See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228715983

A Demonstrated 20 MWt Gas Generator for a Clean Steam Power Plant

Article · January 2003

CITATIONS READS
5 203

4 authors, including:

Roger Anderson Strephen Edward Doyle

Clean Energy Systems, Inc. Clean Energy Systems, Inc.
16 PUBLICATIONS 191 CITATIONS 8 PUBLICATIONS 21 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Roger Anderson on 22 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

“A Demonstrated 20 MWt Gas Generator for a Clean Steam Power Plant.”
R. Anderson, H. Brandt, S. Doyle, F. Viteri
Clean Energy Systems, Inc., 8801 Folsom Blvd, Suite 275
Sacramento CA 95826-3257
Phone: (916) 379-9143; Fax: (916) 379-9146
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
[email protected]

ABSTRACT
Clean Energy Systems (CES), of Sacramento CA, has developed and demonstrated a technology
which will enable construction and operation of efficient, zero emission power plants. The
enabling technology has been tested under a Vision 21 program, cofunded with DOE/NETL.
The CES gas generator, combined with a modern gasification technology and current turbine
technology, will make possible zero atmospheric emission operation of coal fired power plants at
costs comparable to IGCC plants with partial carbon sequestration. To maximize the efficiency
of plants using the CES technology it is necessary to bring into service new, higher temperature
steam turbines. In addition to explaining the basic CES generating concept, this paper presents
the accumulated test results and performance evaluations of the gas generator tested under the
Vision 21 program. Also included are examples of applications of the new technology, in
conjunction with high performance steam turbines, resulting in substantially higher plant
efficiencies. Plant economics and net plant efficiencies for various configurations in the Near
Term (5 years) and the Long Term (10 years) are presented in comparison with combined cycle
plants of similar output.
THE CES PROCESS
Clean Energy Systems, Inc. (CES) has developed zero-emission fossil- fueled power generation
technology, integrating proven aerospace technology into conventional power systems. The core
of CES’ process involves replacing steam boilers and flue gas cleaning systems with “gas
generator” technology adapted from rocket engines. The gas generator burns a combination of
oxygen and any gaseous hydrocarbon fuel to produce a mixed gas of steam and carbon dioxide
(CO2 ) at high temperature and pressure, which can power conventional or advanced steam
turbines. A simplified schematic diagram of the process is shown in Figure 1.

Efficiencies higher than any current or planned power systems are obtainable for utility-sized
power plants. The gas generator can operate on a range of fuels including natural gas, syngas
from coal or biomass, or methane from landfills, and the cycle is a net producer of water, most of
which is recycled to the combustor.
From the turbines, the exhaust gas enters a condenser/separator where the drive gas is cooled,
separating into its components, water and CO2 , with the CO2 either sold or sequestered. The gas
generator technology has been used successfully in aerospace applications for decades, including
in the Space Shuttle main engines, where hydrogen and oxygen are combusted to produce steam
at high temperature 1089 K (1500 °F) and pressure 34.48 MPa (5000 psia). Likewise, high-
temperature 1700 K (2600 °F), moderate-pressure turbines 2.76 MPa (400 psia) have been used
successfully in aerospace applications. Every other component in the CES process is
commercially proven and is standard in power generation or other industries.
 * CH4 , CO, H2, etc.
Nitrogen

Reheater
Air
Air Separation Oxygen
Plant Electrical
Gas Generator HP IP LP Generator
Crude Fuel
Processing Fuel* Multi-stage Turbines
Fuel Plant
Steam/CO2 (~90/10 % vol)
Heat
Recov-
Coal, Refinery ery CO2 Carbon Direct
Dioxide
Residues, or Recovery Sales
Biomass
Con-
den-
ser

