HRSG Design for Integrated

Reforming Combined Cycle With

CO2 Capture
This article illustrates aspects of heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) design when
employing process integration in an integrated reforming combined cycle (IRCC) with
precombustion CO2 capture. Specifically, the contribution of this paper is to show how
Lars O. Nord heat integration in a precombustion CO2 capture plant impacts the selection of HRSG

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/gasturbinespower/article-pdf/133/1/011702/5729039/011702_1.pdf by Cardiff University user on 21 November 2024

e-mail: [email protected] design. The purpose of such a plant is to generate power with very low CO2 emissions,
typically below 100 g CO2 / net kWh electricity. This should be compared with a state-of-
Olav Bolland the-art natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) plant with CO2 emissions around 380 g
CO2 / net kWh electricity. The design of the HRSG for the IRCC process was far from
Department of Energy and Process Engineering, standard because of the significant amount of steam production from the heat generated
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, by the autothermal reforming process. This externally generated steam was transferred to
NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway the HRSG superheaters and used in a steam turbine. For an NGCC plant, a triple-
pressure reheat steam cycle would yield the highest net plant efficiency. However, when
generating a significant amount of high-pressure steam external to the HRSG, the picture
changed. The complexity of selecting an HRSG design increased when also considering
that steam can be superheated and low-pressure and intermediate-pressure steam can be
generated in the process heat exchangers. For the concepts studied, it was also of im-
portance to maintain a high net plant efficiency when operating on natural gas. There-
fore, the selection of HRSG design had to be a compromise between NGCC and IRCC
operating modes.
关DOI: 10.1115/1.4001822兴

Keywords: HRSG, IRCC, process simulation, CO2 capture

1 Introduction • How much process integration should take place?

• Should membranes be employed in the reforming process,
Precombustion CO2 capture is one possible route to fossil fu-
in the water-gas shift section, or in the CO2 capture step?
eled power generation with low CO2 emissions. There exist many • Which CO2 capture method should be employed?
possible configurations for a precombustion plant 关1兴. One such
process is the integrated reforming combined cycle 共IRCC兲. The This paper focuses on answering the third bullet point, that is,
IRCC process reforms natural gas to a syngas, converts CO to HRSG design in an IRCC plant. The IRCC plant in the study was
CO2 in the shift reactors, separates CO2 in the capture subsystem, using an autothermal reformer 共ATR兲 关10–12兴.
and the resulting hydrogen-rich fuel is used for the gas turbine The remainder of this paper is divided into the following sec-
共GT兲 in a combined cycle setup. The CO2 is compressed and tions: Section 2 describes the methodology used. Section 3 de-
stored. Many options exist for the CO2 separation. One alternative scribes the details of the HRSG design analysis. The resulting
is to use a chemical absorption system utilizing a hot potassium process selection is shown and discussed in Sec. 4 and concluding
carbonate solution, e.g., see Ref. 关2兴. A simplified process sche- remarks are given in Sec. 5.
matic of a natural gas precombustion setup is shown in Fig. 1. In
the schematic, the water-gas shift section has been included in the
reforming box. Notable in a natural gas precombustion setup is 2 Methodology
the amount of steam generated in the reforming process. This is Process simulation tools were used for analysis of the plant
indicated with H2O streams between the power plant and reform- models. The design case model was modeled in GT PRO by Ther-
ing blocks in Fig. 1. moflow and in Aspen Plus by AspenTech. GT PRO was used for
For an IRCC, there are many configuration options 关3–9兴. In the power plant model including the GT, steam turbine 共ST兲, and
addition, there are many possibilities for integration with the HRSG. The Aspen Plus simulations consisted of two separate
power cycle both on the gas and the steam side. Some of the models. One that included the reforming process and the water-
questions to answer during the design phase of such a plant are: gas shift reactors. In this model, numerous heat exchangers were
included, among those the whole preheating section. Air and CO2
• Which type of reformer should be used? Options include compression was also incorporated into the model. In the other
steam reformer, partial oxidation, and autothermal reformer. model, the chemical absorption process was designed as a hot
• What system pressure level should be adopted? potassium carbonate model in a separate flow sheet. The models
• How should the heat recovery steam generator 共HRSG兲 be were linked by Microsoft Excel utilizing Aspen Simulation Work-
designed? book and the Thermoflow E-LINK. For the CO2 capture system
the model was not directly linked to Excel, instead a simple sepa-
rator model was included in the reforming flow sheet with inputs
Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute 共IGTI兲 of ASME for pub-
lication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript
such as split ratios, temperatures, and pressures from the absorp-
received April 8, 2010; final manuscript received April 10, 2010; published online tion model. A graphical overview of the simulation is presented in
September 14, 2010. Editor: Dilip R. Ballal. Fig. 2.

Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power JANUARY 2011, Vol. 133 / 011702-1
Copyright © 2011 by ASME
 Natural gas 58.5
CO2 CO2 CO2
Air / O2 Reforming
capture compression 58.0

Net electrical efficiency (%)

H2 / N2 57.5
H2O
Steam 57.0
Power Power
island 56.5

Exhaust 56.0

55.5
Fig. 1 Schematic of natural gas precombustion capture
55.0

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/gasturbinespower/article-pdf/133/1/011702/5729039/011702_1.pdf by Cardiff University user on 21 November 2024

3 HRSG Design 54.5
1P 2P 2PR 3P 3PR
The design of the HRSG for the IRCC process was far from
standard because of the significant amount of steam produced by Fig. 3 Net electrical efficiency „including transformer losses…
heat generated in the ATR. In addition, preheating of some of the for combined cycle plants with GE 9FB gas turbine. Steam
process streams within the HRSG could add to the nonstandard- cycles include: single-pressure „1P…, dual-pressure „2P…, dual-
ization of the HRSG design. Also, the plant should be able to pressure with reheat „2PR…, triple-pressure „3P…, and triple-
operate on natural gas as backup fuel for the GT, that is, in natural pressure with reheat „3PR….
gas combined cycle 共NGCC兲 mode. This is important during star-
tup but also when problems in the reforming or CO2 capture sec-
single-pressure system, whose T-Q diagram is displayed in Fig. 5,
tions occur. A failure mode, effects, and criticality analysis
the low-grade heat available in the gas stream was not utilized as
showed that many failures in an IRCC can lead to plant shutdown
well as it could be. As displayed in Fig. 5, the flue gas stack
共if no backup fuel兲 关13兴. The analysis in this paper was based on a
temperature 共at the 0 MW heat transfer point兲 was higher than
plant size of approximately 400 MW in net power output.
what was required when considering the acid dew point. To keep
3.1 External High-Pressure Evaporator. The idea of the a sufficient margin to the acid dew point, a stack temperature
plant was to be able to operate on both hydrogen-rich fuel and on lower limit of 70° C was established. For the single pressure sys-
natural gas fuel for the GT. For an NGCC plant, a triple-pressure tem without any external steam generation, the stack temperature
reheat cycle would yield the highest net plant efficiency as is was approximately 140° C as is shown in Fig. 5. This means there
displayed in Fig. 3. However, when generating a significant was a significant amount of unutilized heat from the flue gas,
amount of high-pressure 共HP兲 steam external to the HRSG, the which was the main reason for the lower net electrical efficiency
picture changed. Figure 4 indicates that a single-pressure system compared with, for example, a dual-pressure reheat system. A T-Q
actually performed in parity with a triple-pressure reheat system diagram for a dual-pressure reheat system is displayed in Fig. 6.
when more than 60 kg/s of saturated HP steam were generated The two pressure levels allowed for better utilization of the low-
externally 共40% of the total HP steam mass flow兲. The actual mass grade heat in the flue gas. However, as apparent in Fig. 7, the
flow numbers would vary from case to case but the key point is situation for the single-pressure system is quite improved when
that a single-pressure system could yield just as high plant effi- generating 70 kg/s of external HP steam. Now, the low-grade heat
ciency as a dual- or triple-pressure reheat system when a lot of in the gas stream can be better utilized and the hot and cold curves
steam is generated external to the HRSG. Note that the efficiency are closer together. If studying the total heat transferred from the
numbers in Fig. 4 only have meaning for 0 kg/s external steam hot gases in Figs. 5 and 7, it increased from around 370 MW to
generation since the external steam was considered “free of 420 MW. In addition, the hot and cold curves are closer together,
charge” in the HRSG simulation cases, that is, the externally gen- which is an advantage from an exergy stand-point. By minimizing
erated process steam was added to the HRSG without considering the distance between the hot and cold curves the irreversibilities in
the energy required to produce the steam. The purpose of Fig. 4 is the heat exchange are lower. For the dual-pressure reheat system
rather to show the relative relation between different HRSG de-
signs when process steam is available as it is in a typical IRCC
70 External HP mass flow
setup. The range of externally evaporated HP steam mass flow in range for IRCC in study
the simulations is indicated in Fig. 4.
68
To show the difference between the HRSG options, a T-Q dia-
"free" external HP steam (%)
Net elec. efficiency including

