of oil
today. The application of CO2 EOR has increased the will be produced due to CO2 EOR operations.
life of these fields by 15-20 years beyond conventional
6.3 Screening Criteria in Field Selection for CO2 EOR

A filtering method would need to be established to criteria was defined. These criteria, summarized in Table
determine which of the numerous depleted fields 6.1, were used to detect which fields would have the
in southeastern Saskatchewan would be the best optimal geologic and economic potential to develop
candidates for deploying CO2 EOR technology. Based into CO2 EOR projects. Data used for the filtering was
on previous research, parameters from other studies from the Saskatchewan Ministry of Economy oil reserves
as well as Original Oil In Place (OOIP), a set of screening report (2013).

Table 6.1 Summary of Screening Criteria for CO2 EOR Implementation
Oil density is a key factor in determining the viability miscible floods. Pools that have low recovery factors
for CO2 EOR, as it influences oil’s mobility and in turn could be a result of reservoir heterogeneity, thinner
production volume. Miscible conditions have much reservoirs, and low sweep efficiency (affected by oil
greater oil production potential than immiscible API and pressure within the reservoir). These reservoir
conditions. For CO2 EOR to result in miscible flooding, characteristics will decrease the recovery of the oil that
CO2 must remain in its supercritical state. This occurs can be produced from the field. An original minimum
at a reservoir temperature and pressure greater than oil saturation of 40% was used to further define field
31.1°C and 7.36 mPa, respectively. The reservoir depth suitability. This would ensure there is enough oil in
in southeastern Saskatchewan required for miscible the reservoir to warrant the deployment of a CO2 EOR
flooding is approximately 1000 metres. Pools with high project.
recovery factors are typically excellent candidates for
6.4 Suitable Fields for EOR and Potential Oil Recovery
Thirty two fields that satisfy the screening criteria were other 30 fields boast a cumulative OOIP of 703 million
identified in southeastern Saskatchewan (Table 6.2). cubic metres. Assuming a recovery factor similar to the
Figure 6.1 displays these fields along with the Boundary Weyburn field, which is a 15% increase in oil production
Dam and Shand power stations, and the two CO2 over the life of the field, CO2 EOR deployment to these
pipelines that currently exist. A proposed CO2 pipeline other 30 fields could potentially produce an additional
has been added to access the potential oil fields that 105.5 million cubic metres of oil, or 663.3 million barrels
are suitable for CO2 EOR deployment (Figure 6.1). This of oil. As of July 2018 the Weyburn field has stored
list includes the Weyburn and Midale fields, which 38 million tonnes of CO2. In addition, 44% of the filed
demonstrate the validity of the screening parameters. has yet to benefit from CO2 injection. The potential to
The relative closeness in proximity of not only the oil store 50 million of CO2 at the Weyburn field is probable
fields to one another but also to the sources of CO2 through continued development. In total the Weyburn
makes for an ideal situation to deploy large scale CO2 field could potentially produce 155 million barrels of oil
EOR project on multiple fields. OOIP of the Weyburn while storing 50 million tonnes of CO2.
and Midale fields is 397 million cubic metres, while the
57
Table 6.2 Reservoir Properties Summary of Oil Fields in South East Saskatchewan with CO2 EOR Potential

Table 6.2 Reservoir Properties Summary of Oil Fields in South East Saskatchewan with CO2 EOR Potential - Continued
59
6.2 Current CO2 EOR Flooding in Saskatchewan
Figure 6.1 Location of suitable reservoirs for CO2 EOR deployment in south east Saskatchewan
Applying this oil production to CO2 storage ratio to are displayed in Figure 6.2. The lower and upper oil
the other 30 identified fields indicates the potential to production values are based on how many fields are
store more than 200 million tonnes of CO2. As a note, deployed for CO2 EOR. The potential CO2 volume is
this CO2 volume does not take into account any further based upon the Shand plant being converted to produce
development of the Midale and Weyburn fields. As such a supply of 7 000 tonnes per day of CO2 combined with
the volume of CO2 needed to flood all 32 fields could the supply from the Boundary Dam plant amounting
potentially be more than 230 Mt CO2. The potential to 10, 000 tonnes per day. This value was decreased to
oil production by means of CO2 EOR and as well as the 8500 tonnes per day to account for plant maintenance.
potential CO2 volume in southeastern Saskatchewan

Figure 6.2 Potential oil production with CO2 EOR in south east Saskatchewan
In summary, the deployment of CO2 EOR in southeastern The amount of oil production from these 32 fields
to the 30 identified fields could potentially produce an represents decades of sustained economic development
additional 663 million barrels of oil. Further deployment for the province of Saskatchewan.
beyond the 30 identified fields could also be possible.
61
Chapter 7. Performance
7.1 Power Plant Performance
7.1.1 Output at Full Load
Shand’s net output performance was evaluated at full performance associated with the age of the original
load for the following four cases: turbine. Consequently, an additional 3% gross power
output would be realized, which was included in
1. Current Operation (Case 1, or the “Base Case”)
the estimation of performance for cases 2, 3 and 4.
2. Operation following Turbine Upgrade, CCS not in Opportunities to increase the steam output from the
Service (Case 2) boiler to the turbine above current levels, therefore
improving project economics, were beyond the scope
3. Operation with CCS in Service (Case 3)
of the feasibility study considered herein. Anticipated
4. Operation with CCS & Reclaimer in Service (Case 4) power output increases and steam flows would require
MHI provided thermal energy requirements for capture, confirmation in the ensuing FEED study.
while MHPS provided turbine heat balances to support Auxiliary loads for the existing plant were estimated
the evaluation of cases 2 through 4. Upgraded turbine using historical plant operational data. The loads for new
technology was included in cases 2 to 4 which would equipment associated with capture were calculated by
result in improved electrical output. The estimated MHI and Stantec. In some cases, only rated motor size
performance of Shand in each case is shown in Table was available, hence running load was approximated by
7.1. MHPS performed turbine calculations that were division of those sizes by a factor of 1.1.
based on the original Maximum Design Flow (MDF)
Net output performance of the power plant was
steam conditions. It should be noted, however, that the
estimated as follows in comparison with current
current turbine operates at significantly higher steam
operation (Base Case or Case 1):
flows to compensate for age related degradation. The
new turbine should be designed to take advantage of • Case 2: an increase in power output of 4.3%,
the boiler’s demonstrated additional steam generation
• Case 3: a decrease in power output (“parasitic
capacity. The proposed turbine upgrades necessary
load”) of 22.2%, and
to facilitate steam extraction to supply the CCS facility
would rejuvenate the turbine, eliminating the degrading • Case 4: a decrease in power output of 22.7%.
7.1.2 Output at Variable Loads
The net output at Shand was evaluated at variable 8. 75% Flue gas flowrate (Case 8)
loads. The range of flue gas flow rates considered
The results of this evaluation are summarized in
included flows from 100% (Case 3) down to 75% (Case
Table 7.2. MHI completed preliminary calculations
8). MHI evaluated three points of interest between
to determine the capture efficiencies and reboiler
these flowrates. The following four different cases were
energy requirements for Cases 5 through 8 (see Table
evaluated to consider the impact of varying the load at
7.3). Additional heat balances corresponding to these
the capture facility:
cases would be estimated by MHPS in the FEED study
5. 95% Flue gas flowrate (Case 5) phase of this work. A turbine steam cycle model for the
upgraded Shand turbine was built using GateCycle. The
6. 90% Flue gas flowrate (Case 6)
reboiler energy requirement provided by MHI was used
7. 82.5% Flue gas flowrate (Case 7) to determine the gross output of Shand at reduced flue
63
gas flow rates (Cases 5 through 8). It was determined of 37.5% in net output from Case 3 (full load with CCS
that the capture efficiency would be 97.5% utilizing a in service). The full design operating range for the CCS
reduced load of 75% flue gas flowrate to the capture system would include flue gas flows down to 50%.
facility (Case 8). However, the performance calculations in this report
were limited to the normal operating range for Shand. A
Auxiliary loads associated with reduced load at the
broader range of loads could be considered in the FEED
existing power plant were determined using historical
study.
plant operational data. Loads for new plant equipment
were scaled from full load values where performance The capture island’s performance response to varying
curves were available. In the situation in which no data load would be considered an asset. In the event that
was available for reduced load performance, the data power demands increase well beyond normal peak
at full load was used. A more thorough evaluation of load quantities, there may be value in the ability to
loads in the FEED study would improve the net output operate without the carbon capture facility in order to
estimates at partial load. achieve higher power plant output. However, given the
contractual need for a constant product stream by a
A comparison of Case 8 (75% flue gas flow rate) with
CO2 off-taker, interrupting CO2 production may not be a
Case 9 (current operation at 75% load) demonstrated an
viable option to consider further. The ability to interrupt
overall decrease in net output of 34.5%. This decrease
CO2 production in favor of greater power generation
may be an over-estimation since some capture-related
would likely have value if the CO2 was instead destined
auxiliary loads were not reduced from the full load
for dedicated geological storage.
case in the calculation. Case 8 represents a turn down