Gas or Recycle Water EOR, ECBM,

Oil Excess Water or Sequestration

Figure 1. The CES Process

CES’ innovation has been to apply gas generators and high-temperature, high-pressure turbines
from aerospace applications to power generation, much like the process by which aircraft jet
engines were adapted for aero-derivative gas turbines in conventional power plants.
CES technology works with today’s turbines to produce power without pollution. The first
generation power plants, which could be on- line by 2005, will have energy cost structures below
those of other clean energy sources, such as wind and solar power. Since the CES process will
be less efficient than conventional combined-cycle plants until the commercial availability of
higher-temperature, higher-pressure steam turbines, the company will initially target markets
where a premium is placed on clean energy. With the introduction of advanced turbines (which
have been held back by historical boiler steam temperature constraints), it is expected that power
plants based on CES technology will operate at efficiencies above those achievable with
combined cycle plants. At the same time, CES power plants would capture and compress the
CO2 to sequestration conditions.
There are no exhaust gases to be cleaned, and no emissions of sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, or
other pollutants. On a long-term basis, power plants based on CES technology, including all
costs associa ted with obtaining oxygen, will be cost-competitive with comparable combined-
cycle technology. In re-powering situations, the CES gas generator could replace an historical
boiler, add to the efficiency of a plant, and eliminate the emission of regulated pollutants.
THE DEVELOPMENT PATH
In 1999 the California Energy Commission awarded to CES an Energy Innovation Small Grant
(EISG Grant 99-20) to assist in the construction of a laboratory-scale gas generator capable of
demonstrating the intended operatio ns. Under the EISG program, CES built a test bench and
operated a lab-scale gas generator at temperatures up to 1756 K (2700 °F) and pressures up to
2.07 MPa (300 psia). The gas generator operated repeatedly, reliably, and stably during more
than 75 starts, with individual test durations up to 48 minutes. This program experimentally
established the "proof of princ iple" for a new method of producing clean, high-energy drive
gases for the generation of ele ctrical power from fossil fuels.

In September 2000, the DOE/NETL awarded CES a jointly funded program under the Vision 21
Program to fabricate and test a 20 MWt (10MWe) gas generator. This program produced a utility
scale gas generator which was tested at National Technical Systems in Santa Clarita CA, dur ing
2002 and early 2003. The program goals are to demonstrate a non-polluting gas generator at
temperatures up to 1922 K (3000 °F) at 10.34 MPa (1500 psia), and to demonstrate resulting
drive gas composition comprising steam and carbon dioxide, that is substantially free of
pollutants. The principal objectives called out in the agreement of this program were to design,
fabricate and test a prototype gas generator to demonstrate the non-polluting aspects of the
concept, evaluate performance, and verify operational characteristics.

The test unit has a nominal size of 10MWe (1361 kg/hr (3,000 lb/hr) of methane). The prototype
has been built and tested. It burned methane with oxygen, and deionized water was used to cool
the combustor, produce the drive gas, and control the exhaust gas temperature. Parametric data
was collected to characterize the operational performance, and gas samples are being taken to
determine exhaust gas composition. Post-test inspection and assessment of the device will be
conducted to assess any material degradation characteristics. At this writing the test unit was in
the final phase of testing.

THE 20 MW GAS GENERATOR TEST RESULTS

The NETL/CES Gas Generator program has proceeded through design, fabrication, and testing.
Testing of the complete gas generator began in September 2002 at National Technical Services'
facilities in Santa Clarita, CA. It is expected that the final extended-duration testing, with gas
sampling, will be concluded during February 2003, and a Final Report will be available by mid-
2003. At the time of this writing, all the stated objectives of the program had been attained
except for the capture and analysis of gas samples during steady-state operation. The igniter for
the gas generator had been previously tested successfully at Aerojet–General facilities in
Sacramento CA, during the period of September-October 2001. Testing of the 20 MWt gas
generator was performed, with only minor adjustments, in accordance with the DOE program
approved Test Plan dated August 2001.

A summary of the planned tests versus those completed as of November 2002 is shown in matrix
form in Table I. The upper portion of the table is relevant to component and assemblies and non-
firing tests only except for the igniter. The components and assemblies tested include:
(1) the igniter,
(2) igniter/main injector assemblies,
(3) cooldown cha mber/diluent injector assemblies, and
(4) main injector/combustion cha mber assemblies.

The types of tests conducted on most of these components or assemblies included:

 (1) static proof tests to pressures near 20.69 MPa (3000 psia),
(2) leak tests using gaseous nitrogen,
(3) flow calibration of contained flow circuits to define flow rates versus
differential pressures using fluids O2 , CH4 (methane), or H2 O, as appropriate,
(4) valve timing tests to establish the times from actuation signals to the
achievement of prescribed pressure or flow responses at downstream points,
(5) pattern checks of the various injectors to assure they produce the desired
distributions of the fluids, and
(6) hot- fire testing of the stand-alone igniter at Aerojet

Table I shows that all planned tests of components and subassemblies are completed. The
component and assembly test results were satisfactory and the hardware was deemed acceptable
for hot- fire testing. The lower portion of Table I is relevant to the various gas generator
configurations and the various types of hot-fire tests planned and completed as of November
2002. Gas generator configurations planned for testing include:
(1) the uncooled copper chamber with injector design “A,”
(2) the uncooled copper chamber with injector design “B,”
(3) fully cooled gas generator with injector “A,” and
(4) fully cooled gas generator with injector “B.”