1P
gram, displaying temperature versus heat transferred for the 2P
66 2PR
HRSG flue gas and the water/steam cycle, is illustrative. For the
3P
64 3PR

Aspen Plus IRCC 62

design simulation
GT PRO power
plant design 60
simulation
58
Design case
56
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

External HP steam mass flow (kg/s)

Aspen Plus CO2
capture design Fig. 4 Natural gas fired combined cycle plant with external HP
simulation steam generation. For reference, 90 kg/s „2PR, 3PR… and 105
kg/s „1P, 2P, 3P… of steam was generated in HRSG evaporator at
Fig. 2 Overall simulation overview with software linking the 0 kg/s external HP steam mass flow point.

011702-2 / Vol. 133, JANUARY 2011 Transactions of the ASME

 700 700

600 600

500 500
Temperature (°C)

Temperature (°C)
400 400

300 300

70 kg/s less steam in HRSG HP evaporator

200 200 than in HP economizer and super-heater

100 100

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/gasturbinespower/article-pdf/133/1/011702/5729039/011702_1.pdf by Cardiff University user on 21 November 2024

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Heat transfer from gas (MW) Heat transfer from gas (MW)

Fig. 5 T-Q diagram for single-pressure HRSG without external Fig. 8 T-Q diagram for dual-pressure reheat HRSG with 70
HP steam generation. Dashed lines refer to HRSG flue gas, kg/s of external HP steam generation. Dashed lines refer to
solid lines to water/steam cycle. HRSG flue gas, solid lines to water/steam cycle.

there was also an improvement in the HRSG T-Q diagram when steeper than for other HRSG alternatives, up to a certain point.
generating external HP steam, as is displayed in Fig. 8. But the After about 70 kg/s externally generated steam, the slopes are
improvement was not as pronounced, as can be seen from the similar between the different HRSG options. This is because, at
slopes in Fig. 4. The single-pressure system improvement was that flow point, the lower stack temperature limit had been
reached for the single-pressure system and no more heat could be
transferred from the flue gas. The only improvement from this
700
point and higher external flows was the added steam flow from the
external source and hence, the improvements would be similar for
600
all HRSG options.
500 3.2 External High-Pressure Economizer and Evaporator.
Temperature (°C)

If, in addition to the external HP evaporator, an external HP

400 economizer was used, the results were different. Figure 9 shows
the effect on net plant efficiency when HP water was transferred
300 to an external economizer and evaporator. It was here assumed
that the same amount of water was economized as was evapo-
200 rated. The dual-pressure reheat system showed a higher net plant
efficiency for all levels of external economizing and boiling. The
100
low-grade heat of the HRSG flue gas could not be utilized in the
single-pressure system if a large part of the economizing took
0
place outside the HRSG even when an external evaporator was
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
present. To illustrate this, a T-Q diagram for a single-pressure
Heat transfer from gas (MW) system when 70 kg/s of water was economized and evaporated
externally is shown in Fig. 10. In this case, only about 360 MW of
Fig. 6 T-Q diagram for dual-pressure reheat HRSG without ex- the heat available from the flue gas was transferred to the water/
ternal HP steam generation. Dashed lines refer to HRSG flue
gas, solid lines to water/steam cycle.
76
Net elec. efficiency including external HP
steam economizing and evaporation (%)

700
74
600 72
1P
70
500 2PR
Temperature (°C)

68
400 66

64
300
62
70 kg/s less steam in HRSG evaporator
200 than in economizer and super-heater 60

100 58

56
0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
External HP mass flow (kg/s)
Heat transfer from gas (MW)
Fig. 9 Natural gas fired combined cycle plant with external HP
Fig. 7 T-Q diagram for single-pressure HRSG with 70 kg/s of economizer and evaporator. For reference, 90 kg/s „2PR… and
external HP steam generation. Dashed lines refer to HRSG flue 105 kg/s „1P… of steam was generated in HRSG evaporator at
gas, solid lines to water/steam cycle. the 0 kg/s external HP steam mass flow point.

Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power JANUARY 2011, Vol. 133 / 011702-3
 700 57.60

600
57.55

Net plant efficiency (%)

500
Temperature (°C)
57.50

400
57.45
300
57.40
70 kg/s less steam in HRSG evaporator
200 and economizer than in super-heater
57.35
100

57.30

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/gasturbinespower/article-pdf/133/1/011702/5729039/011702_1.pdf by Cardiff University user on 21 November 2024

0
100 120 140 160 180
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
HP steam pressure level (bar)
Heat transfer from gas (MW)
Fig. 11 Net plant efficiency as a function of HP steam pressure
Fig. 10 T-Q diagram for single-pressure HRSG with 70 kg/s of level for a dual-pressure reheat steam cycle in an NGCC plant.
external HP steam economizing and evaporation. Dashed lines
refer to HRSG flue gas, solid lines to water/steam cycle.

respect to selection of steam cycle pressure levels. Figure 11 dis-

plays the net plant efficiency as a function of the HP level for a
steam cycle and the stack temperature was as high as 160° C. For
dual-pressure reheat cycle. In the analysis, the other input param-
a dual-pressure reheat system the low-grade heat could be utilized
eters were kept constant. It is clear from Fig. 11 that a high HP
because of the second 共lower兲 steam pressure level.
steam pressure level as possible was desirable if only considering
The net plant efficiency numbers were higher for the single-
the net plant efficiency. However, at some point the solution be-
pressure system in Fig. 9 compared with the system in Fig. 4 for
comes prohibitively expensive for increasing pressure levels. The
high external steam mass flows 共above 70 kg/s兲. This may be
cost aspect was not directly considered in the study. However,
surprising since the energy was added 共from external economizer兲
economically unrealistic options were not considered and would
below the original pinch point 共at the evaporator inlet on the water
be excluded.
side兲. If the pinch point location would remain the same no more
While considering the net plant efficiency, the process steam
HRSG steam could be generated if energy 共in this case in terms of
pressure levels needed to be regarded as well. Changing the pro-
external economizing兲 is added below the pinch and hence, the net
cess steam demands 共pressure and flow兲 could affect the selection
plant efficiency would not be higher in Fig. 9 than in Fig. 4.
of steam pressure levels to achieve a higher net plant efficiency.
However, due to the minimum allowed stack temperature of
Also, while aiming for a high net plant efficiency, the plant com-
70° C, the pinch point moved to the exhaust end of the HRSG, as
plexity could increase and the end result could be a compromise.
is displayed in Fig. 7. This meant more total steam flow could be
In addition, the flexibility of an IRCC plant was important, not the
generated in a single-pressure system if an external economizer
least with respect to the ability to run efficiently on both
was used when the external steam mass flow was sufficiently high
hydrogen-rich fuel and natural gas fuel. Therefore, dual-fuel ca-
compared with a single-pressure system with only an external
pability was also considered when selecting an HRSG design.
evaporator. The pinch point is defined as the temperature at which
the heat flow is zero. 3.4 Duct-Firing. Because of features such as preheating of
reformer process streams and dual-fuel capability, duct-firing in
3.3 Steam Pressure Levels. The steam pressure levels within
the HRSG was considered. Firing the GT with hydrogen fuel leads
a certain HRSG setup were selected based on several criteria,
to an increase in steam content in the turbine compared with when
which are as follows:
firing natural gas, and the heat transfer rate to the turbine blades
• material constraints increases, which leads to a higher blade metal temperature. To
• steam quality after ST compensate for this, one can decrease the turbine inlet tempera-
• net plant efficiency ture of the GT. Doing so decreases the thermal efficiency of the
• process needs 共process steam pressure levels兲 GT and the turbine exhaust temperature, and subsequently the
• plant complexity inlet temperature to the HRSG drops. The drop in HRSG flue gas
• flexibility: dual fuel capability inlet temperature could be compensated with duct-firing. Also, the
reformer requires preheating of the inlet streams. If this is done in
There were material limitations with respect to temperature. the HRSG, a significant amount of the flue gas heat content is
This limitation determined the maximum superheating tempera- transferred to the process streams, which further warrants duct-
ture for the system. For an HRSG without reheating, the tempera- firing 共50 MW of preheating could be a typical number for a 400
ture limitation could affect the pressure level selection since low- MW IRCC plant兲. The importance of duct-firing is further high-
ering the superheating temperature, for the same pressure level, lighted since the GT is to be run on both hydrogen-rich fuel and
decreases the ST outlet steam quality. To avoid erosion of the last on natural gas fuel and the requirements for the HRSG would be
turbine stage the steam quality should preferably not be below quite different for the different fuel operating modes. In NGCC
0.88 when it exits the ST 关14兴. Also, lower limits, such as 0.84 operating mode, the turbine exhaust temperature would be higher,
have been mentioned in literature 关15兴. This restriction did affect no preheating would be necessary, and no external steam is gen-
the selection of pressure levels and the steam expansion path erated. Duct-firing would give that required flexibility for the
needed to be considered. Higher HP steam pressure levels for the HRSG.
same superheating temperature led to a lower steam quality in the
ST exhaust. For reheat cycles, this restriction is not an issue since
high reheat temperature at an intermediate-pressure level leads to 4 Process Selection
a higher steam quality in the LP turbine exhaust. When considering the overall design of the IRCC process in
Net plant efficiency was one of the most important criteria with this analysis, two HRSG configurations stood out.

