Accepted Manuscript

Techno-economic assessment of combined hydrogen & power co-generation

with carbon capture: The case of coal gasification

Ana-Maria Cormos, Calin-Cristian Cormos

PII: S1359-4311(18)31282-1
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.10.064
Reference: ATE 12808

To appear in: Applied Thermal Engineering

Received Date: 27 February 2018

Revised Date: 11 September 2018
Accepted Date: 15 October 2018

Please cite this article as: A-M. Cormos, C-C. Cormos, Techno-economic assessment of combined hydrogen &
power co-generation with carbon capture: The case of coal gasification, Applied Thermal Engineering (2018), doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.10.064

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 Techno-economic assessment of combined hydrogen & power

co-generation with carbon capture: The case of coal gasification

Ana-Maria Cormos, Calin-Cristian Cormos *

Babes – Bolyai University, Faculty of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering

11 Arany Janos Street, RO-400028, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

Abstract

The gasification technology has multiple key advantages for future low carbon power

generation scenario e.g. reduced energy and cost penalties for CO 2 capture, multi-fuel multi-

product operation capability, ability to process lower grade fuels, plant flexibility etc. This

paper is assessing the updated most important techno-economic aspects of IGCC power plant

equipped with pre-combustion CO2 capture. Several key design options were assess in view

of techno-economic indicators: selection of the gasification reactor, chemical vs. physical gas-

liquid absorption used for CO2 capture, F and H-class gas turbines used for the combined

cycle power block, flexible hydrogen and power co-generation etc. Evaluated coal-based

gasification concepts generate 400 - 600 MWe net power with a flexible hydrogen output from

zero up to 300 MWth with 90% carbon capture rate. The similar design without carbon capture

was also consider as a base case to quantify the technical and economical modifications

induced by the CO2 capture step. As the techno-economical results show, the optimised IGCC

plant (using dry fed entrained flow gasifier, H-class gas turbine, physical solvents, flexible

hydrogen and power co-generation etc.) provides improved results. In conclusion, the IGCC

with pre-combustion capture is one promising technology for the future low-carbon economy.

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +40-264-593833, Fax: +40-264-590818
E-mail address: [email protected]

1
Keywords: IGCC; Flexible hydrogen and power co-generation; Carbon capture and storage

(CCS); Chemical vs. physical pre-combustion CO2 capture; Hydrogen-fuelled gas turbines.

1. Introduction

Currently, the energy sector is facing significant constraints and changes in terms of

reducing CO2 emissions for developing the future low carbon economy, on-growing

integration of renewable energy sources which put additional pressure on techno-economic

indicators of conventional fossil fuel-based power plants, electricity and fuel prices volatility,

modification of economic and environmental regulations etc. [1]. One of the most important

factors to be considered for transition to future power generation is representing the need to

reduce significantly the CO2 emissions as an active mean to combat climate change. Since the

fossil fuels are foreseen to remain a primary energy source for the next decades (according to

IEA World Energy Outlook and BP Statistical Review of World Energy, the global coal

reserves can cover more than 130 years, for oil and natural gas the reserves can cover more

than 50 years at current R/P ratio), there is a strong need to develop power generation

technologies with reduced fossil CO2 foot-print [2]. To facilitate the widespread development

and deployment of carbon capture technologies into energy sector as well as other industrial

sectors with high CO2 emissions, various regulating measures have been put into action e.g. at

European Union level ambitious targets have been defined and enforced aimed to

significantly reduce the greenhouse gas emissions and to boost the development of renewable

energy sources [3].

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) represents a group of technologies aimed to be used

in various energy conversion systems as well as in other energy-intensive industrial

applications (e.g. metallurgy, cement production, petro-chemistry etc.) for reducing the fossil

CO2 emissions. There are several conceptual methods that can be used for CO 2 capture [4]: (i)

2
post-combustion which focuses on capturing CO2 from the flue gases produced by

combustion; (ii) pre-combustion capture which removes CO2 from combustible gas before

combustion and (iii) oxy-combustion which uses an oxygen-rich combustion environment

instead of air combustion avoiding nitrogen contamination of the combustion flue gases. For

gasification-based power plants, the pre-combustion CO2 capture route is quite

straightforward considering the higher CO2 partial pressure in the shifted syngas compared to

combustion flue gases (10 - 14 bar vs. 0.1 - 0.15 bar) [5]. After capture, CO2 can be

geologically stored or used in various applications (e.g. transformation to useful chemical

compounds or used for Enhanced Oil Recovery - EOR as considered in this paper).

Although, the gasification technology is quite old, there are significant and promising

advantages of this mature technology in the current situation [6-7]. The gasification

technology has multiple key advantages for the future low carbon power generation system

[8-9]: reduced energy and cost penalties for pre-combustion CO2 capture (compared to post-

combustion CO2 capture), multi-fuel multi-product operation capability (ability to process

various fuel types e.g. coal, lignite, biomass, solid wastes for generation of a wide range of

energy carries or chemicals e.g. power, hydrogen, synthetic fuels), ability to process lower

grade fuels (presumably cheaper than high grade fuels used preferably in the combustion-

based power plants), plant flexibility (capability to change the generated energy carrier

considering the instant grid demand with important techno-economic benefits) etc.