The types of hot- fire tests conducted on these configurations of the gas generator included:
(1) tests of the igniter only installed within the combustion chamber,
(2) low- fire (nominal 20 % of rated full power) gas generator tests,
(3) high- fire, full power (~ 20 MWt ) gas generator tests of various durations:
(a) short duration (up to ~ 10 sec),
(b) extended durations (up to ~ 1 min.),
(c) extended duration with gas sampling (up to ~ 5 min.)

It can be observed from the lower portion of Table I that all but four of the originally planned
sets of hot- fire test have been completed (those not done are shown by open blocks). Three of
those four “open blocks” relate to tests of the fully cooled chamber with injector “B” and are no
longer applicable. In the course of three tests of the uncooled copper chamber with the injector
“B”, extensive damage to the injector was observed and as a consequence injector “B” was
judged to be an unsuitable design, unfit for further testing. Thus, the only tests remaining to be
completed as of November 2002 were extended duration hot- fire testing with gas sampling on
the fully cooled gas generator with injector “A”. The program testing as of November 2002 was
considered to be at least 90 % complete, as described in the following section.

SUMMARY OF GAS GENERATOR TESTS AND SIGNIFICANT RESULTS/FINDINGS

A summary of all 20 MWt gas generator testing through November 2002 is presented in Table II.
That summary describes the types of tests conducted, the number of valid tests in each category,
the accumulative test time and maximum test duration (where applicable), and the corresponding
significant results and/or findings derived from those tests. Tests demonstrated that the igniter
operates successfully over the prescribed ranges of pressure and mixture ratios, is repeatable, and
reliable through more than 80 ignitions. Injector “A” has been operated successfully at both low
power (~ 20 % of rated power) and at rated power (~ 20 MWt ) in more than 40 valid tests and
 Table I
Summary of 20 MWt Gas Generator Test Program

Component and Assembly Tests

Proof Leak Flow Valve Pattern Hot Fire

Tests Tests Calibration Timing Checks Tests
Component or Assembly Plan'd Cmplt'd Plan'd Cmplt'd Plan'd Cmplt'd Plan'd Cmplt'd Plan'd Cmplt'd Plan'd Cmplt'd

Igniter Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No NA Yes Yes

Igniter/Main Injector Assemblies Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No NA
Cooldown Cham./Diluent Inj. Assemblies Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No NA
Main Inj./Comb. Chamber Assemblies Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No NA No NA

Gas Generator Hot-Fire Tests

High-Fire Tests [2]

Igniter Low-Fire Short Extended With Gas
Only Tests[1] Duration Duration Sampling
Gas Generator Configuration Plan'd Cmplt'd Plan'd Cmplt'd Plan'd Cmplt'd Plan'd Cmplt'd Plan'd Cmplt'd

Uncooled Copper Chamber with Injector "A" Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No NA
Uncooled Copper Chamber with Injector "B" Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No NA
Fully Cooled Gas Generator with Injector "A" No NA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Fully Cooled Gas Generator with Injector "B" No NA Yes Yes Yes No NA
[1] Operation at a nominal 20 % of rated, full power (~ 4 MWt ) on O2 , CH4 , and water.
[2] Operation at rated, full power (~20 MWt ) on O2 , CH4 , and water.
200 sec. of accumulative operation. Injector “B” was tested but exhibited extensive damage after
only two low-fire and one high- fire tests and ~ 10 sec. of operation. This indicates that injector
“B” is an unacceptable design. The uncooled gas generator configuration (no diluent injectors or
cooldown chambers installed) has produced drive gases at temperatures in excess of 1922 K
(3000 °F) and greater than 10.69 MPa (1550 psia). The fully cooled gas generator configuration
with cooldown chambers and injector “A” operated continuously for more than 60 sec at
pressures in the range from 7.59 MPa (1100) to 10.62 MPa (1540 psia) and produced drive gases
with temperatures as low as 589 K (600 °F). These tests demonstrated the gas generator to be
capable of producing steam- rich turbine drive gases at very high pressures and at temperatures
ranging from a high of greater than 1922 K (3000 °F) to as low as 589 K (600 °F).

The testing revealed the need to modify the gas generator to separate the water-cooling and
water-injection circuits to the combustion chamber and thereby better assure positive water-
cooling of all components exposed to the combustion gases during the critical start transient.
Relatively minor hardware modifications to accomplish the separation of water-cooling and
water-injection circuits were implemented in December 2002.