011702-4 / Vol. 133, JANUARY 2011 Transactions of the ASME

 25

CO
2
47 134 C 2
46 23 22
CO2 compression CO2 capture
PRE4
(HRSG) GTPRE
1 PRE1 240 C

300 C 24
Booster 500 C 13 21
To HP drum From HP drum From HP drum From IP drum To IP drum
compressor
(sat steam) (sat steam) (sat steam) (sat water) (sat water)
35 450 C 36A 355 C 431 C 36B 32 31 212 C
85 C 950 C 15 16 17 18 19 20

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/gasturbinespower/article-pdf/133/1/011702/5729039/011702_1.pdf by Cardiff University user on 21 November 2024

12 15 C 10
Syngas HPS1A HPS1B IPBA IPE1A
34 cooler 37A 37B 33 30
5
14 From HPE To HPS HTS To HPS To IP drum From IP LTS
11 (sat steam) pump
AIRCOOL
170 C 9 Water from stripper reboiler
ATR HP sat water 332 C Deaerator
IP sat water 236 C
IP water 121 C Process
AIRHE Reboiler 110 C 29 water
7

6
Air
27 28 Exhaust
8 DB HPS RH DB PRE HPB IPS HPE IPB IPE LTE
26
HRSG
G

385 C 4
Gas turbine 38 41 43 45
40
NG/steam
mixer
G 44 Condenser
10 C 400 C
3
1 2 39
Natural gas Desulfurization Steam turbine
PRE1 PRE2
42
(HRSG)
Hydrogen

Fig. 12 IRCC process flow sheet. Stream numbering and temperatures „in °C… are indicated for certain streams.

1. a single-pressure HRSG with its simplicity while still borderline of being too low. A higher steam quality would be
achieving an IRCC net plant efficiency similar to the more achieved if the HP pressure level would be lowered, however, this
complex HRSG alternatives would lower the net plant efficiency. For the dual-pressure reheat
2. a dual-pressure reheat HRSG with its high NGCC net plant system, the steam quality 共0.916兲 was not an issue. The higher
efficiency NGCC net plant efficiency is a clear advantage for a dual-pressure
reheat system. In the end, the selection decision would be strongly
The triple-pressure HRSG showed a lower NGCC net plant influenced by economics. Economic analysis was not part of this
efficiency than the dual-pressure reheat HRSG, as shown in Fig. work.
3, while having a similar complexity. Also, there was no clear For this work the dual-pressure reheat cycle was chosen. The
advantage for the triple-pressure system in IRCC operating mode. HRSG was duct-fired at two locations in the gas path. One was
When comparing dual-pressure reheat and triple-pressure reheat
located in the hottest zone of the HRSG to get the gas temperature
systems, one setup was not clearly favorable compared with the
up to a temperature close to what it would be for an NGCC. The
other setup. However, for a triple-pressure reheat system, the LP
IRCC GT exhaust temperature was lower because of the lower
and IP boilers within the HRSG became very small 共below 1 kg/s
steam to the boilers兲. For this reason, the dual-pressure reheat turbine inlet temperature 共100 K lower TIT, 50 K lower exhaust
system was favorable compared with the triple-pressure reheat temperature兲. The second supplementary burner was located up-
system and the resulting decrease in complexity a positive. stream of the preheating section. The heat added with the second
To differentiate between the single-pressure system and the duct burner was very close to the heat removed by the preheating
dual-pressure reheat system, a full IRCC process design for each streams. This was a feature enabling dry operation of the preheat-
setup was necessary. The performance of the two systems was ing section when the plant is operating on natural gas 共the duct
similar. The IRCC net plant efficiency was 44.7% for the system burners are not in operation during NG operation and thereby the
with a single-pressure HRSG and 45.3% for the IRCC with a temperature to the preheating section is lower兲. The preheating
dual-pressure reheat cycle. This difference is small and part of the section 共PRE in Fig. 12兲 included preheating of NG 共PRE2兲, air
difference was also due to design features of the two systems and feed to ATR 共PRE4兲, and NG/steam feed to ATR. All duct-firing
not only from a difference in HRSG design. The main advantage was fueled with natural gas and increased the CO2 released from
of the single-pressure system was the simplicity of the design and the plant. However, this was compensated with a high capture rate
an overall less complex cycle. One disadvantage was the lower 共98%兲 of the CO2 capture system to result in an overall capture
steam quality at the ST outlet. A steam quality of 0.863 is on the rate at around 85%. The steam pressure levels were selected at

Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power JANUARY 2011, Vol. 133 / 011702-5
 GT PRO 18.0.2 Net Power 441956 kW
LHV Heat Rate 6264 kJ/kWh
1.01 p
15 T 1X GE 9371FB 628.4 m 74.79 %N2
60 %RH 11.05 %O2
16.22 p 1.04 p 0.3124 %CO2
642.1 m 380 T 595 T
16.22 p 15.41 p 253545 kW 12.96 %H2O
0 m elev. 91.96 m 380 T 1327 T 628.4 M 0.8969 %Ar

1p
15 T
642.1 m
199573 kW

Aspen 78.22 m
LHV= 682459 kWth 130 p
30 T 41.58 M 200 T 36 p
566 T
128.8 M 376 T 152.7 M
30.39 M
119 T 2.001 p 36 p 376 T 0 M V5 0.04 p
120 T 3 p 276 T 0 M V6 29 T
98.34 M
172.5 M

2.174 M

2p 0.034 M

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/gasturbinespower/article-pdf/133/1/011702/5729039/011702_1.pdf by Cardiff University user on 21 November 2024

275 T
41.58 M 137.3 M

27.5 p 566 T
119.6 M

30.87 p 353 T
132.6 p 568 T
29 T

112.4 M 112.4 M

FW
66.18 M 17.66 M 17.66 M
60 T

LTE IPE2 HPE2 IPS1 HPE3 IPS2 HPB1 HPS0 RH1 HPS1 RH3 HPS3

70 T 594 T
630.3 M 628.4 M
1.032 m^3/kg 2.001 p 29.79 p 136.3 p 29.74 p 135.6 p 29.68 p 135.6 p 134.3 p 29.2 p 133.1 p 28.6 p 132.6 p 2.546 m^3/kg
650.5 m^3/s 119 T 230 T 297 T 292 T 332 T 320 T 334 T 468 T 508 T 528 T 568 T 568 T 1599.9 m^3/s
195 M 154.9 M 152.7 M 17.66 M 152.7 M 17.66 M 40.31 M 152.7 M 137.3 M 152.7 M 137.3 M 152.7 M
140 140 246 246 313 317 363 364 426 493 557 559 594 618 639
p[bar], T[C], M[kg/s], Steam Properties: IAPWS-IF97 Includes DB Nat Gas Nat Gas
1.1 M 0.8 M
LHV 50100 kWth

Fig. 13 GT PRO power cycle schematic including HRSG design. Annotations: pressure p in bar, mass flow m / M in kg/s,
and temperature T in °C. For example, air extracted from the GT compressor with annotation 16.22 p, 380 T, and 91.96 m,
refer to a pressure of 16.22 bar, a temperature of 380° C, and a mass flow of 91.96 kg/s.