Pre-combustion CO2 capture applied to gasification process implies the

decarbonisation of the syngas prior to its combustion in the gas turbine [10-11]. By pre-

combustion capture, the syngas produced in the gasification reactor is then catalytically

shifted with steam to concentrate the carbon species as CO 2 (simultaneously with hydrogen

production). The shifted syngas is then decarbonised by removing the CO2 in an Acid Gas

Removal (AGR) unit and the hydrogen-rich gas can be used for production of various energy

3
carriers e.g. to generate power in a Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) or hydrogen /

synthetic fuels by syngas chemical processing. Beside pre-combustion CO2 capture step, an

Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plant with CCS requires the development of

gas turbines able to use hydrogen-rich gas as fuel. There is already a growing interest of main

gas turbine manufacturers to adapt the existing machines to hydrogen-rich fuels [12].

The main target of this paper is to assess from a techno-economic point of view the

combination of flexible hydrogen and power co-generation with CO2 capture applied to a

gasification plant. The evaluated pre-combustion CO2 capture methods are based on gas-

liquid absorption technology using chemical and physical solvents (e.g. MDEA, SelexolTM)

[13]. As hydrogen-fuelled gas turbines, state of the art F and H-class machines from the main

manufacturers (Siemens, General Electric and Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems) are used to

generate 400 - 600 MWe net power with a flexible hydrogen output from zero up to 300 MWth

with 90% carbon capture rate. Key plant design options are fully assess in term of techno-

economic indicators: selection of the gasification reactor, chemical vs. physical scrubbing

used for CO2 capture, hydrogen-fuelled F and H-class gas turbines, flexible hydrogen and

power co-generation etc. As a benchmark case used to evaluate the energy and cost penalties

of CO2 capture, a similar IGCC design without carbon capture is considered.

2. Configuration of IGCC plant and design assumptions

In an IGCC power plant without carbon capture, the coal is first gasified with oxygen

and steam, the generated syngas is cooled down and then desulphurised in an AGR unit

(coupled with a Claus plant). The clean syngas is then used in a combined cycle for power

generation. Introduction of pre-combustion CO2 capture implies some key modifications

[11,14]: (i) a catalytic water gas shift stage is introduced to concentrate the carbon species as

CO2 and to transfer the thermal energy of the syngas in form of hydrogen; (ii) the AGR unit is

expanded to CO2 capture beside syngas desulphurisation together with captured CO2

4
conditioning (drying and compression); (iii) a hydrogen-fuelled gas turbine is used for the

combined cycle; (iv) if hydrogen co-production is targeted, a Pressure Swing Adsorption

(PSA) unit for hydrogen purification and then a compression stage is required. Figure 1 is

presenting the conceptual design of an IGCC plant for hydrogen and power co-generation

with pre-combustion CO2 capture.

Figure 1. Design of IGCC plant for flexible hydrogen and power co-generation

with pre-combustion CO2 capture

In term of gasification reactors, there are many industrial-size gasifiers available but

for an IGCC design with pre-combustion CO2 capture, the oxygen-blown entrained-flow type

is the most suitable to be considered [5-6]. The air-blow gasifiers are not a solution for

designs with CCS due to syngas dilution with nitrogen which complicate the CO2 removal

process as well as reducing the overall plant energy efficiency. Moving and fluidised bed

gasifiers are not considered for CCS designs due to several reasons e.g. syngas downstream

clean-up issues (removing the pyrolysis products), lower fuel conversion rate and carbon

capture capabilities etc. Among various entrained-flow gasifiers on the market, this work is

considering a Shell gasifier operated at 40 bar which has several key advantages: high fuel

conversion rate (>99%) and cold gas efficiency (about 80%) due to a combination of dry fed

& syngas quench configuration, low syngas downstream clean-up issues (high operating

temperature of >1400oC significantly reduce pyrolysis products), good heat recovery potential

within the gasification island (syngas cooling is done by using heat recovery boilers) etc.

As for the acid gases (H2S and CO2) removal unit, technologically and commercially

mature gas-liquid absorption methods were considered [15]. Two solvents were assessed, one

chemical solvent from alkanolamine family - Methyl-DiEthanol-Amine (MDEA) and one

physical solvent - a mixture of dimethyl-ethers of poly-ethylene-glycol (SelexolTM). The

5
presented evaluation of chemical vs. physical solvents used for CO 2 capture considered

several key elements: heat duty for solvent regeneration, ancillary energy consumptions of

AGR unit (heating, cooling and electricity consumptions), solvent loading and CO 2 capture

selectivity, cost elements etc. The considered configurations of AGR unit for the two solvents

are presented in Figures 2 (for MDEA-based process) and 3 (for SelexolTM-based process). As

can be noticed, for SelexolTM process, the solvent regeneration is done by pressure reduction

(several flashes) since for MDEA it is done by heating (steam has to be extracted from the

Rankine cycle with negative consequence of reducing the steam turbine output).

Figure 2. Layout of acid gas removal unit based on MDEA process

Figure 3. Layout of acid gas removal unit based on SelexolTM process

Regarding the hydrogen-fuelled gas turbines, three state of the art F and H-class units

from the main manufacturers (Siemens, General Electric - GE, Mitsubishi Hitachi Power

Systems - MHPS) were considered. The key elements in selecting a gas turbine for an IGCC

design with CCS are: gross and net power output (in accordance with the targeted plant

output), electrical efficiency and ability to process hydrogen-rich fuels, flexibility in varying

the load (an important aspect for hydrogen and power co-generation cases). Table 1 presents

the main design assumptions for the selected gas turbines considered in this work [16-18].