Detailed analysis of gas generator test data will not be completed until several weeks fo llowing
the final phase of testing of the modified gas generator. Preliminary evaluations of the data
obtained through November 2002 have, yielded the significant results itemized in Table II.

Data from a typical extended-duration firing of the gas generator (Run # 56, 10/2/02) with an
uncooled copper chamber and injector “A” indicated that the gas generator, operated in the low-
fire condition (20 % of rated full power) for approximately 1 sec., then ramped rapidly and
smoothly to full power and a very stable operating pressure of 10.79 MPa (1564 psia ). The
calculated gas temperature was 1867 K (2900 °F). The test was conducted essentially at
stoichiometric ratio to form H2 O and CO2 (O 2 to CH4 equivalence ratio of 1.003). The gas
generation rate was 14,966 kg/hr (33,000 lb/hr) at 10.79 MPa (1564 psia) and 1867 K (2900 °F)
or 18.6 MWt LHV.
Data from a typical extended-duration firing of the gas generator (Run # 115, 11/5/02) with a
cooled chamber and injector “A,” and four cooldown chambers with diluent injectors, indicated
that when this gas generator configuration operated in the low- fire condition (approximately 20
% of rated full power) for approximately 1 sec., then ramped rapidly and smoothly to full power,
the steady-state operating pressure was 9.62 MPa (1395 psia) and produced drive gases at 933 K
(1220 °F) near the exit of the third cooldown chamber and 853 K (1075 °F) near the exit of the
last (fourth) cooldown cha mber. The test was conducted slightly above the stoichiometric ratio to
form H2 O and CO2 (O 2 to CH4 equivalence ratio of 1.03). The gas generation rate was 23,583
kg/hr (52,000 lb/hr) at 9.62 MPa (1395 psia) and 853 K (1075 °F) or 18.5 MWt LHV. CES
expects to complete testing of the 20 MWt gas generator in February 2003. Results of the final
phase of testing will be reported with the presentation of this paper at the Clearwater Conference.
 Table II
Summary of 20 MWt Gas Generator Tests Through November 2002

Type Valid Accumu. Max.

of Test Tests Time, sec. Dur.,sec. Significant Results/Findings
Tests Conducted at Aerojet
Igniter only 17 130 25 Demonstrated satisfactory operation over prescribed ranges of pressures and mixture ratios
Tests Conducted at NTS
Leak tests 2 NA NA Assembled complete gas generator (two configurations) and passed leak tests
Water flow tests 7 NA NA Measured flow rates versus ∆P's to define orifice sizes to properly balance flow circuits
CH4 flow tests 4 NA NA Measured flow rates versus ∆P's to define restrictors to properly balance flow circuits
O2 flow tests 2 NA NA Measured flow rates versus ∆P's to define restrictors to properly balance flow circuits
Valve timing 7 NA NA Measured valve actuation and line fill times to define appropriate valve sequencing
[1]
Igniter in GG 5 35 7 Demonstrated repeatable operation in assembled gas generator at NTS test facility
Uncooled Chamber with Injector "A"
Low-fire tests 5 8 3.4 Demonstrated successful main chamber ignition and combustion at 20 % of full power
Full power tests 8 22 7.4 Demonstrated full power gas generator operation at rated pressure (≥ 1550 psia)
Uncooled Chamber with Injector "B"
Low-fire tests 2 8.2 4.1 Demonstrated successful main chamber ignition and combustion at 20 % of full power
Full power tests 1 1.8 1.8 Successful operation at full power and pressure but injector suffered damage
Cooled Chamber with Injector "A"
Low-fire tests 14[2] 8.3 0.9 Demonstrated successful main chamber ignition and combustion at 20 % of full power
[3]
Full power tests 27 158 62 Demonstrated full power gas generator operation at pressures of 1100 to 1540 psia