Table 7.1 Summary of Shand’s performance at full load
65
Table 7.2 Summary of Shand’s performance with flexible load

7.2 Capture Performance at Variable Load
As previously introduced in sections 1.5.4, the Shand steam extraction in their investigations was limited to
feasibility study sought to design a capture facility that 110% of the steam-mass flowrate at any particular load
could maintain high capture efficiency while responding with capture operating at 90% or using the required
to variations in load. MHI and MHPS investigated reboiler heat duty value at full load (which ever was
the capture performance at reduced loads using the less). Results from these investigations, summarized in
reduced-load flue gas compositions and flowrates Table 7.3, showed the percent of CO2 captured could be
provided by the Knowledge Centre. The maximum increased well above the “traditional 90%”.
Table 7.3 Increased CO2 capture at reduced flue gas flowrates for Shand
The Shand feasibility study sought to capitalize on the rate that would exceed 95%. In addition, the power unit
inherent ability of a post combustion capture plant to would capture and sell its fly ash for use by the cement
capture a higher fraction of the CO2 at reduced flue gas industry in the production of concrete as an additional
flows associated with power plant loads below 100%. marketable offset product. The combined emissions and
Applying this observation to a typical loading pattern GHG emission reduction offsets could potentially result
for Shand would result in an aggregate CO2 capture in a “Carbon Neutral Coal-fired Power Plant”.
7.3 Emissions Profile of the Proposed Shand

Integrated CCS Power Plant
The emissions profile of the proposed Shand CCS retrofit CO2, captured CO2 and overall capture rate are depicted
was calculated at various loads as summarized in Table graphically in Figure 7.1. Furthermore, the combination
7.4. The emission rates were observed to decrease at of a wet FGD along with the CO2 capture systems was
decreased loads due to the ability of the power plant to found to remove all measurable SO2 and particulate
increase capture rate at reduced load rather than simply emissions.
maintaining it. The relationships between the produced
67
Table 7.4 Summary of Shand emissions at varying loads assuming a 0.85 capacity factor
Figure 7.1 Relationships between CO2 produced and CO2 captured with load
Federal regulations impose a CO2 emissions limit of 420 study, an average emission intensity was calculated
t/GWh on electricity generation. Currently, SaskPower’s assuming the “traditional 90%” capture design case.
coal-fired power stations typically emit 1100 t/GWh. In this calculation, Shand’s future dispatch schedule
However, its operating natural gas plants emit 550-500 t/ was modelled to reflect recent operational experience
GWh, while new natural gas plants would emit 375-400 between the years 2015 and 2017 (see Figure 7.2),
t/GWh. The BD3 facility at full capture was designed to yielding an overall emission intensity of 106 t/GWh (see
emit 120-140 t/GWh, a value significantly below the Table 7.5), which is lower than BD3 and significantly
federal regulatory limit. lower than proposed federal regulations. Modifications
to Shand’s turbine and the use of a butterfly valve on
Based on the predicted capture performance at variable
the IP-LP crossover would enable continued steam
load estimated by MHI in this Shand CCS feasibility
extraction to support sustained capture operations as

the unit would respond to variable load requirements. that would be lower than BD3 and also significantly
This unique characteristic of Shand’s CCS retrofit design lower than any other electricity generating facility using
would result in a desirable, reduced emissions profile a non-renewable fuel source.
Figure 7.2 Shand typical load distribution over a three-year period
Table 7.5 Average annual performance for Shand CCS with 90% and 95% design capture at full load
MHI provided a preliminary cost and performance system with the higher capture rates at reduced flue
estimate for a capture system that was designed for gas flows to predict an annual CO2 emissions intensity
95% capture at full load. The Knowledge Centre then of 71.4 kg/MWh (see table 7.5), which is 33% further
combined the full load performance of this 95% capture reduction relative to the 90% design case.
7.4 Start-up Schedule and Limitations

A typical startup schedule for the capture system was capture system would be operated continuously to
provided by MHI. The startup procedure is summarized minimize emissions, while maximizing the quantity of
in Table 7.6. The time required to reach full operation CO2 captured. However, the capture system could be
of the capture system from a cold standby state would stopped and restarted within the timeframes described
be within half a day, while only several hours would above.
be required from the hot standby state. Ideally, the
69
Table 7.6 Typical startup procedure for capture facility
7.5 Maintenance Requirements

Table 7.7 summarizes the planned frequency and designed to allow on-line cleaning or maintenance of
duration of outages for the capture system. The current critical pieces of equipment. The compression train at
maintenance schedule at Shand includes planned pre- Shand will include two compressors operating parallel
winter outages each year, minor overhauls every two to each other. This would enable continued operation at
years and a major overhaul every 10 years. To achieve reduced capture in the event that one compressor was
continuous operation of the capture system between inoperable.
these planned outages, the capture plant would be
Table 7.7 Planned maintenance outage frequency and duration at Shand

Chapter 8. Cost of CCS
8.1 Introduction
The contents of this chapter outline the economic Value (NPV) calculation methods. Several factors were
analyses that were performed as part of the Shand CCS considered including capital and operating costs of the
feasibility study. An overall Levelized Cost of Capture project, and the costs associated with the decrease in
(LCOC) for Shand was determined using Net Present net output.
8.2 Projected Project Costs

A high-level summary of the total costs for a Shand CCS
retrofit is provided in Table 8.1.
Table 8.1 Summary of total costs of a Shand CCS retrofit ($M)
8.2.1 Capital Costs
Capital costs were divided into facility costs and owner’s

costs.
8.2.1.1 Facility Costs
Overall facility capital costs were determined using the supports (provided by Stantec)
following cost data:
6. Flue gas cooler (provided by Stantec)
1. CO2 capture island, including all necessary kit and
7. New hybrid heat rejection system required for the
the building (provided by MHI)
additional CCS heat load (provided by Stantec)
2. SO2 removal system (provided by MHPS)
8. Condensate preheating train, including CPH1, CPH2,
3. Modifications to the steam turbine (provided by CPH3, and Trim Cooler (provided by Stantec)
MHPS). This estimate comprised parts installed by
9. Modifications to the HP feed heating plant and the
the owner during the planned outage
DEA replacement (provided by Stantec)
4. Amine solvent (KS-1) including initial fill,
10. Waste disposal, including amine, gypsum and TEG
commissioning, and makeup costs (provided by
(provided by Stantec)
MHI)
11. Electrical supply to the capture island (scaled and
5. Flue gas supply, including isolation dampers,
priced by SaskPower Engineering Services)
ducting, transition ducting and all necessary