3. Technical and environmental assessment of IGCC plants with CCS

The following Shell-based IGCC were evaluated in this paper:

Case 1 - IGCC power plant without CCS (benchmark case);

Case 2 - IGCC power plant with CCS based on SelexolTM process;

Case 3 - IGCC power plant with CCS based on MDEA process.

6
 The Case 2 was evaluated using various F and H-class gas turbines (Case 2a: GE 9F05

gas turbine, Case 2b: MHPS 701G2 gas turbine and Case 2c: Siemens SGT5-8000H gas

turbine) as well as for flexible hydrogen and power co-generation design. All evaluated

concepts generate 400 - 600 MWe net power with a flexible hydrogen output in a range from

zero up to 300 MWth with 90% carbon capture rate. Table 2 presents the key design

assumptions of the main plant sub-systems [11,19-20]. As modelling and simulation software,

ChemCAD [21] and Thermoflex [22] were used. ChemCAD was used to simulate whole plant

concepts (both the chemical transformation units like gasification island, syngas water gas

shift, CO2 capture unit etc. and the steam generation & power block) and Thermoflex was

only used for simulation of power block and steam cycle since it provides better technical

specifications of the gas turbines. The simulation results were compared to the industrial data

of main plant units (e.g. gasification island, syngas treatment, acid gas removal, combined

cycle gas turbine) for validation purposes [6,11,19].

For optimisation of the energy efficiency, all investigated concepts were subject of

detailed heat and power integration analysis [23]. In this respect, the pinch methodology was

followed for overall plant thermal integration analysis considering a 10oC minimum

temperature difference. An important point to consider in the thermal integration analysis is

the steam integration between various plant sub-systems (gasification unit, syngas treatment

line, acid gas removal unit and combined cycle). As an illustrative example, Figure 4 presents

the hot and cold composite curves for Case 2b (IGCC plant with Selexol-based CO2 capture

and MHPS 701G2 gas turbine): Figure 4a exhibits the composite curves for gasification

island, syngas treatment line and shift reactors and Figure 4b exhibits the composite curves

for the combined cycle gas turbine unit.

Figure 4. Hot and cold composite curves for Case 2b

7
 The mass and energy balances generated by simulation were then used to calculate the

key techno-economic and environmental performance indicators of the investigated plant

concepts. Table 3 presents the technical performance indicators for Cases 1 to 3 considering

the same gas turbine (one MHPS 701G2) within the combined cycle. As can be noticed, the

IGCC designs with CCS (both having 90% carbon capture rate) show lower net power

efficiencies compared to the design without carbon capture (Case 1) due to the energy penalty

for CO2 capture (about 8 - 9 net efficiency percentage points). The SelexolTM design (Case 2)

has lower energy penalty for CO2 capture compared to the MDEA design (Case 3) with about

0.9 percentage points because of lower heat duty for solvent regeneration (0.22 vs. 0.7 MJ/kg

CO2). Case 3 requires higher steam extraction for solvent regeneration with negative

consequence of reducing the steam turbine power output [24].

Besides the technical and environmental performance indicators presented in Table 3,

an indicator to illustrate the Specific Primary Energy Consumption for CO 2 Avoided

(SPECCA) was calculated with the formula [25]:

Power plant heat rate Capture  Power plant heat rate No capture
SPECCA  (1)
Specific CO2 emissions No capture  Specific CO2 emissions Capture

The SPECCA values for SelexolTM (Case 2) and MDEA (Case 3) are 2.52 MJ/kg CO2

and respectively 2.88 MJ/kg CO2. One can notice the lower value for SelexolTM-based design

in comparison to the MDEA-based design by about 15%.

An important evaluated issue in this paper was dedicated to screening of various state

of the art gas turbines able to use hydrogen-rich fuels. Three top F and H-class gas turbines

were assessed using the same IGCC design with SelexolTM-based pre-combustion CO2

capture in the context of 90% carbon capture rate for all cases. Table 4 presents the technical

performance indicators of the evaluated gasification plant concepts with pre-combustion

8
carbon capture using various gas turbines. As can be noticed, the highest net power efficiency

was obtained for Case 2c which is using a Siemens SGT5-8000H gas turbine followed by

Case 2b using a MHPS 701G2 gas turbine and then by Case 2a based on GE 9F05 gas

turbine. Considering the design specifications of the gas turbines (see Table 1), the Siemens

design (Case 2c) has an overall net power efficiency only with about 0.6 percentage points

higher than the Mitsubishi Hitachi design (Case 2b) although the efficiencies of the gas

turbines (in single cycle) differs by about 1.5 percentage points. The GE design (Case 2a) has

the lowest overall plant efficiency with about 1.5 percentage points compared to the

Mitsubishi Hitachi design (Case 2b). The overall conclusion of evaluating various F and H-

class gas turbines within the IGCC concept with CCS is that there is not much difference in

term of overall plant efficiencies among the most efficient gas turbines (see Siemens and

Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems cases).

One promising feature of gasification plants is the ability of energy vector poly-

generation based on syngas processing. Beside electricity, the gasification plants can

produced other chemicals used as energy carriers e.g. hydrogen, substitute natural gas, liquid

fuels (methanol, Fischer-Tropsch fuel) [9,26]. This work was concentrated on flexible

hydrogen and power generation based on IGCC design [27-28]. The flexible co-generation

mode is very promising in current energy systems because the plant can change the load

according to grid demand. The operational scenario of flexible hydrogen and power co-

generation based on IGCC plant with CCS is that when hydrogen production is desired the

gas turbine is gradually turned down to displace the required hydrogen-rich stream to be then

purified by Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA) to a quality specification of >99.95% (vol.).