[1] 21 additional prior tests (10 ignitions and 11 non-ignitions) were required to detect, find, and resolve a facility problem, a failed diaphragm in a fuel pressure regulator.
[2] An additional 27 “low-fire” test operations accompanied the 27 full-power tests.
[3] An additional 27 sec of "low-fire" operation was coincident with the 27 full-power tests.
APPLICATION OF CES TECHNOLOGY IN COAL POWER PLANTS
Currently and for the near future, coal provides a substantial portion of the world's supply of
electric energy. Pollution from coal- fired power plants is a pressing environmental problem and
the emission of carbon dioxide is of increasing concern in regard to global warming. The CES
technology allows economical production of electricity from virtually any gaseous fossil, or
biomass fuel with zero atmospheric emissions. The CES approach, which was described in detail
in this forum last year, 1 involves oxygen-blown gasification of coal. The resulting gaseous
syngas is cleaned of corrosive components and burned with oxygen in the presence of recycled
water in a gas generator. The combustion produces the drive gas composed almost entirely of
steam and CO2 . This gas drives turbines/electric generators to produce electricity. The turbine
discharge gases pass to a condenser where water is captured as liquid and gaseous CO2 is
pumped from the system. The CO2 can be economically conditioned for enhanced recovery of oil
or coal-bed methane, or for sequestration in a subterranean formation.
The performance and cost of the power plants described in this paper are based on the use of
syngas obtained from Illinois No.6 coal using a Texaco gasification process. The composition of
this syngas is described in Table III. 2
Table III
Composition of Syngas Derived from Illinois No. 6 Coal, after Sulfur Removal,
Using Texaco Gasification Process

Mole %, dry basis after Mole %, dry basis after

Constituent Constituent
sulfur removal sulfur removal
CO 47.9 CH4 0.1
H2 36.9 N2 + Ar 1.9
CO2 13.1 NH3 + HCN 0.1

For a 400 MWe plant, three gas generators, each with a thermal output of 400 MWt , would be
used. The three gas generators would be installed in parallel. Two of the gas generators would
drive the turbines of the plant while the third gas generator would provide a spare during service
of the other units. A gas generator with 400 MWe output operating at a pressure of 10.3 MPa
(1500 psia) has an internal diameter of 0.46 m (18 in.) and a length of 1.88 m (6 ft ).

In such a plant, a gasifier converts coal to syngas at a rate of 67.7 kg/sec (149.3 lb/sec) while a
60.0 MWe cryogenic air separation plant produces oxygen for both the gasifier and the gas
generator. Two gas streams (syngas and oxygen) enter the gas generator at a pressure of 12.76
MPa (1850 psia) where they are joined by 117.7 kg/sec (259.5 lb/sec) of steam. The syngas from
the gasification plant is combusted with oxygen in the gas generator. The combustion products
are cooled in steps by adding water until the gas temperature is at the allowable high-temperature
turbine inlet temperature of 922 K (1200 °F) to 1256 K (1800 °F). The turbine drive gas leaving
the high-pressure turbine is reheated before it enters the intermediate-pressure turbine. A
prototype reheater for a CES plant has been designed, fabricated and tested by the U.S.
Department of Energy. 3 Further testing of that unit is planned by NETL. Table IV presents the
operating conditions for turbines in the anticipated time period of the emerging technologies.
 Table IV
Operating Conditions of Turbines for Various Technologies

Near-term (5yr) Advanced (10 yr)

Turbine technology Current technology
technology technology
Press. - Temp., Press. - Temp., Press. - Temp.,
Inlet conditions
MPa - K MPa - K MPa - K
High-press. turbine 10.34 - 922 10.34 - 1089 10.34 - 1089
Interm.-press. turbine 2.62 - 839 2.62 - 1700 2.62 - 1922
Low-press. turbine 0.31 - 839 0.31 - 1700 0.31 - 1922
Plant efficiency (no 40% 56% 60%
syngas plant losses)
Plant efficiency (with 32% 48% 53%
syngas plant loss)

The intermediate-pressure turbine exhaust gases are delivered to the low-pressure turbine. The
exhaust from the low-pressure turbine is cooled in a feed water heater to the desired condenser
inlet temperature. The heated feed water is delivered to the gas generator for use as a coolant to
reduce the temperature of the turbine drive gas as described above. The turbine exhaust gases
which, by weight, contain approximately 61 % steam, 39 % CO2 , 0.45 % nitrogen and small
amounts of oxygen and non-condensables, are cooled in the condenser with 288 K (59 °F)
cooling water. In the condenser, the steam condenses at approximately 300 K (80 °F) and at
0.0043 MPa (0.62 psia). There is still moisture in the CO2 stream that does not separate without
compression and further cooling.

The mixture of approximately 80% CO2 and 20% steam, by weight, is then pumped from the
condenser using centrifugal compressors and is cooled in stages to remove the remaining water
prior to final compression to the injection pressure. The compressed CO2 is then pumped to a
pressure typically ranging from 10.00 MPa to 24.82 MPa (1450 to 3600 psia) for sequestration
into subterranean oil strata, coal seams, or aquifers.