8.2.1.2 Owner’s Costs
Owner’s costs were identified and determined by the KC OCIP

as follows (see Table 8.2):
OCIP was scaled based on the rates received from the
IDC BD3 ICCS project that included a significant premium
compared with more standard construction projects.
MHI provided a typical payment schedule that indicated
This may be attributed to the “first of a kind” nature of
a 37-month construction period. A cost “S” curve was
CCS projects.
constructed based on that schedule.
Table 8.2 Summary of owner’s costs for Shand CCS ($M)
8.2.1.3 OM&A Costs
OM&A costs were partitioned into fixed and variable Overall variable costs were determined as follows:
costs. The results are summarized in Table 8.3. Overall
• An 85% capacity factor was assumed for the overall
fixed OM&A costs were determined based on the
facility.
following:
• Cost of consumables were determined by identifying
• 23 additional personal would be required to operate
and calculating the total of all consumables per
the capture related facilities.
facility, including consumables for the FGD, capture
• Annual maintenance costs for the capture island, island, compression island and water treatment
compression island, additional heat rejection plant.
system and flue gas cooler, along with the flue gas
• Costs were escalated to 2024 dollars.
supply equipment, were estimated from the BD3
project.
73
Table 8.3 OM&A costs summary (all costs are in 2030 dollars)
8.3 Determining the Cost of Capture

In Canada, the federal emissions performance standard In the majority of the world where individual power
for coal-fired electrical generators is unachievable unit emission intensity is not regulated, it is more
without the integration of CCS. Continued operation appropriate to evaluate the cost of capturing CO2 and
of a coal-fired facility will be a result of an investment the value of selling CO2 and other by-products relative
in CCS. Consequently, the valuable products from the to not installing CO2 capture. This number in dollars per
facility could include electricity, in addition to CO2 and tonne of CO2 abated may be readily used to compare the
other byproducts, such as sulfuric acid, fly ash, gypsum, economics of the facility to other emission mitigation
etc. For an electrical utility, it is common to evaluate options, such as fuel switching, or to a carbon tax or
the cost of electricity generated by the facility over the emission credit. This metric would also be appropriate for
course of its lifetime by taking into consideration capital potential CO2 off-takers since it enables a determination
and ongoing costs, such as fuel and maintenance, and of the economics of supplying CO2 to an EOR operation
are offset by anticipated revenue from byproducts. The or other beneficial uses of CO2.
combination of these variables is used to determine
For an international audience, the key performance
the Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) or other related
metric normally used is the Levelized Cost of CO2 Capture
methods which attempt to determine the minimum cost
(LCOC). The estimates in this report are converted for
of providing the electricity. The LCOE of coal with CCS,
presentation in $US per metric tonne. This method
after adjustment for revenue from by-product sales,
assumes that the existing power facility continues to
would usually be compared to the LCOE of the best
be operated and is maintained at a reasonable level of
available alternative.
reliability that is consistent with an 85% capacity factor.
Both units are evaluated at 90% capture, which would
correspond to an emission intensity of 120-140 tonnes/
GWh.

8.3.1 The Energy Costs of CCS
The overall annual capture rate for a Shand CCS Retrofit metric tonnes per day (tpd) if it was retrofitted with
was determined as part of the study. Shand, which CCS. This would be slightly more than double the design
outputs twice the electricity of BD3, would capture 6540 capture rate for the BD3 facility, which was 3,240 tpd.
Table 8.4 Capture rate of BD3 and Shand
BD3 underwent extensive turbine upgrades to assure restore the turbine to as-new condition while taking
CCS compatibility and efficiency, including an increase advantage of advancements in turbine design. Increases
in the steam temperature which resulted in a gross in gross output of the turbine would be attributed to
output increase from 150 MW to 161.1 MW. CCS on reversing the age-related deterioration (3% of current
Shand would require only minor modifications to the gross output) and increased turbine efficiency. The costs
turbine, however this would afford the opportunity to in terms of energy were calculated using Equation 8.1.
The energy costs in kWh per tonne of CO2 captured were • The capture system retrofitted at the Shand facility
evaluated for three parameters: would have a simpler flow sheet, as currently
contemplated, which would result in lower auxiliary
1. Gross output increase due to modifications
loads at the cost of additional steam consumption
undertaken concurrently with the CCS retrofit
by the CO2 system.
2. Regeneration steam requirements, and
• The amine-based SO2 removal system at BD3
3. Capture island auxiliary loads (as opposed to the limestone system at Shand)
increased the auxiliary load requirements for
Comparisons between BD3 and Shand CCS are
BD3. However, overall steam requirements were
summarized in Figure 8.1. These outcomes may be
decreased on BD3, even though additional steam
explained as follows:
was required for SO2 amine regeneration. Although
• BD3 was at the end of its life at the time of its retrofit. not portrayed in Figure 8.1, this increase in energy
Consequently, more extensive modifications consumption has been offset by the benefit of
were undertaken in parallel with the CCS retrofit a lower consumables requirement due to the
resulting in greater increases to the existing facility’s regenerable nature of amine.
gross output when compared with the situation
In total, the net change in energy consumption for
for Shand. In general, this may be attributed to
the Shand facility would be greater than BD3 by
improved performance of equipment that was
approximately 5%.
replaced due to its age.
75
Figure 8.1 Comparing the efficiency penalty of CO2 capture between BD3 and Shand CCS
8.3.2 Capital Costs per Tonne of CO2 Captured Comparison

Between BD3 and Shand CCS
Capital costs of the Shand CCS retrofit were determined an unsubsidized project. Local taxes and permits were
based on the cost estimation methodology that was removed from both project cost estimates for the
in place at the time of the original approval for the purpose of global relevance. The capital cost differential
BD3 project. These included interest charges during was adjusted to account for 10 years at an escalation
construction, contingency, owner-controlled insurance rate of 2% per year for BD3.
program, and project and site management, as well
Due to the nature of the estimates provided herein
as transition to operations activities. Costs related to
and the system design, both projects include an SO2
extending the life of the existing Shand unit, although
abatement system that is difficult to extricate from
relatively minor due to its age, were excluded for
the overall project costs. It is worthy to note that the
consistency with the BD3 calculation method.
BD3 system produces a sulfuric acid byproduct that is
Capital costs for the CCS portion of the BD3 project were saleable, while the wet limestone FGD at Shand would
determined independent of the life-extension work require the purchase of limestone as a consumable.
undertaken at the power plant. The modification costs
In order to account for a less efficient heat integration at
of the power plant that were necessary to support the
the proposed Shand facility, which was part of the efforts
BD3 capture facility rather than life extension costs were
to significantly reduce estimated capital costs, the loss in
estimated based on a review of the expense items in the
power generated, or the power production penalty due
final project budget. It was determined that CCS related
to capture operation was accounted for and converted
costs represented approximately 40% of the capital
to a cost value by forcing the project to “purchase”
costs expended at the power island. The cost reduction
this power loss using an non-escalated estimate of the
related to the federal government contribution to the
LCOE from an NGCC plant. This methodology would
BD3 project were not included in order to represent