Figure 1 presents the conceptual design of an IGCC plant with pre-combustion carbon

capture used for flexible hydrogen and power co-generation. The co-generation mode was

evaluated in the range of 0 to 300 MWth hydrogen thermal output (based on hydrogen LHV),

9
the gas turbine being gradually turned down in the range 65 – 100% from the nominal load.

As an illustrative example, the Mitsubishi Hitachi design with SelexolTM-based pre-

combustion CO2 capture (Case 2b) was considered for flexible hydrogen and power co-

generation. The reason to select Mitsubishi Hitachi design as illustrative example lays in the

solid industrial experience of this gas turbine to process hydrogen-rich fuels [18].

Table 5 presents the variation of the key technical plant performance indicators vs. the

hydrogen thermal output (based on hydrogen lower heating value). As can be noticed, the

main performance indicators (e.g. cumulative energy efficiency, CO2 specific emissions) are

improving with increasing the hydrogen output while the ancillary energy consumption is not

changing significantly. This fact is very important and attractive for plant cycling considering

that during low electricity demand (during the night) the plant can produce mostly hydrogen

which, compared with power, can be stored to be used either for covering peak loads or for

other applications (transport, chemicals etc.).

4. Economic assessment of IGCC plants with CCS

The methodology chosen to calculate the investment costs of gasification plants with

pre-combustion CO2 capture was based on cost correlations [29-30]. The cost correlation

method is calculating the capital cost of equipment considering several designing elements:

size, materials of construction, design pressure & temperature etc. In term of equipment size,

a key mass / energy flow is to be considered as scaling parameter, for instance for the

gasification island, the coal flow is considered as scaling parameter to calculate the capital

cost. The mathematical equation to calculate the capital cost is the following:

Q M
CE  CB * ( ) * f M * fT * f P (2)
QB

10
 where:

CE - equipment cost with capacity Q;

CB - known base cost for equipment with capacity QB;

M - constant depending on equipment type;

fM, fT, fP - correction factors for material of construction, temperature and pressure.

Reference data used in equation (2) for estimation of capital costs for main plant sub-

systems (solid handling, gasification island, air separation unit, syngas treatment line, acid gas

removal, power block, hydrogen purification, captured CO 2 conditioning) are presented in [5].

Once the total investment cost is calculated for each investigated concept, specific capital

investment cost per kW net energy (power only of hydrogen and power co-generation) is

calculated using the following equation:

Total investment cos t

SCI per kW (net )  (3)
Net power output  Hydrogen thermal output ( LHV )

As common capital cost estimation assumptions for all cases, the utilities and offsite

units were considered as 25% of all main plant sub-systems. Owner's cost and contingency

were considered 20% and the costs associated with land purchase, permitting, surveying etc.

were considered 5% of the total installed cost [11,31-32]. Figures 5.a and 5.b present the

specific capital investment per kW net energy, Figure 5.a for power generation only concepts

and Figure 5.b for hydrogen and power co-generation based on Case 2b.

Figure 5. Specific capital investment costs for IGCC power plants

As can be observed from Figure 5.a, the specific capital investment costs for IGCC

power plants varied in the range between 1900 and 2665 Euro/kW net power, the lowest value

being for the concept without carbon capture (Case 1). The CCS concept with the lowest

11
specific capital investment cost is the Siemens-based design (Case 2c) with a value of about

2438 Euro/kW because of the combination of highest net power efficiency and gas turbine

power output. The rest of the CCS designs exhibits higher specific capital investment costs by

6.5% (Case 2a), 9.3% (Case 2b) and 7.3% (Case 3). When the hydrogen and power co-

generation scenario is applied, the specific capital investment cost is reducing dramatically

with the hydrogen thermal output from about 2645 Euro/kW for power only design to 1910

Euro/kW for a 300 MWth hydrogen thermal output. This evaluation emphasises once more the

economic advantage of hydrogen and power co-generation scenario [27-28].

For calculation of the operation & maintenance (O&M) costs, levelised cost of

electricity and hydrogen, CO2 capture costs and cash flow analysis, the main economic

assumptions presented in Table 6 were used [11]. Operational and maintenance (O&M) costs

have two main components: the fixed O&M costs which are independent of the generated

power & hydrogen which include: annual capital depreciation, direct labour cost, taxes,

insurances, administration, annual overhaul etc. and the variable O&M costs which are

proportional to the generated power & hydrogen which cover: fuel, chemicals, catalysts,

solvent, waste disposal, unscheduled repairs etc.).

The levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) was calculated using the net present value

(NPV) method [11]. The CO2 removal and avoidance costs (important parameters when

compare various carbon capture technologies) were calculated with the following equations:

LCOECapture  LCOENo capture

CO2 removal cos t  (4)
CO2 removed

LCOECapture  LCOENo capture

CO2 avoided cos t  (5)
Specific CO2 emissions No capture  Specific CO2 emissionsCapture

12
 Table 7 presents the operation & maintenance (O&M) costs, CO2 capture costs and

levelised cost of electricity for IGCC plants operated in power only mode. As can be noticed,

for the same gasifier (Shell) and the same gas turbine (Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems -

MHPS), the introduction of pre-combustion CO2 capture by gas-liquid absorption (either by

SelexolTM - Case 2b or MDEA - Case 3) involves the increase of total fixed and variable costs

with about 11% (yearly basis) and with about 25% (reporting on MWh net power) compared

with design without CCS (Case 1). The cost of electricity is also increasing by about 39 - 41%

between the above mentioned cases.