The overall plant efficiency is based on several technologies that will be discussed in more
detail in the next section of this paper, related primarily to the development of steam turbines
that operate at higher temperatures than current steam turbines, and to the reduction of the air
separation plant capital costs and power consumption. The turbine operating pressures and
temperatures of CES plants at various development stages are shown in Table IV, while the
performance characteristics and efficiencies for CES plants and combined cycle plants are listed
in Table V.
The advanced air separation technology uses ion transfer membranes (ITM). This technology is
projected to have lower capital costs and lower power consumption than those of current
cryogenic plants. It is expected that ITM plants will have a capital cost of 73 to 85 % of the cost
of cryogenic plants and power requirements that range from 55 to 70% of cryogenic plants.4
These modest improvements were not included in this study. However, the use of ITMs could
reduce the cost of electricity by about 4% for combined cycles and 8% for CES plants.
In Table V, the CES power plants produce no atmospheric emissions, while the combined cycle,
plant with efficiency of 46% has no exhaust gas control and the other combined cycle pla nts has
partial exhaust gas sequestration.
Table V
Comparative Electricity Cost for 400 MWe Plants Using Syngas,
and Operating on CES and Combined Cycle Technologies

Plant Operating Factors CES5 Combined Cycle 6,7

Turbine Technology Current Near- Advanced Current Technology
Term
Plant Thermal efficiency,
32 48 53 46 37
(With Syngas Plant)
ASU plant type Cryo Cryo Cryo Cryo Cryo
ASU Plant Size - Metric Ton/Day 8774 5849 5297 2118 2633
Capital Cost - US$/kWe 1872 1412 1318 1457 1865
Coal cost - US$/GJ (LHV) 1.19 1.19
Emissions of NOx - kg/MWhe 0.00 0.03 0.04
Emissions of CO2 - kg/MWh 0.00 745 139
Unit Costs, $
Capital Unit Cost - $/kWh 0.040 0.030 0.028 0.031 0.040
Fuel Cost - $/kWh 0.013 0.009 0.008 0.009 0.012
Maintenance Cost - $/KWh 0.008 0.006 0.005 0.006 0.008
Cost of Electricity - $/kWh 0.061 0.045 0.041 0.046 0.060
CO2 – Sequest. Cost - $/Metric Ton 6.3 4.6 4.2 None 29.1

Carbon Seq. Cost - $/Metric Ton 23.2 17.0 15.5 None 107

The CES near-term plant technology is expected to become commercially available in less than
one decade. When this technology is available, the cost of electricity of a CES plant with full
exhaust gas sequestration is comparable to the cost of electricity of a combined cycle plant with
no exhaust gas sequestration. Table V shows that the cost of sequestration per metric ton of CO2
in CES plants, ranges from $4.2 to $6.3/metric ton versus $29.5/metric ton CO2 for a combined
cycle plant. These values are based on energy required to separate and compress CO2 from 0.10
MPa (14.7 psia) to 14.48 MPa (2100 psia). For this task, CES plants require 102 kWh/metric ton
and a combined cycle plant, using an exhaust absorption/endothermic stripping process, requires
approximately 485 kWh/metric ton CO2 .8 The ideal minimum energy required to isothermally
(300 K (80 o F)) compress CO2 , over this specified pressure range, is 74 kWh/metric ton CO2 .
Also, an additional cost of $3.0/metric ton, for transporting (pumping) the CO2 from the
generating station to the oil field, was used by Ruether et al. 9 and Wallace. 10 Using these values,
the total cost for conditioning and transporting CO2 to the injection site is approximately
$8/metric ton for CES plants and the $32/metric ton for combined cycle plant.
BASES FOR COST AND PERFORMANCE DETERMINATIONS
A method for assessing the economics of a power plant is to calculate the unit cost of electricity
(COE) produced by the plant. 11 To determine this cost, the following information is used:
A - Unit capital cost, ($/kWh) C - Fuel cost, ($/kWh)
B - Plant net thermal efficiency D - Operating and maintenance cost, ($/kWh).
If income from plant by-products is excluded to simplify the calculations, the cost of electricity
is given by: COE = A + C + D, where C is a function of B, and where D is conservatively
estimated to be D = 0.15 x (A + C). Plant capital cost was based on 85% utilization, 20-year life
span, and 15% capital recovery cost.
The comparative electricity costs for various CES plants versus various types of combined cycle
plants are listed in Table V. Table V shows that the cost of electricity for CES plants ranges
from $0.041/kWh to $0.061/kWh. This variation of 33 % illustrates that the unit capital cost
(67%) dominates the cost of electricity, while plant efficiency and fuel cost (20%) have a
secondary effect. Others report similar result. 12

Assessment of the other integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plants listed in Table V
shows that the cost of electricity varies from a low of $0.046/kWh with no exhaust gas
sequestration to approximately $0.060/kWh with sequestration. This latter cost is approximately
one third higher than the corresponding electricity cost of CES plants using near-term steam
turbine technology. CES plants using current steam turbine technology have electricity costs
comparable to combined cycle plants that sequester CO2 .