be consistent with a system that is experiencing an
expansion in electrical power demand, which is the
situation in southeastern Saskatchewan. The capital cost of the
The capital cost of the Shand facility has been projected Shand facility has been
to be 67% lower than the BD3 facility on a dollar per projected to be 67% lower
tonne of CO2 basis. This estimate has compensated
for the lost energy penalty difference between the than the BD3 facility on
two projects. It is worthy to note that factors such as
scale, modularization, simplifications and other lessons
a dollar per tonne of CO2
learned as a result of building and operating the BD3 basis.
facility contributed directly to the cost reductions
realized in this estimate.
Figure 8.2 Cost reduction of the Shand second-generation CCS facility compared with the BD3 project
8.3.3 Determining the Levelized Cost of Capture
Factors considered in the calculation of the levelized was assumed that commissioning would be completed
cost of capture included: capture island capital costs, by the end of 2023. CO2 capture operation was to
capture island OM&A and consumables costs, the cost commence at the beginning of 2024. A 30-year life span
of modifications to the power island, and the cost of was assumed for the project. Data were projected up
the power production penalty. Construction of the until the end of 2054.
capture island was given a start date of 2020, while it
77
The net present value (NPV) methodology was used to
calculate the levelized cost per tonne of CO2 captured
(Equation 8.2).
Where the present value (PV) was calculated using:
Where the present value (PV) was calculated using:
Table 8.5 Data used to calculate the levelized cost of capture
The overall cost for Shand CCS was determined to be Figure 8.3): capture facility capital costs, OM&A and
approximately $45 USD/tonne of CO2, and by necessity, consumable costs, cost of electricity lost, and cost of
included the costs related to SO2 abatement. Costs limestone.
have been attributed to four major cost categories (see

Figure 8.3 Break down of LCOC for Shand CCS
79
Chapter 9. Regulations Compliance and
CCS Drivers
9.1 Introduction
The primary driver for completing a CCS project is to associated CO2 emissions is put into place, either by
reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases that are lowering the dispatch of the facility, or by the addition
the leading cause of climate change. The regulatory of CCS. In the short term, regulatory certainty and low
mechanisms to encourage this transition to lower commodity prices for natural gas, make transition from
emissions are varied throughout the world, but the coal-fired generation to natural gas a simple means of
underlying motivation remains the same. In Canada, mitigating climate change in a palatable manner.
where this project would take place, there are many
To date, the production of CO2 for beneficial re-use
policies that encourage the use of CCS. These include
has been the most effective driver for CCS projects,
a federal government initiative to introduce a broad
especially in North America. It was a major component
carbon tax that would increase over time reaching
of the business case for both the BD3 and Petra Nova
$50/tonne by 2022 and a specific initiative targeted at
CCS projects. While the additional oil production that
eliminating coal-fired power plants that aren’t equipped
results from injection of CO2 into an oil field, as explored
with CCS once they reach 50 years of age.
in Chapter 6, has driven many projects, in Saskatchewan
Regulations for natural gas power generation are based the EOR royalty / tax regime provides an additional
on meeting the emission intensity of commercially- incentive. Royalty relief is available until the capital
available NGCC power plants. There is some evidence cost of an EOR project is recovered, which could span a
that these plants may not reach the end of their decade or two.
economic lifespan before a requirement to reduce the
9.2 Canadian Federal Regulatory Drivers for CCS

The Reduction of Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Coal- of-life on December 31st of 2029 or on December
fired Generation of Electricity Regulations set a fixed 31st of the 50th year that follows commissioning
performance standard of 420 tonnes of carbon dioxide date, whichever comes first.
per gigawatt hour (tonnes of CO2/GWh or t/GWh) for
c. Units commissioned in or after 1986 will reach their
new coal-fired electricity generation units and units
end-of-life on December 31st of the 50th year that
that have reached the end of their useful life. Advances
follows commissioning date.
in High Efficiency Low Emission (HELE) coal-fired power
plants, which are under construction in various parts of d. New and old units would be permitted to apply for
the world, have significantly lower emissions than the a temporary deferral until January 1, 2025 from
subcritical plants operated in Saskatchewan. However, the application of the performance standard if
there is no technology other than CCS that will enable technology for CCS is incorporated using “system
any coal-fired power plant to meet the 420t/GWh to be built” provisions in the regulations. Units that
emission target. The aim of these regulations is to are granted this deferral must meet a number of
implement a permanent shift to lower- or non-emitting regulated implementation/construction milestones
types of generation, including CCS. Some noteworthy and submit implementation reports on progress
elements of the regulations on coal-fired electricity made with respect to those milestones as outlined
generation include: below.
a. Units commissioned before the beginning of e. Existing units that employ CCS technology before
1975 will reach their end-of-life after 50 years of the date required to meet the performance standard
operation or at the end of 2019, whichever comes will be able to transfer a two-year deferral from the
earlier. performance standard to old units in recognition of
early action.
b. Units commissioned after the end of 1974 but
before the beginning of 1986 will reach their end- f. Under a twenty-four month exemption provision, a
81
unit may swap its performance standard compliance The federal regulations comment, in particular, on the
obligation with another unit provided both units future of coal fired electrical generation in Saskatchewan
have the same owner and are of similar size. by stating:
g. Through the substitution provision, existing
units that permanently shut down or meet the
“two coal-fired generating units are expected
performance standard early can transfer a deferral
to retire in 2020 [BD4 and BD5], another in
to an old unit.
2028 [BD6], and two more in 2030 [Poplar
In order to meet the requirement for temporary deferral River units 1 and 2]. The remaining unit, with
of regulations, the Knowledge Centre’s proposed a capacity of 276 MW [Shand] is expected
early conversion schedule would be required, and the to retire in 2043. Most of the electricity
following provisions would have to be met: generated by the coal units retiring before
2030 is expected to be generated by a new
a. Complete a Front-End Engineering and Design
natural gas-fired generating unit that would
Study by January 1, 2020;
begin operating in 2020” [2].
b. Purchase all major pieces of capture element of the
The provisions were later revised to indicate that coal
CCS system by January 1, 2021;
fired power stations must be retired at 50 years of life
c. Take all necessary steps to obtain regulatory or by 2030, whichever comes first. This significantly
approvals for the capture element of the CCS reduces the life span of Shand, therefore negatively
system by January 1, 2022; impacting the value of the plant.
d. Have contracts in place concerning the In order to enable maximum flexibility, the Shand CCS
transportation and storage of CO2 by January 1, early conversion project would have a final investment
2022; and decision (FID) made and the associated Front End
Engineering Design (FEED) study approved by the owner
e. Begin commissioning stage of CCS system including
within a time period that would permit meeting the
the capture, transport and storage of CO2 by
requirement for a temporary deferral as outlined above.
January 1, 2024
9.3 Equivalency Agreements
Provincially developed regulations for coal can be solely final agreement is still outstanding. Equivalency may be
applied if both the provincial and federal governments satisfied by balancing out the total emissions of all coal
agree they are equivalent. An Equivalency Agreement plants within a jurisdiction to satisfy regulations. The
can be considered to avoid duplicative regulatory impact of emissions stem beyond individual plants, and
burden if provincial regulations serve the same purpose individual jurisdictions; the balancing of emissions to
and have the same effect as federal regulations. Such meet regulatory requirements across a system therefore
agreements are not common and take time to be has greater benefits than a regulation targeted to
negotiated. An agreement-in-principle for equivalency specific units.
between Saskatchewan and Canada exists, but the