To assess the variation of electricity cost and CO2 avoided cost vs. various economic

parameters (e.g. capital cost, fuel cost, O&M cost, interest rate, availability factor etc.),

sensitivity analysis were performed. Figure 6 presents the variation of electricity cost and CO 2

avoided cost with capital cost (-/+ 10% variation range), fuel cost (-/+ 10% variation range),

operation and maintenance cost (-/+ 10% variation range), interest rate (-/+ 1% variation

range) and availability factor (+/- 5% variation range) for Case 2b (IGCC power plant with

SelexolTM-based pre-combustion CO2 capture and Mitsubishi Hitachi gas turbine).

Figure 6. Electricity cost and CO2 avoided cost sensitivity analysis for Case 2b

As can be noticed, the capital cost and the interest rate have the most pronounced

influence on the electricity cost and CO2 avoidance cost followed by the fuel cost and the

plant availability factor. The O&M cost has the minor influence on the electricity and CO 2

avoidance costs.

When evaluating various F and H-class gas turbines assessed in the same IGCC power

plant configuration (Shell gasifier with SelexolTM-based pre-combustion CO2 capture), the

best economic indicators are showed by Siemens gas turbine (Case 2c) followed by

Mitsubishi Hitachi gas turbine (Case 2b) and then General Electric gas turbine (Case 2a). For

13
instance, the cost of electricity for Case 2c is about 7% lower than for Case 2b and about 8%

lower than Case 2a. The main reasons for this situation lay in superior energy efficiency and

power output of Siemens SGT5-8000H machine compared to the other two (see Table 1 for

detailed specification of the evaluated gas turbines).

For hydrogen and power co-generation, the operation & maintenance (O&M) costs

were reported to the combined production energy (net power plus hydrogen thermal output

based on lower heating value). The levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) and the levelised cost

of hydrogen (LCOH) were calculated using the net present value (NPV) method on the whole

plant level as proposed by International Energy Agency - Greenhouse Gas Programme

(IEAGHG) [11,27]. The allocation factors between the two energy carriers (power and

hydrogen) were calculated based on the plant energy outputs. Table 8 shows the operation &

maintenance (O&M) costs and levelised costs of electricity & hydrogen for IGCC plants

operated in co-generation mode. As can be clearly noticed from Table 8, the highest is the

hydrogen thermal output of the plant the improved economic indicators are. For instance, the

total fixed and variable costs (expressed per MWh net hydrogen and power) are reduced by

25% when hydrogen thermal output varies from 0 to 300 MWth. This finding corroborated

with the overall energy efficiency increase as well as reducing the specific capital investment

cost with the hydrogen thermal output increase underline the technical and economic benefits

of flexible co-generation mode [33].

Cumulative cash flow analysis is an important evaluation aspect to be considered

when evaluating the plant economics over it’s entirely life [34-35]. In the current cash flow

analysis, 29 years was considered as project economic life divided as follow: 3 years for plant

construction (40% : 40% : 20% were considered as expenditure factors per each construction

year), 25 years for plant operation and 1 year for recovering the working capital. The cash

flow analysis was done according to the proposed International Energy Agency - Greenhouse

14
Gas Programme (IEAGHG) methodology [11]. The cumulative cash flows for the evaluated

Case 2b plant with hydrogen and power co-generation are presented in Figure 7.

Figure 7. Cumulative cash flow analysis for flexible hydrogen & power co-generation

One can noticed that the combination of flexible hydrogen and power co-generation as

well as pre-combustion CO2 capture induces an increase of the overall cumulative cash flow

of the IGCC plant compared to the design without carbon capture (considered as benchmark

case).

5. Conclusions

This paper is evaluating the key techno-economic aspects of IGCC power plant

equipped with pre-combustion CO2 capture coupled with flexible hydrogen and power co-

generation. The techno-economic evaluations were based on modelling and simulation work.

Important design options were assess in detail in view of theirs influence on the techno-

economic indicators e.g. gasification reactor, CO2 capture by chemical vs. physical gas-liquid

absorption, various F and H-class gas turbines used within the combined cycle, flexible

hydrogen and power co-generation etc. Evaluated coal-based gasification concepts generate

400 - 600 MWe net power with a flexible hydrogen output from zero up to 300 MWth with

90% carbon capture rate. An IGCC design without carbon capture was also consider as a

benchmark case to quantify the energy and cost penalties induced by CO2 capture.

The work presented a detailed techno-economic and environmental methodology

applied to gasification plants for combined hydrogen & power co-generation with CCS. As

the results show, the pre-combustion CO2 capture based on physical gas-liquid absorption has

better performances than the chemical absorption (e.g. higher overall plant efficiency by

about 0.9 percentage points). The influence of various F and H-class gas turbines on the

15
overall techno-economic indicators was assessed considering the most important

manufacturers (Siemens, General Electric, Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems). The Siemens

design has the better techno-economic performances than other two concepts (e.g. higher net

power efficiency by about 0.6 - 2.1 percentage points, lower specific capital investment costs

by about 6.5 - 8.5, lower electricity cost by about 8% etc.) because of higher gas turbine

efficiency (41% vs. 38.2 - 39.5%) and net power output (450 MWe vs. 314 - 334 MWe).