An advantage of the CES technology over combined cycle technology is the lower cost to
condition CO2 for sequestration of US$4.6/metric ton versus $29.1/metric ton. This lower CO2
conditioning cost could provide additional revenue for CES plants where the CO2 could be used
for enhanced oil or coal bed methane recovery, or could be sold as an industrial by-product.

REQUIRED STEAM TURBINE IMPROVEMENT

The economic studies, summarized in Table V, show the cost benefits of improved steam
turbine technology over today's designs that operate at 839 K (1050 °F). The goal for the near-
term high-pressure turbine is 1089 K (1500 °F). The near-term technology has been set at
approximately 1089 K (1500 °F) to eliminate blade cooling when using high-temperature nickel
alloys such as: IN 718, IN 617, IN625, Waspaloy or Haynes 230. With modest cooling
requirements, existing low cost stainless steel steam turbine materials could be used.

The near-term technology has been demonstrated in the DOE/Solar program13 by design analysis
per ASME Boiler Code and by tests of 105 hrs. The space shuttle fuel turbo pump has operated
repeatedly over a twenty-year period at temperatures of 1030 K (1400 °F) and at a pressure of
47.9 MPa (6950 psia ), which is substantially higher than the 10.34 MPa (1500 psia ) pressure
that could be used in the high-pressure turbine.

The near-term intermediate pressure turbine that operates at approximately 1700 K (2600 °F)
will require the transfer of existing aero-derivative cooling technology while using warm 500 K
(440 °F) steam rather than air as the blade coolant. For the more advanced goal of 1922 K (3000
°F) the latest land-based gas turbine technology developed under DOE’s Advanced Turbine
Systems program by Siemens-Westinghouse and General Electric would need modest extension.
These turbines required closed- loop steam cooling rather than compressor discharge air to
achieve the high turbine efficiency goal of 60%. Recent cascade testing on turbine blades in
Japan14 using steam at 1973 K (3092 o F) demonstrated operation on model size stator and rotor
blades. The blade heights were 71mm (2.8 in.) and the test pressure was 2.81 MPa (408 psia) for
the stator and 3.53 MPa (512 psia) for the rotor. Test times at rated temperatures were 24
minutes and 22 minutes respectively for stator and rotor tests. The stator and rotor blades were
made of FSX-414 and CMSX-4 respectively. Both were coated with thermal barrier coating
(TBC) of ZrO 2 – 8% Y2 O3 . Since steam cooling has more than twice the cooling capacity than
air, it may be possible to use existing low cost steam turbine materials for the intermediate and
low pressure turbines without incurring excessive cooling losses – at least for near-term designs.

NEXT STEPS TOWARD COMMERCIALIZATION

In December 2001, the California Energy Commission awarded CES a $2 million grant for co-
funding a small power plant. This proposal was jointly developed with Air Liquide and Mirant.
Engineering and procurement activities are currently underway, and plant startup is scheduled
for early 2004. Since the original proposal and award of this program, several features of the
program objectives and the schedule have been modified.

Information obtained from the 20 MWt gas generator testing, described above, demonstrated
certain limitations in the original test program plan and execution. More testing appears to be
required in off-optimal design conditions, and additional test time will add to durability data. In
an operational environment, the gas generator will require throttling. Such capability will
require variable flow control valves and a variety of control feedback loops. These capabilities
would enable testing under part- load conditions and under dynamically changing operating
conditions. Further, reduced loads will allow longer test durations.