Chapter 10. Environmental Impact
Comparison of CCS
10.1 Introduction
While there may be benefits related to beneficial re-use 21st century. Signatory nations were responsible for
of CO2, or preservation of value in existing infrastructure, more than 55% of global anthropogenic GHG emissions.
the ultimate goal of CCS is to reduce the emission The Agreement came into force in November 2016.
intensity of anthropogenic activity. Consequently, it is This target is consistent with the IEA2DS scenario that
important to compare the net impact of a proposed CCS requires the elimination of emissions from the power
installation with other low emission alternatives. In this generation sector.
comparison, guidance from the IEA 2DS scenario, which
While the discussion that follows is based on the specifics
calls for emissions from the power sector to decrease
of implementing CCS in Saskatchewan, the same driving
from a projected 40Gt CO2 in 2060 to less than 10Gt,
factors that resulted in a predominantly thermal power
or a 75% reduction, is useful. In late 2015, nations met
fleet in Saskatchewan are paralleled at many utilities
at COP21 to sign the Paris Agreement which committed
throughout the world. This section compares the
all signatories to anthropogenic GHG reductions that
emission intensity impact of the options for Shand CCS
would assure a global average temperature of well
compared to the alternatives.
below 2°C above pre-industrial levels by the end of the
10.2 Power Generation Options

Power generation choices are heavily impacted by the gas emissions has led to the demonstration project
local circumstances. In Saskatchewan, where this plant on Boundary Dam Unit 3 and to investment in gas
is located, several factors impact the choices available generation which has lower emissions than coal
for low emission power generation. Power demand generation. A majority of the natural gas is imported
in Saskatchewan is too small to support the large from plentiful supplies in Alberta and Northern BC.
commercially-available, nuclear power plants due to Natural gas generation is becoming an increasingly large
their typical 1,000+ MW capacity, which is quite simply part of electricity supply and costs for Saskatchewan
too high to appropriately match the total power demand electricity, however, a risk from this remains. Although
in the region. Small, modular, nuclear power facilities gas prices have been low in the past recent years,
could be a promising alternative, but are still several historical experience has shown gas pricing to be volatile
years from technology readiness and commercial in nature - gas prices have been considerably higher in
availability. The best hydroelectric resources have been the past. The import of some hydroelectric power from
developed and only limited and very costly resources neighboring Manitoba, is possible and SaskPower has
remain to be developed. Flat regional topography is been negotiating import contracts. The amount of hydro
well suited for wind and photo-voltaic (PV) solar power, imports is expected to be limited and will not displace
however, these sources of power are intermittent the need for most electricity to be produced within
and must be part of a system that includes very large Saskatchewan. Importing of fuel or electricity creates a
amounts of dispatchable generation that can provide negative shift in the interprovincial trade balance.
electricity when the wind is not blowing, and the sun
Based on these factors, and the prevailing regulatory
is not shining. The seasonal variation that is associated
landscape as discussed in Chapter 9, SaskPower’s
with a northern latitude paired with the variations in
generation plans calls for up to 50% renewable
ambient temperature of a continental climate impact
generation by 2030 supported by a series of new
the effectiveness of renewable generation options.
natural-gas, combined-cycle (NGCC) power plants.
Locally, there are significant quantities of low-quality, Increased power load due to provincial population and
lignite coal, that have historically provided a low-cost industrial growth, combined with retirement of the
source of electricity in Saskatchewan. Concerns about existing generation of power plants, will be served by
climate change and the need to reduce greenhouse the addition of new NGCC power plants.

10.3 Low Emission Power Generation Options
Throughout the world, there has been an unprecedented load-only optimization that was installed at BD3. The
expansion of variable renewable generation, primarily opportunity to increase the CO2 capture rate at reduced
wind-powered, but increasingly PV-solar driven. While load, as was found to be the case as referenced in
these renewable power sources are characterized by lack section 1.4.3, further improves the emission profile of
of CO2 emissions, their variability necessitates a backup the integrated system
power supply. In areas where there are hydro power
The ability to increase capture rate as the load on the
facilities with significant ponding capability, a large,
fossil power plant decreases contrasts with the normal
integrated power supply can be provided. In locations
fossil power plant efficiency curve that results in higher
without this hydro resource, suitable alternatives must
emission intensities at reduced load. This has raised
be deployed. While there are continued developments
the question about how significantly this effect would
in battery technology, the cost and efficiency of batteries
impact any future CCS installation design.
are not at the point that offer a solution to the inherent
variability of renewable power generation. Consequently, In order to determine the impact of load-following on
dispatchable fossil-fired power generation is used to the emissions associated with a CCS facility, one must
underpin supply in these situations. This is the situation characterize the variability of a viable renewable energy
in southeastern Saskatchewan, the region in Shand is alternative. The Centennial Wind Power Facility is located
located. in Western Saskatchewan at one of the best wind-power
density regions in the province. The hourly production
Contemplating a retrofit at Shand with CCS technology
data from this 87 unit, 150 MW nameplate facility was
must take into account the overarching goal to retrofit
compiled for 3 years to determine the wind profile as
all coal facilities in the fleet, which comprise about
shown in Figure 10.1. The overall capacity factor of the
40% of the annual generation. Accordingly, any CCS
wind farm during the analysis period was 35%.
implementation at Shand would necessitate load-
following capability, an improvement over the full-
Figure 10.1 Capacity of Centennial Wind-Power Facility represented as the percent of time as a function of load
between 2015 - 2018
85
10.4 Characterizing NGCC as Backup Power for
Variable Renewable Generation
Power utilities preferentially dispatch their lowest-cost, For the case where a new natural gas combined cycle
highest-efficiency generators to cover as much of the plant serves as the backup energy source, a GT Pro
load as possible. High-cost generators are the first units model of a GE 7F.04 coupled to a HRSG and Steam
used to reduce load when variable renewable power turbine was developed and evaluated for its efficiency
generation supply is available. However, as more wind and emissions intensity over its usable load range. The
is added to a system, progressively lower-cost units are emission intensity of the reference NGCC plant is shown
dispatched to meet demand. Given the levels of wind in Figure 10.2
generation that are planned in Saskatchewan, load
following will be of value for all power generators in the
system.
The Shand CCS conversion is compared to a new NGCC
plant which would be the most likely generation source
choice should a CCS installation not be implemented.
Figure 10.2 Emission intensity of modern NGCC plant as a function of load
10.5 Characterizing Shand CCS as Backup Power

for Variable Renewable Generation
As outlined in Chapter 7, the system envisioned for Coal fired power plants have the ability to sell fly ash
Shand, has the ability to increase the CO2 capture rate as a beneficial byproduct. With the retirement of the
at decreased load. LIFAC system, the fly ash is now of a quality that can

be used for concrete mixes. The low quality, high ash, producing cement. While numbers vary on the impact,
fuel burned at Shand contributes to the production of if an effective rate of 0.9 tons of CO2 reduction per ton
140,000 tonnes per year of fly ash that is now sold for of fly ash is used, this translates into a carbon reduction
the concrete market. This created a valuable revenue offset of 78 t/GWh at full load [5].
stream that, along with the historical poor performance
The impact of dispatched load on the emission intensity,
of the system, was used as justification for the changes
and the carbon credits that result from fly ash sales
to the SO2 abatement plan in the area.
is shown in Figure 10.3. It is noteworthy that carbon
In addition to the direct revenue stream, there is also a credits from fly ash sales are not universally recognized,
valuable environmental impact. Although not universally even though the sale of fly ash for concrete use is
recognized, the sale of fly ash for concrete use is a carbon itself a carbon offset when compared to the emissions
offset when compared to the emissions associated with associated with producing cement.
Figure 10.3 Emission intensity of the Shand CCS unit as a function of load
10.6 A Case for Selecting a 95% Carbon Capture Rate