An important result of this paper is the detailed quantification of techno-economic

performance improvement for flexible hydrogen & power co-generation based on gasification

plant with pre-combustion CO2 capture. As the results show, for flexible 0 to 300 MW

hydrogen thermal output, the overall (cumulative) plant energy efficiency is increasing up to

about 10.5 net percentage points, the specific capital investment cost is decreasing down to

about 28%, the total fixed and variable cost is decreasing down to about 25% and the

electricity cost is decreasing down by about 26%. As main conclusion of this paper is that the

gasification technology offers promising solutions for developing low carbon applications not

only for power generation but also for a flexible energy vector polygeneration operational

mode exemplified here for hydrogen and power co-generation.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific

Research and Innovation, CCCDI – UEFISCDI, project number COFUND-ACT ERANET -

GaSTech: "Demonstration of Gas switching technology for accelerated scale-up of

pressurized chemical looping applications", within PNCDI III.

References

[1] International Energy Agency (IEA), Energy Technology Perspective 2017 - Catalysing

Energy Technology Transformations, Paris, France, 2017.

16
[2] F. Johnsson, M. Odenberger, L. Göransson, Challenges to Integrate CCS into Low Carbon

Electricity Markets, Energy Procedia 63 (2014) 7485-7493.

[3] European Commission, A policy framework for climate and energy in the period from

2020 to 2030. COM(2014) 15 final, Brussels, Belgium, 2014.

[4] B. Metz, O. Davidson, H. de Coninck, M. Loos, L. Meyer, Carbon Dioxide Capture and

Storage. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Geneva, Switzerland, 2005.

[5] C.C. Cormos, Techno-economic and environmental evaluations of large scale gasification-

based CCS project in Romania, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 39 (2014) 13-27.

[6] C. Higman, M. van der Burgt, Gasification, second ed., Burlington: Gulf Professional

Publishing, Elsevier Science, 2008.

[7] Gasification Technologies Council, www.gasification.org; 2018 (accessed 30 January

2018).

[8] A. Pettinau, F. Ferrara, C. Amorino, Combustion vs. gasification for a demonstration CCS

(carbon capture and storage) project in Italy: A techno-economic analysis, Energy 50 (2013)

160-169.

[9] A.M. Cormos, C. Dinca, C.C. Cormos, Multi-fuel multi-product operation of IGCC power

plants with carbon capture and storage (CCS), Appl. Therm. Eng. 74 (2015) 20-27.

[10] C. Wolfersdorf, B. Meyer, The current status and future prospects for IGCC systems, In:

Wang T, Stiegel G, editors. Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) Technologies,

Woodhead Publishing; 2017, pp. 847-889.

[11] International Energy Agency - Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme (IEAGHG), Potential

for improvement in gasification combined cycle power generation with CO 2 capture, Report

PH4/19, 2003.

[12] International Energy Agency - Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme (IEAGHG), CO2

capture at gas fired power plants, Report 2012/8, 2012.

17
[13] J. Urech, L. Tock, T. Harkin, A. Hoadley, F. Maréchal, An assessment of different

solvent-based capture technologies within an IGCC - CCS power plant, Energy 64 (2014)

268-276.

[14] C.C. Cormos, Integrated assessment of IGCC power generation technology with carbon

capture and storage (CCS), Energy 42 (2012) 434-445.

[15] A. Kohl, R. Nielsen, Gas purification. fifth ed., Huston: Gulf Publishing Company, 1997.

[16] Siemens, Heavy-duty gas turbines - SGT5-8000H, www.siemens.com, 2018 (accessed

30 January 2018).

[17] GE Power, Aero derivative & heavy-duty gas turbines - GE 9F05, www.gepower.com,

2018 (accessed 30 January 2018).

[18] Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems, Large capacity gas turbines - MHPS 701G2,

www.mhps.com, 2018 (accessed 30 January 2018).

[19] National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), Cost and performance baseline for

fossil energy plants. Vol. 1: Bituminous coal and natural gas to electricity, DOE/NETL-

2010/1397, 2010.

[20] C.C. Cormos, Evaluation of energy integration aspects for IGCC-based hydrogen and

electricity co-production with carbon capture and storage, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 35 (2010)

7485-7497.

[21] Chemstations, ChemCAD - A suite of chemical process simulation software,

www.chemstations.com, 2018 (accessed 30 January 2018).

[22] Thermoflow, Thermoflex, www.thermoflow.com, 2018 (accessed 30 January 2018).

[23] G.S.K. Priya, S. Bandyopadhyay, Multi-objective pinch analysis for power system

planning. Appl. Energy 202 (2017) 335-347.

18
[24] M. Gatti, E. Martelli, F. Marechal, S. Consonni, Review, modeling, heat integration, and

improved schemes of Rectisol®-based processes for CO2 capture, Appl. Therm. Eng. 70

(2014) 1123-1140.

[25] M. Gazzani, E. Macchi, G. Manzolini, CO2 capture in integrated gasification combined

cycle with SEWGS - Part A: Thermodynamic performances, Fuel 105 (2013) 206-219.

[26] H. Huang, H. Xiao, S. Yang, Carbon flow and energy flow analyses of a Lurgi coal-to-

SNG process, Appl. Therm. Eng. 125 (2017) 891-903.

[27] International Energy Agency - Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme (IEAGHG), Co-

production of hydrogen and electricity by coal gasification with CO 2 capture, Report 2008/9,

2008.

[28] F. Starr, E. Tzimas, S. Peteves S, Critical factors in the design, operation and economics

of coal gasification plants: the case of the flexible co-production of hydrogen and electricity,

Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 32 (2007) 1477-1485.

[29] R. Smith, Chemical processes: Design and integration. second ed., West Sussex,

England: Wiley, 2016.