In consultation with the California Energy Commission (CEC), CES has proposed, and the
Commission has approved, addition of selected subtasks to the CEC program. An integrated
digital control system will be developed for the gas generator. The revised program adds testing
of the integrated unit in a stand-alone mode. The added testing time and schedule adjustment
will allow full testing of the integrated unit with the control system prior to initiating plant
construction and purchase of the remaining plant equipment.
The gas generator test unit is planned to be operated over a range from 0.5 to 5 MWe (1.5 to 15
MWt ) and independently controlled by a digital control system designed for that purpose.
Testing will include full load, part load, and transient conditions. Temperature, pressure, and
mass flow rates will be individually varied while other parameters are held constant to evaluate
the system’s robustness and response to simulated steam turbine throttling. The plant, once on
line, is planned to operate continuously for two years to build durability data on the gas
generator.
In addition, CES is working on projects in the 20 MWe to 70 MWe range, primarily in California.
Discussions are also being held with multinational oil companies for possible projects in the
Netherlands and Norway. Other potential applications of the technology are being explored, but
are not at sufficient levels of development to warrant public discussion.
 REFERENCES

1
Anderson R., Brandt H., Pronske K., Viteri F., “Near-Term Potential for Power Generation from Coal with Zero
Atmospheric Emissions,” in Proceedings of the 27th Int’l Technical Conference on Coal Utilization and Fuel
Systems, March 4-7, 2002, Clearwater FL, at page 51.
2
Texaco Development Corporation, (1993) "Texaco Gasification Process for Solid Feedstocks." Corporation
Brochure.
3
Chorpening, B., G. A. Richards, K. Casleton, US Dept. of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory
(NETL); M. Woike, B Willis, NASA Glen Research Center, Plum Brook Station,; L. Hoffman, Clean Energy
Systems, Inc.; “Demonstration of a Reheat Combustor for Power Production With CO2 Sequestration,” to be
presented at ASME Turbo Expo Land, Sea, Air, June 16-19, 2003, Atlanta, GA. USA.
4
McMahan, T., "NETL's Programs in Oxygen Separation Using Inorganic Membranes." Zero Emissions Steam
Technology Workshop, San Francisco, Organized by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore,
California 94551, August 2001, U.S.A.
5
Macadam S., Marin O. and Bourhis Y., Air Liquide, Chicago Research Center; Di Zanno P., Air Liquide,
Champigny, France; Viteri F. and Anderson R., Clean Energy Systems, Inc., Sacramento, CA; "High Efficiency,
Zero Emission Power Generation Based on a High-Temperature Steam Cycle,” 28th International Technical
Conference on Coal Utilization & Fuel Systems, Clearwater, Florida, March 10-13, 2003.
6
Chiesa, P. and Lozza P., " CO2 Emission Abatement in IGCC Power Plants by Semi-closed Cycles: Part B – With
Air Blown Combustion and CO2 Physical Absorption," ASME Journ. Engin. Gas Turbines and Power, Oct. 1999,
Vol. 121.
7
Gambini M., Vellini M., “ CO2 Emission Abatement From Fossil Fuel Power Plants by Exhaust Gas Treatment,”
ASME Journal for Gas Turbines and Power, January 2003, Vol. 125.
8
Chiesa, P. and Lozza P., " CO2 Emission Agbatement in IGCC Power Plants by Semiclosed Cycles: Part B – With
air Blown combustion and CO2 Physical Absorption," ASME Journ. Engin. Gas Turbines and Power ,Oct. 1999, Vol.
121.
9
Ruether J. and Schmidt C., National Energy Technology Laboratory, USDOE; R. Dahowski, Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory, Battelle; Ramezan M., National Energy Technology Laboratory, SAIC; “Prospects for Early
Deployment of Power Plants Employing Carbon Capture,” Electric Utilities Environmental Conference, Tucson,
AZ, January, 22-25, 2002.
10
Wallace D., “ Capture and Storage of CO2 : What Needs To Be Done,” COP 6 The Hague, International Energy
Agency, Paris, France, 2000.
11
Horlock, J. H., (1995) "Combined Powe r Plants - Past, Present and Future." ASME Journ. Eng. for Gas Turbines
and Power, Vol. 117.
12
Simbeck, D., "A Portfolio Selection Approach for Power Plant CO2 Capture, Separation and R&D Options,"
Proceedings 4 th Intern. Conf. Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Interlaken, Switzerland, 1998.
13
Duffy, T. and Schneider, P., (1996) " High Performance Steam Development, Final Report Phase III, 1500 o F
(1089 K) Steam Plant for Industrial Cogeneration Prototype Development Tests." U.S. Dept. of Energy, Chicago
Operations Office, 6800 South Cass Ave. Argonne, Ill., Report No. SR94-R-5527-101.
14
Okamura T., Koga A., Itoh S., and Kawagishi H., “Evaluation of 1700 C Class Turbine Blades in Hydrogen
Fueled Combustion Turbine Systems,” Power and Industrial Systems R&D Center, Toshiba Corp., Yokohama 230-
0045, Japan; International Gas Turbine & Aeroengine Congress & Exhibition; Munich, Germany; May 8-11, 2000.

View publication stats