The investigation of increased capture at reduced
loads provides the opportunity to design a base carbon
capture rate of 95% at Shand CCS rather than the 90% A 95% carbon capture
capture rate of its predecessor. A 95% carbon capture facility would reduce
facility would reduce the average emission intensity
while increasing the potential revenue from CO2 sales the average emission
and other associated credits. intensity while increasing
A 95% carbon capture rate is achievable using the KM
CDR ProcessTM. MHI and MHPS completed a preliminary
the potential revenue
investigation that considered the increased costs from CO2 sales and other
associated with the installation of a 95% capture plant.
associated credits.
87
Increased capital costs and net output losses were The impact of dispatched load on the emission intensity
contrasted with the potential increases in CO2 capture. for the 95% capture plant sensitivity case, and the
The additional capture capacity yielded a lower Levelized carbon credits that result from fly ash sales is shown
Cost of Capture (LCOC) for the case of 95%. Further in Figure 10.4. It should be noted that the variable
investigation to consider the overall changes in the NPV load predictions for the 95% base capture case are
of the cost of capture must be undertaken to support conservative extrapolations from the 90% partial load
the case for the installation of a 95% capture facility at cases and will need to be verified through further study.
Shand.
Figure 10.4 Emission intensity of the 95% sensitivity case unit as a function of load
10.7 Aggregate Emission Intensity of Wind and

Alternative Backup Generation Sources
The graphs that follow show the emission intensity of firm base load power supply comprising a combination
combined wind and backup generation source as a of wind and a dispatchable thermal power generator.
function of time based on historical wind data from a The characteristic wind availability profile utilized in this
Saskatchewan wind facility. This analysis was made for a analysis was previously shown in Figure 10.1.

Figure 10.5 Emission intensity of NGCC and win
From the graph above it is apparent that the emission It is worthwhile noting that the NGCC plant has a
intensity of the NGCC plant deteriorates slightly as the usable normal dispatch operating range of 49-100%
NGCC load (blue area height) decreases. The combined (corresponding to a 56% to 100% fuel flow), while the
emission intensity of the system ranges from the no comparable coal CCS unit has an operating range of
wind condition at 350 t/GWh, to 200 t/GWh when wind 63-100% load (corresponding to a 73-100% fuel flow
is at its maximum. Based on the historical operating due to the higher energy penalty during over-capture).
profile for the wind, the aggregate emission intensity is To account for this, the NGCC plant option is paired
less than 300 t/GWh. with a larger wind source in order to provide a fair
representation.
89
Figure 10.6 Emission intensity of 90% CCS and wind
Figure 10.6 depicts that the emission intensity of the CCS Further, for the 95% capture CCS sensitivity study,
plant improves as the load on the CCS plant is reduced although able to support variable renewable generation
during periods of high wind. The combined emission and grid operations through maintained dispatch
intensity of the system, including emissions credits for flexibility, net emissions of the plant are negative at all
fly ash, ranges from a 65 t/GWh to -28 t/GWh as the loads.
amount of wind power increases. Based on the historical
operating profile for wind, the aggregate emission
intensity was determined to be less than 5 t/GWh.
Interestingly, and somewhat non-intuitively, since the
90% capture CCS plant benefits from fly ash emission
reduction credits and is able to generate net negative
emissions at power plant net outputs below 85%, the
contribution of renewable generation is to actually
increase the emission intensity of the facility beyond that
point. Economic dispatch of the facility would become
complicated by a zero marginal cost for renewables
coupled with an increase in carbon emissions favoring
renewable dispatch, and a carbon credit and byproduct
sales of CO2 and fly ash offset by the coal price favoring
the coal CCS dispatch.

10.8 Capture Rate Selection
The preceding section concludes that CCS on a coal merit in selecting capture rates above 90%, however the
fired power plant, aided by emissions credits for selling determination of the appropriate design capture rate
valuable byproducts, and integrating with variable would need to be explored fully in the FEED study.
renewable generation sources can combine to create
A carbon-neutral coal fired power plant is clearly within
emission intensities that can range from slightly positive
reach.
to slightly negative and are lower than NGCC as a
support for renewables. There appears to be significant
A carbon-neutral coal-
fired power plant is clearly
within reach.
91
Chapter 11. Proposed Project
Implementation
11.1 Introduction
The contents of this chapter outline an implementation in 2029. This points to a project final investment decision
strategy and FEED deliverables for the CCS retrofit as late as 2024/2025. Alternatively, a business case might
portion at a coal power plant. The discussion will be be justifiable for an earlier conversion of the plant to CCS
with respect to Shand which is the case analyzed in based on potential additional revenue streams which
this report, but the process is applicable to a decision could include byproduct sales or avoidance of a carbon
to be made to retrofit CCS on any coal plant. Prior to tax, additional flexibility on the regulatory impacts to
proceeding with this work, it would be necessary to the operation of other units in the generation fleet, and
do a business feasibility study of installing CCS at a coal other considerations as are explored in this study. Under
power plant that showed it would likely be cost effective the direction of the International CCS Knowledge Centre
relative to the alternative options. whose mandate it is the accelerate the deployment of
CCS, this study is based solely on this “Early Conversion”
While several project structures have been considered,
(EC) option for Shand.
for the purpose of this public report, the scenario of a
third party owner of the CO2 capture facility has been In order to de-risk the early conversion opportunity, a
used. It is possible that a consortium of companies with development budget and 18 months would be required.
an interest in accessing CO2 EOR opportunities could A Front End Engineering Design (FEED) for the capture
finance and deliver such a project. This could have many facility itself would be executed to de-risk the process
parallels to the business structure that was used for the and allow a budget and provisional contracts to be put
Petra-Nova project. For the purpose of this study, the in place to support a Final Investment Decision (FID) as
Knowledge Centre has assumed that the over-arching early as July 2020. The balance of the funds would be
goal is to maximize oil production, and as such, a final spent completing the FEED studies for the target oil fields
scenario where capture facilities are installed at all four infrastructure and associated development, pipeline
of the provinces 300MW units and are all connected by a infrastructure, designing and pricing of an expanded
carbon trunk-line, similar to Alberta, is envisaged. deep saline storage facility, completing production trials,
as well as permitting and public engagement activities
In order to meet the emission performance standard that
that are beyond the scope of this report.
would allow continued operation of the Shand power
unit, a CCS retrofit would be required to be in operation
Table 11.1 Summary of FEED
93
11.2 Proposed Project Schedule
The early conversion project would take place as two be executed as an extension to an existing planned
major scopes of work; capture facility build and power shutdown, and would have to fit into a tight timeline
plant modifications. Construction of the capture facility with significant pressure to return the power unit to
would be executed as a large multi-year construction service.
project. Modifications to the power plant would
11.2.1 Power Plant Modifications
For the Shand early conversion timeline, power plant allow for the medium voltage supply feed to the capture
modifications could be completed as an extension to facility.
a planned maintenance outage on the unit. This may
The critical path for this outage would be dictated by the
be an option at other relatively new coal facilities. For
turbine modifications, which at an estimated duration of
older coal facilities such as Boundary Dam Unit 3, it
65 days, will require a 37-day extension to the outage in
may be desirable to undertake a major rebuild which
April of 2022 for Shand.
will require additional downtime. At the end of this
outage, all facilities that are required to integrate with A critical project schedule component would be ensuring
the capture facility would be installed with appropriate that the required turbine rotor forging, which can
isolations to allow termination of interconnections with require up to 3 years lead-time, can be secured. Based
the capture facility. This includes modifications to the on the 22 month gap between FID and the power plant
turbine and feed heating plant, as outlined in Chapter 2, outage, a provisional contract would be required for
installation of the flue gas diverter and isolation dampers the turbine which includes cancelation for convenience
as outlined in Chapter 3, tie-in with the existing open provisions. The incurred cost for this contract at the FID
cooling water system as described in Chapter 5, as well date is accounted for as part of the FEED budget.
as the installation of switchyard isolation equipment to
11.2.2 Capture Facility Construction
MHI has indicated a 36-month construction period absorber and regenerator vessels which would extend
is required for the capture system, which would be above the building roof and be fitted with heat tracing.
the critical path for the capture plant construction.
Modularization is key in construction related cost
Construction on the capture island and related facilities
savings. Having large sections of the capture facility built
would begin seven months after EPC commencement.
off site as modules would minimize onsite construction
Under the Knowledge Centre’s early conversion plan,
equating to significant cost savings. MHI worked with
the capture system would be operational by July 2023
contractors for construction estimates for the capture
and commercial by early 2024. Further evaluations of
facility and the wet limestone FGD. Modularization of
the required time for construction would be evaluated
the capture facility’s items was also determined by the
during the FEED study to confirm the 36-month timeline.
contractors to have a weight limit of 140,000kg per
The capture facility would be housed in a separate module. This was determined sufficient for this level
detached building located to the North West of Shand of study. All heat exchangers and pumps within the
Power Station. All parts of the facility would be enclosed modules would be installed on steel and fitted with all
within the building save for the flue gas quencher, CO2 necessary plumbing in the factory.