[30] M.S. Peters, K.S. Timmerhaus, Plant design and economics for chemical engineers. forth

ed., McGraw Hill, 1991.

[31] V. Tola, A. Pettinau, Power generation plants with carbon capture and storage: A techno-

economic comparison between coal combustion and gasification technologies, Appl. Energy

113 (2014) 1461-1474.

[32] C.C. Cormos, K. Vatopoulos, E. Tzimas, Assessment of the consumption of water and

construction materials in state-of-the-art fossil fuel power generation technologies involving

CO2 capture, Energy 51 (2013) 37-49.

19
[33] A. Śliwińska, D. Burchart-Korol, A. Smoliński, Environmental life cycle assessment of

methanol and electricity co-production system based on coal gasification technology, Sci.

Total Environ. 574 (2017) 1571-1579.

[34] G. Towler, R.K. Sinnott, Chemical Engineering Design: Principles, practice and

economics of plant and process design, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2007.

[35] E. Svensson, T. Berntsson, Economy and CO2 emissions trade-off: A systematic

approach for optimizing investments in process integration measures under uncertainty, Appl.

Therm. Eng. 30 (2010) 23-29.

20
 List of figures and tables

Figure 1. Design of IGCC plant for flexible hydrogen and power co-generation with pre-

combustion CO2 capture

Figure 2. Layout of acid gas removal unit based on MDEA process

Figure 3. Layout of acid gas removal unit based on SelexolTM process

Figure 4. Hot and cold composite curves for Case 2b

Figure 5. Specific capital investment costs for IGCC plants

Figure 6. Electricity cost and CO2 avoided cost sensitivity analysis for Case 2b

Figure 7. Cumulative cash flow analysis for flexible hydrogen & power co-generation

21
Table 1. Main design characteristics of evaluated gas turbines

Table 2. Design assumptions for the main plant sub-systems

Table 3. Overall technical performance indicators for Cases 1 to 3 using the same gas turbine

Table 4. Overall technical performance indicators for various hydrogen-fuelled gas turbines

Table 5. Overall performance indicators for hydrogen and power co-generation (Case 2b)

Table 6. Economic assumptions of IGCC plants with and without carbon capture

Table 7. Operation & maintenance (O&M) costs, CO2 capture costs and levelised cost of

electricity for IGCC plants (power only)

Table 8. Operation & maintenance (O&M) costs and levelised costs of electricity & hydrogen

for co-generation designs (Case 2b)

22
 Air Coal + Transport gas (N2)

O2
Air Separation Unit Steam
Gasification
(ASU)

Syngas
N2 O2 quench Slag

Water gas shift

Claus plant & Acid Gas CO2 drying CO2 to

Sulphur
Tail gas treatment Removal (AGR) & compression storage

Pressure Swing
Adsorption (PSA)
Combined Cycle
Gas Turbine (CCGT)
H2 compression

Power Purified hydrogen

Figure 1. Design of IGCC plant for flexible hydrogen and power co-generation

with pre-combustion CO2 capture

23
Figure 2. Layout of acid gas removal unit based on MDEA process

24
Figure 3. Layout of acid gas removal unit based on SelexolTM process

25
Figure 4.a Gasifier island, syngas conditioning line and shift conversion

Figure 4.b Combined cycle gas turbine

Figure 4. Hot and cold composite curves for Case 2b

26
Figure 5.a Specific capital investment costs for IGCC plants (power only)

Figure 5.b Specific capital investment costs for IGCC plants (hydrogen & power)

Figure 5. Specific capital investment costs for IGCC plants

27
Figure 6.a Cost of electricity (€/MWh)

Figure 6.b CO2 avoided cost (€/t)

Figure 6. Electricity cost and CO2 avoided cost sensitivity analysis for Case 2b

28
Figure 7. Cumulative cash flow analysis for flexible hydrogen & power co-generation

29
 Table 1.

Main design characteristics of evaluated gas turbines

Parameter Units GE MHPS Siemens

9F05 701G2 SGT5-8000H

Net power output (single cycle) MWe 314 334 450

Net heat rate (single cycle) kJ/kWh 9422 9110 8780

Net power efficiency % 38.2 39.5 41

Pressure ratio - 18.3 21 21

o
Exhaust temperature C 640 588 630

Ramp rate MW/min. 24 22 35

Min. turn down load % 35 60 40

Start-up time min. 23 30 40

30
 Table 2.

Design assumptions for the main plant sub-systems

Unit Parameters

Fuel (coal) Proximate analysis (as received): 56% fixed carbon, 23%

volatile matter, 8.1% moisture

Ultimate analysis (dry): 72.04% carbon, 4.08% hydrogen,

1,67% nitrogen, 7.36% oxygen, 0.65% sulphur, 0.01%

chloride, 14.19% ash

Lower calorific value (LHV): 25.353 MJ/kg (as received)

Air Separation Unit (ASU) Oxygen purity (vol.): 95% oxygen, 2% nitrogen, 3% argon

Power consumption: 200 kWh/ton O2

O2 delivery pressure: 20 % higher than gasifier pressure

Fuel handling and transport Power consumption for coal milling: 1 % of input coal LHV

Nitrogen pneumatic transport (N2 / coal ratio: 0.09 kg / kg)

Gasification reactor Shell gasifier (dry fed & syngas quench type)