130 bar for the HP system and 27.5 bar for the IP system. The GT For the HP system, the majority of the steam was generated
exhaust and HRSG pressure drop was assumed to be 22 mbar. The outside the HRSG. Of the 152.7 kg/s of steam admitted to the HP
condensing pressure was assumed at 0.04 bar. ST, 112.4 kg/s 共74%兲 were generated in the process heat exchang-
The selected reformer for the process was an autothermal re- ers external to the HRSG. Saturated water from the HPE was
former. As the ATR was air-blown there was a significant portion supplied to the syngas cooler and saturated steam was generated.
of nitrogen in the syngas. This nitrogen was used as fuel diluent From the syngas cooler, the saturated steam was supplied to the
for NOx abatement in the GT combustor. The air needed for the HP steam drum 共not shown in process flow sheet兲. The same mass
ATR was bled from the GT compressor discharge plenum 共flow- flow of steam as generated in the syngas cooler was supplied to
controlled with valve兲 and boosted up to system pressure 共ap- superheaters HPS1A and HPS1B before submitted to the HRSG
proximately 30 bar inlet pressure to ATR兲 with an air compressor. HPSs. IPE1A is acting as an IP economizer and IPB as an IP
The selected gas turbine was a GE 9FB. The bottoming steam evaporator 共same mass flow兲. GTPRE was preheating the fuel gas
cycle included the HRSG and a steam turbine. Included in the for the GT to 200° C and PRE1 was preheating the supplied NG
steam cycle were also a deaerator, condenser, and feedwater before it was further preheated in the HRSG. The net plant power
pumps. output was 420 MW. A summary of the results is displayed in
The full IRCC process flow sheet is displayed in Fig. 12. In the Table 1. Stream results are presented in Table 2.
power plant part of the process flow sheet, the GT, ST, and HRSG To determine what the efficiency penalty is when incorporating
are displayed. Within the HRSG, the heat exchangers for the dif-
ferent pressure levels are indicated. Included are the low-
temperature economizer 共LTE兲, the intermediate-pressure econo- Table 1 Result summary for IRCC with dual-pressure reheat
mizer 共IPE兲, boiler 共IPB兲, and superheater 共IPS兲, the reheat section HRSG
共RH兲, and the high-pressure economizer 共HPE兲, boiler 共HPB兲, and
superheater 共HPS兲. The LTE water was recirculated to keep the Natural gas LHV input 共MW兲 924.0
LTE inlet water temperature at 60° C to avoid corrosion of the Gross power output GT 共MW兲 253.5
tubes 共too low temperature leads to condensation of HRSG gas兲. Gross power output ST 共MW兲 199.1
The two duct burners 共DB兲 are also displayed in Fig. 12. Note that Gross power output 共MW兲 452.6
the IPB is drawn with dotted lines since in the IRCC setup the IPB Air compression 共MW兲 6.4
in the HRSG was not utilized 共only used when operating on NG兲. CO2 compression 共MW兲 16.7
CO2 capture pumps 共MW兲 1.9
When operating the full plant and supplying hydrogen-rich fuel to
Auxiliaries 共MW兲 8.9
the GT, the IP boiler in the HRSG would be dry. The flue gas Net power output 共MW兲 418.7
temperature at that location of the HRSG was sufficiently low to Net plant efficiency 共% of LHV input兲 45.3
allow for dry operation. The schematic of the HRSG is simplified. CO2 emissions 共g CO2 / net kWh el. 兲 70.1
In fact, some of the heat exchangers in Fig. 12 were split into CO2 capture rate 共%兲 85.1
several sections and the detailed layout is shown in Fig. 13.

011702-6 / Vol. 133, JANUARY 2011 Transactions of the ASME

 Table 2 Stream table for IRCC with dual-pressure reheat HRSG. Stream numbering in accordance with Fig. 12.

T p ṁ CH4 C 2+ H2 CO CO2 H 2O O2 N2 Ar
No. 共°C兲 共bar兲 共kg/s兲 共vol %兲 共vol %兲 共vol %兲 共vol %兲 共vol %兲 共vol %兲 共vol %兲 共vol %兲 共vol %兲

1 10.0 30.6 18.4 79.84 16.73 - - 2.92 - - 0.51 -

5 500.0 30.0 48.8 27.53 5.77 - - 1.01 65.52 - 0.18 -
13 500.0 30.0 91.4 - - - - 0.03 0.09 20.93 78.02 0.93
14 950.0 29.3 140.2 0.24 0.00 28.18 10.02 5.31 21.74 0.00 34.11 0.41
25 200.0 25.9 78.3 0.30 0.00 51.34 0.60 0.40 0.42 0.00 46.39 0.54
27 594.7 1.036 628.4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 12.94 11.05 74.79 0.90
33 238.6 31.5 16.9 - - - - - 100.00 - - -
35 336.2 135.6 112.4 - - - - - 100.00 - - -
37A 400.0 135.6 67.1 - - - - - 100.00 - - -
37B 400.0 135.6 45.3 - - - - - 100.00 - - -

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/gasturbinespower/article-pdf/133/1/011702/5729039/011702_1.pdf by Cardiff University user on 21 November 2024

38 566.0 130.0 152.9 - - - - - 100.00 - - -
42 275.0 2.0 41.5 - - - - - 100.00 - - -
47 53.8 150.0 46.5 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.02 99.40 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.05