MHI consulted with a local fabricator for construction and/or route reinforcement would also be evaluated
of the CO2 absorber and quencher. Larger module sizes during the FEED to reduce the number of modules and
would be considered during a FEED study for added increasing cost savings by limiting construction time on
savings resulting from less modules. Alternate routing site.
11.3 Contract Strategy

A successful implementation of a CCS retrofit at Shand Construction risk could be mitigated, by employing
would provide an example of how to implement CCS at a standard design based on extensive use of
other coal units. One of the challenges is to develop a modularization. Experience gained with each new CCS
contracting strategy that isolates the process risks from plant built would allow subsequent facilities to be built
the construction risks and allocates risk to the party who with lower cost and less risk. While this feasibility study
could manage the risk in the most cost-effective manner. was based on significant modularization in Edmonton,
AB., the cost of transport, transport bridge restrictions,
One approach would be to focus on proven technology
and desire for provincial employment may make a
and to ensure that the technology provider has the
location closer to the project site more feasible.
organizational depth to deal with technical challenges.
This is one of the advantages that a provider such as In order to control the quality and operability of the
MHI has with their substantial experience installing CO2 facility, the capture facility could be engineered, and
capture on industrial facilities, including coal fired power equipment procured in a partnership between an
plants. Rather than look for a range of bids, a choice engineering contractor and the technology provider
could be made to focus on a sole source technology such as MHI. Construction would be based on modular
provider such as MHI. The advantage of this would be fabrication and construction contracts. Consideration
the ability to work in partnership with the technology would be given to executing extendable contracts for the
provider throughout the project. For example, the choice supply of major components to control price inflation
of MHI at the beginning of the FEED study provides the and ensure commonality of equipment on successive
opportunity to do extensive testing of emission and potential builds. For Shand or any facility, a design
amine maintenance costs for the MHI technology on model which maximizes early contractor involvement
the 120 tpd Carbon Capture Test Facility (CCTF)already with multiple bidders for work on components should
located at Shand. be pursued.
11.4 FEED Study Deliverables

The completion of the FEED study would support the • staffing and transition to operations plan
Final Investment Decisions (FID) by producing:
• environmental assessment
• capital cost estimate
• construction permit, and
• a package of main executable contracts for the
• preliminary hazard and operability review results
project
The FEED would validate certain concepts introduced in
• secured forgings for the turbine modifications
the feasibility study and expand on others. Pilot testing
• complete operating budget of MHI’s KS-1 solvent at the CCTF has also been proposed
as a component of the FEED.
95
11.4.1 CCTF Pilot Testing of MHI’s Proprietary KS-1 Solvent
Pilot testing of KS-1 would be completed at the CCTF modifications to the CCTF would be required in order
to compliment the FEED study. The aims of this testing to complete this testing. It is important to realize the
would include 1) verifying amine emissions from the top risk mitigation benefits of a CCTF pilot test. The flue gas
of absorber and 2) verifying amine consumption. at the CCTF is sourced directly from Shand. Favorable
performance of KS-1 at the CCTF would greatly favor a
The capture rate or steam consumption would not be
CCS retrofit of Shand using the KS-1 solvent with the KM
investigated as the CCTF’s sizing and configuration
CDR ProcessTM.
is not optimized for the KM CDR ProcessTM. Various
11.4.2 Proposed FEED Study Investigations
Concepts introduced during the feasibility phase would items have been proposed to be included in a FEED
require additional study and verification. The following study:
11.4.2.1 Refine Steam Cycle Integration and Heat Balances
The heat balances produced by MHPS for this study later in the study and modelled using GateCyleTM only.
were centered around optimizing the steam extraction Both models (MHPS’s heat balances and GateCylceTM)
to the capture facility. These heat balances assumed were used for distinct aspects of this report. A new set
complete by pass of LP FWHs 1 and 2. The concept of of heat balances verifying the 5% duty on LP FWHs 1 and
allowing a 5% duty on LP FHWs 1 an 2 was established 2 would be requested from MHPS.
11.4.2.2 Capture Rate at 95%
Design parameters of this study included a capture additional capture capacity would require increased
rate of 90%. However, a 95% capture rate is desirable. capacity in the regenerator column.
Preliminary investigations by MHI and MHPS indicated
Increases in capital costs to accommodate 95% capture
this is possible.
were projected. The increase in capital costs resulting
Corresponding GateCycleTM modelling has indicated from increased capture capacity would be further
an overall decrease in gross output of 4 MW for this analyzed in the FEED study.
additional energy requirement. Furthermore, the

11.4.2.3 FGD Material Selection
MHI and MHPS have indicated savings in capital costs to confirm sufficiently low chlorides concentration. MHI
would be possible if the FGD could be constructed with has requested additional flue gas testing to aid in FGD
lower grade alloy. Flue gas analysis would be required material selection.
11.4.2.4 Power Plant Modifications
Increased Steam Input DEA Replacement

Due to turbine degradation the power plant’s current Current modifications to the feed heating system
heat rate is higher than the design heat rate. Turbine include a new DEA with increased operating pressure
degradation is compensated for by increasing the firing and temperature. This would increase costs as expensive
rate of the boiler to produce more steam. The proposed construction materials would be used to manufacture
turbine modifications to accommodate CCS would also the new DEA. To avoid such costs, a desuperheater could
repair turbine degradation; this when combined with be configured between the extraction point of the IP
the proven increase capacity of the boiler would increase and the new DEA. This modification could also decrease
the output of the plant. This increase should be studied the extent of physical modifications to the feed heating
and quantified by the Knowledge Centre and MHPS. An system and associated labour costs.
updated heat balance would be requested from MHPS.
11.4.2.5 Waste Disposal
Gypsum Amine Waste

Gypsum is produced as a byproduct from the FGD. Reclaimer waste would be contaminated with amine.
Currently, the gypsum slurry is dewatered and stored in Due to Shand ZLD status this waste must be dealt with.
a silo in the gypsum handling building provided in MHI’s For this study amine contaminated reclaimer waste
scope before being transported by truck to the ash pile would be disposed of by deep well injection. A more
for disposal. To avoid trucking costs and to provide a integrated and permanent solution to handle this waste
more integrated solution, the gypsum waste stream would be evaluated.
should be interconnected to the bottom ash disposal
Triethylene Glycol
system using a conveyer belt. Location of the gypsum
slurry dewatering system would also be optimized in this The dehydration system produces a 5% TEG waste
evaluation. stream. For this study all TEG waste is concentrated
and transported by truck for offsite disposal. A more
integrated and permanent solution to handle this waste
would be evaluated.
97
11.4.2.6 Heat Rejection and Water Management
Combine Caustic Sources Water Treatment Plant

Caustic (NaOH) is used in many areas in the plant. The An investigation should be carried out to determine if
CO2 capture plant and heat rejection system would additional capacity is required in the VCEs and softener.
require additional caustic supply. For the capture
Cooling Tower vs WSAC
process MHI has included a caustic tank in their scope.
Stantec has also indicated that the caustic skid used for An investigation into replacing the WSAC in the new
heat rejection system would require a tank sized for 15 hybrid heat rejection system with a cooling tower for
days storage (12’ x 10’ 6” for 7,000 gallon storage or 26.5 dry cooling should be carried out. If the substitution is
m3). These two sources of caustic should be tied into a probable, cost savings are expected.
single source.
Optimizing the CPH Loop
Reconfigure FGC Wash Water Stream
Sizing of the components in the CPH loop would be
In the currently propose water balance, FGC wash water verified in the FEED. Current modelling indicates that the
would be pH adjusted (from 4 to 6) and sent to the FGD FGC is slightly oversized since a minimal duty is present
for makeup requirements. To avoid this pH adjustment on the trim cooler at design case conditions (FGC inlet
and save costs on caustic, water with a higher pH could temperature of 175oC). Duty on the trim cooler during
be sourced from the raw water or soft water pond and average conditions is not ideal; this indicates that a
used for FGD makeup. The FGC wash water could be portion of the recovered heat is simply rejected into
sent directly to blowdown pond. The lower pH of the the trim cooler. These two components were originally
FGC wash water would help lower the acid requirement sized by doubling the dimensions of the equivalent BD3
needed for blowdown pond water conditioning before it components. Sizing of the FGC and trim cooler should
enters the VCEs. only be optimized to maximize heat utilization at average
conditions.

Works Cited
1. Baxter, D. SaskPower not moving ahead with further carbon capture projects at Boundary Dam 4 and 5. Global
News. 2018, July 9.
2. Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. Regulations Limiting Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Natural Gas-
fired Generation of Electricity. Canada Gazette Part I, Vol. 152, No. 7. Web. February 17, 2018.
3. Jensen, G.K.S. Assessing the potential for CO2 enhanced oil recovery and storage in depleted oil pools in
southeastern Saskatchewan; in Summary of Investigations 2015, Volume 1, Saskatchewan Geological Survey,
Saskatchewan Ministry of the Economy, Paper A-5, 7p; 2015.
4. Langenegger, S. SaskPower spending more to capture carbon than expected. CBC News. 2016, December 14.
5. Vargas J, Halog A, Effective Carbon Emission Reductions from Using Upgraded Fly Ash in the Cement Industry,
Journal of Cleaner Production; 2015.
6. Saskatchewan Ministry of the Economy (2013): 2013 Oil Reserve Summary Report; Saskatchewan Ministry of the
Economy, Resource Management Branch. http://publications.gov.sk.ca/details.cfm?p=4705
7. Government of Canada - National Energy Board. (2018, August). Provincial and Territorial Energy Profiles.
Retrieved from https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/nrg/ntgrtd/mrkt/nrgsstmprfls/cda-eng.html
99
Experience-Based Decision Making

Carbon Capture Test Facility and Shand Power Station
101
ccsknowledge.com
The Shand CCS Feasibility Study

Public Report
NOVEMBER 2018

The Shand CCS Feasibility Study Public Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Shand CCS Feasibility Study Public Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Shand CCS Feasibility Study Public Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Shand CCS Feasibility Study

I N T E R N AT I O N A L C C S K N O W L E D G E C E N T R E THE SHAND CCS FEASIBILITY STUDY PUBLIC REPORT

The Canadian province of Saskatchewan is a world-leader

I N T E R N AT I O N A L C C S K N O W L E D G E C E N T R E THE SHAND CCS FEASIBILITY STUDY PUBLIC REPORT

How did costs come down?

Please visit our website at

I N T E R N AT I O N A L C C S K N O W L E D G E C E N T R E THE SHAND CCS FEASIBILITY STUDY PUBLIC REPORT

Boundary Dam CCS Facility:

1100 t/GWh = Lignite Coal Plant

375-400 = New Natural Gas Plant

I N T E R N AT I O N A L C C S K N O W L E D G E C E N T R E THE SHAND CCS FEASIBILITY STUDY PUBLIC REPORT

Studying the Shand Power Station is a single unit plant located 12 km

Commissioned been the economies of scale. In general, facilities that

best candidate for

I N T E R N AT I O N A L C C S K N O W L E D G E C E N T R E THE SHAND CCS FEASIBILITY STUDY PUBLIC REPORT

Regulations in Canada are closing the window on coal-

I N T E R N AT I O N A L C C S K N O W L E D G E C E N T R E THE SHAND CCS FEASIBILITY STUDY PUBLIC REPORT

Amine Maintenance Cost:

Chapter 1. Basis of Design 1

1.5.15 Plant Maintainability 12

3.2.1 Flue Gas Cooler (FGC) 35

7.1 Power Plant Performance 63

Chapter 11. Proposed Project Implementation 92

Figure 3.5 FGC modules, casing and transition 36

1.2 An Overview of Shand Power Station

I N T E R N AT I O N A L C C S K N O W L E D G E C E N T R E THE SHAND CCS FEASIBILITY STUDY PUBLIC REPORT

Table 1.1 Shand’s current operating performance

1.4 Design Inputs

Table 1.2 Design conditions at Shand Power Station

1.4.2 Flue Gas Composition

*Contaminant concentrations not confirmed for reduced load operation

1.5 Performance Criteria and Drivers for

I N T E R N AT I O N A L C C S K N O W L E D G E C E N T R E THE SHAND CCS FEASIBILITY STUDY PUBLIC REPORT

1.5.2 Power Plant Reliability / Capture Plant Partial Capacity

1.5.3 Thermal Integration and Host Selection

1.5.4 Grid Support and Ancillary Services

I N T E R N AT I O N A L C C S K N O W L E D G E C E N T R E THE SHAND CCS FEASIBILITY STUDY PUBLIC REPORT

1.5.6 Flexible Load Operations and Integration with Renewable

1.5.7 Matching Capture Capacity to Regulatory Requirement

1.5.8 Increasing Capture Capacity From 90% to 95%

1.5.9 CO2 Market

I N T E R N AT I O N A L C C S K N O W L E D G E C E N T R E THE SHAND CCS FEASIBILITY STUDY PUBLIC REPORT

1.5.10 Fuel Pricing and Common Services

Figure I. Coal mining in Saskatchewan

Figure II. Examples of transporting a

I N T E R N AT I O N A L C C S K N O W L E D G E C E N T R E THE SHAND CCS FEASIBILITY STUDY PUBLIC REPORT

1.5.13 CCS Technology Vendor Selection

1.5.14 Heat Rejection Design Considerations

1.5.15 Plant Maintainability

The coal-fired power plants to which CCS facilities

I N T E R N AT I O N A L C C S K N O W L E D G E C E N T R E THE SHAND CCS FEASIBILITY STUDY PUBLIC REPORT

CCS retrofit to minimize the tip portion of the blades.

11-staged HP 5-staged IP LP Turbine blades

Figure 2.1 Proposed steam turbine modification

I N T E R N AT I O N A L C C S K N O W L E D G E C E N T R E THE SHAND CCS FEASIBILITY STUDY PUBLIC REPORT

2.3 Modifications to the Steam Cycle to accommodate

I N T E R N AT I O N A L C C S K N O W L E D G E C E N T R E THE SHAND CCS FEASIBILITY STUDY PUBLIC REPORT

2.3.2 Purpose of the Butterfly Valve in the IP-LP crossover

2.3.3 Steam Supply to the Reclaimer