CO2 capture in a power plant with natural gas, a reference plant References
consisting of an NG fired GE 9FB with a triple-pressure reheat 关1兴 Eide, L. I., and Bailey, D. W., 2005, “Precombustion Decarbonisation Pro-
steam cycle was simulated. The net power output of the reference cesses,” Oil Gas Sci. Technol., 60共3兲, pp. 475–484.
plant was 439 MW and the net plant efficiency 58.1% based on 关2兴 Kohl, A., and Nielsen, R., 1997, Gas Purification, 5th ed., Gulf, Houston, TX.
关3兴 Andersen, T., Kvamsdal, H. M., and Bolland, O., 2000. “Gas Turbine Com-
the lower heating value. This means the efficiency penalty for the bined Cycle With CO2 Capture Using Auto-Thermal Reforming of Natural
IRCC with dual-pressure reheat was 12.8% points. Gas,” ASME Paper No. 2000-GT-162.
关4兴 Lozza, G., and Chiesa, P., 2002, “Natural Gas Decarbonization to Reduce CO2
Emission From Combined Cycles—Part I: Partial Oxidation,” ASME J. Eng.
5 Concluding Remarks Gas Turbines Power, 124共1兲, pp. 82–88.
关5兴 Lozza, G., and Chiesa, P., 2002, “Natural Gas Decarbonization to Reduce CO2
The design of an HRSG for an IRCC plant requires the ability Emission From Combined Cycles—Part II: Steam-Methane Reforming,”
to operate on both a hydrogen-rich fuel and on NG. In addition, ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 124共1兲, pp. 89–95.
the plant needs to start up on NG. Also, since a significant amount 关6兴 Ertesvåg, I. S., Kvamsdal, H. M., and Bolland, O., 2005, “Exergy Analysis of
a Gas-Turbine Combined-Cycle Power Plant With Precombustion CO2 Cap-
of steam is produced by heat generated in the ATR, the HRSG ture,” Energy, 30共1兲, pp. 5–39.
design would differ from a design in an NGCC plant. Preheating 关7兴 Hoffmann, S., Bartlett, M., Finkenrath, M., Evulet, A., and Ursin, T. P., 2009.
of process streams further add to the complexity. In addition to “Performance and Cost Analysis of Advanced Gas Turbine Cycles With Pre-
considering the issues discussed in Sec. 3, the complexity of se- combustion CO2 Capture,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 131共2兲, p.
021701.
lecting an HRSG design increased when also considering that 关8兴 Nord, L. O., Anantharaman, R., and Bolland, O., 2009, “Design and Off-
steam could be superheated and LP and IP steam could be gener- Design Analyses of a Pre-Combustion CO2 Capture Process in a Natural Gas
ated in the process heat exchangers. However, Figs. 4 and 9 Combined Cycle Power Plant,” Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control, 3共4兲, pp.
should give an indication of design selection when a lot of HP 385–392.
saturated steam is generated outside the HRSG. For the concept 关9兴 Nord, L. O., Kothandaraman, A., Herzog, H., McRae, G., and Bolland, O.,
2009, “A Modeling Software Linking Approach for the Analysis of an Inte-
studied it was also of importance to maintain high net plant effi- grated Reforming Combined Cycle With Hot Potassium Carbonate CO2 Cap-
ciency when operating on NG. Therefore the selection of HRSG ture,” Energy Procedia, 1共1兲, pp. 741–748.
design had to be a compromise between NGCC and IRCC oper- 关10兴 Christensen, T. S., and Primdahl, I. I., 1994, “Improve Syngas Production
ating modes while considering the items listed in Sec. 3. As a Using Autothermal Reforming,” Hydrocarbon Process., 73共3兲, p. 39 共6 pp.兲.
关11兴 Dybkjær, I., 1995, “Tubular Reforming and Autothermal Reforming of Natural
significant amount of process preheating was done in the HRSG Gas—An overview of Available Processes,” Fuel Process. Technol., 42共2–3兲,
and because of a lower HRSG flue gas inlet temperature, duct pp. 85–107.
burning was necessary to allow for plant flexibility and the option 关12兴 Christensen, T. S., Christensen, P. S., Dybkjær, I., Hansen, J. H. B., and Prim-
to switch between a hydrogen-rich fuel and NG for the GT. dahl, I. I., 1998, “Developments in Autothermal Reforming,” Stud. Surf. Sci.
Catal., 119, pp. 883–888.
关13兴 Nord, L. O., Anantharaman, R., Rausand, M., and Bolland, O., 2009, “A
Qualitative Reliability and Operability Analysis of an Integrated Reforming
Acknowledgment Combined Cycle Plant With CO2 Capture,” Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control,
3共4兲, pp. 411–421.
We would like to thank the Norwegian Research Council and 关14兴 Alvarez, H., 1990, Energiteknik, Studentlitteratur, Lund, Sweden, Vol. 2.
Statoil for providing the funding for the project. The authors are 关15兴 Kehlhofer, R. H., Warner, J., Nielsen, H., and Bachmann, R., 1999, Combined-
grateful for valuable comments received from the reviewers. Cycle Gas & Steam Turbine Power Plants, 2nd ed., PennWell, Tulsa, OK.

Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power JANUARY 2011, Vol. 133 / 011702-7