Oxygen / coal ratio: 0.84 kg / kg

Steam / coal ratio: 0.12 kg / kg

Operating temperature & pressure: >1400oC / 40 bar

Syngas temperature after gas quench: 800 – 900oC

Syngas boiler: HP 120 bar / LP 3 bar

Water gas shift conversion Catalyst type: sour shift

Three fixed bed reactors operated adiabatic

Steam / carbon molar ratio: 2

Shift conversion: 96 – 98 %

Pressure drop: 1 bar / bed

31
Acid Gas Removal (AGR) Physical solvent: SelexolTM

unit Chemical solvent: MDEA 50% aqueous solution

Overall H2S removal yield: >99 %

Overall CO2 removal yield: ~90 %

CO2 quality specification >95% CO2, <2000 ppm CO, <250 ppm H2O, <100 ppm

(vol.) H2S, <4 % other non-condensable gases (H2, N2, Ar)

CO2 conditioning unit CO2 final pressure: >120 bar

(compression and drying) 5 compression stages with intercooling

Compressor efficiency: 85 %

Solvent for CO2 drying unit: Tri-ethylene-glycol (TEG)

Claus plant & tail gas Oxygen-blown type

treatment H2S-rich gas composition: > 20 – 25 % (vol.)

Gas turbines General Electric GE 9F05

(for detailed specifications Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems (MHPS) 701G2

see Table 1) Siemens SGT5-8000H

Steam cycle Three pressure levels (HP / MP / LP): 120 / 34 / 3 bar

MP steam reheat

Condensation pressure: 0.046 bar

Steam turbine isoentropic efficiency: 80 – 85 %

Steam wetness ex. steam turbine: max. 10 %

Heat exchangers Tmin. = 10oC

Pressure drop: 2 - 5 % of inlet pressure

Thermodynamic packages Soave-Redlich-Kwong (SRK) for main plant units

Electrolytes for MDEA CO2 capture unit

TEG – Dehydration for captured CO2 dehydration unit

32
 Table 3.

Overall technical performance indicators for Cases 1 to 3 using the same gas turbine

Main Plant Data Units Case 1 Case 2 Case 3

Coal flowrate (as received) kg/h 152500 165700 165700

Coal LHV (as received) MJ/kg 25.353

Coal thermal energy – LHV (A) MWth 1073.98 1166.97 1166.97

Gas turbine power output (1 x MHPS 701G2) MWe 334.00 334.00 334.00

Steam turbine power output MWe 225.37 210.79 199.72

Expander power output MWe 1.78 0.77 0.77

Gross electric power output (B) MWe 561.15 545.56 534.49

ASU power consumption MWe 37.86 41.13 41.13

Gasification island power consumption MWe 8.56 9.15 9.15

AGR + CO2 conditioning power consumption MWe 7.01 40.10 39.24

Power island power consumption MWe 20.46 19.32 19.75

Total ancillary power consumption (C) MWe 73.89 109.70 109.27

Net power output (D = B – C) MWe 487.26 435.86 425.22

Gross power efficiency (B/A * 100) % 52.25 46.74 45.80

Net power efficiency (D/A * 100) % 45.37 37.35 36.43

Carbon capture rate % 0.00 90.00 90.00

CO2 specific emissions kg/MWh 761.87 86.28 88.16

33
 Table 4.

Overall technical performance indicators for various hydrogen-fuelled gas turbines

Main Plant Data Units Case 2a Case 2b Case 2c

GE MHPS SGT5

9F05 701G2 8000H

Coal flowrate (as received) kg/h 173240 165700 219760

Coal LHV (as received) MJ/kg 25.353

Coal thermal energy – LHV (A) MWth 1220.06 1166.97 1547.68

Gas turbine power output MWe 314.00 334.00 450.00

Steam turbine power output MWe 237.15 210.79 280.98

Expander power output MWe 0.81 0.77 1.03

Gross electric power output (B) MWe 551.96 545.56 732.01

ASU power consumption MWe 43.01 41.13 54.56

Gasification island power consumption MWe 10.64 9.15 13.50

AGR + CO2 conditioning power consumption MWe 41.59 40.10 52.54

Power island power consumption MWe 19.83 19.32 24.40

Total ancillary power consumption (C) MWe 115.07 109.70 145.00

Net power output (D = B – C) MWe 436.89 435.86 587.01

Gross power efficiency (B/A * 100) % 45.24 46.74 47.29

Net power efficiency (D/A * 100) % 35.80 37.35 37.92

Carbon capture rate % 90.00 90.00 90.00

CO2 specific emissions kg/MWh 89.95 86.28 84.52

34
 Table 5.

Overall performance indicators for hydrogen and power co-generation (Case 2b)

Main Plant Data Units Power Hydrogen + power

Coal flowrate (as received) kg/h 165700

Coal LHV (as received) MJ/kg 25.353

Coal thermal energy – LHV (A) MWth 1166.97

Gas turbine output (1 x MHPS 701G2) MWe 334.00 273.85 213.40

Steam turbine output MWe 210.79 182.32 153.55

Expander power output MWe 0.77 0.62 0.48

Gross electric power output (B) MWe 545.56 456.79 367.43

Hydrogen thermal output (C) MWth 0.00 150.00 300.00

ASU power consumption MWe 41.13 41.13 41.13

Gasification island power consumption MWe 9.15 9.15 9.15

AGR + CO2 conditioning power consumption MWe 40.10 40.10 40.10

Hydrogen compression power consumption MWe 0.00 2.01 4.02

Power island power consumption MWe 19.32 16.84 14.25

Total ancillary power consumption (D) MWe 109.70 109.23 108.65

Net power output (E = B – D) MWe 435.86 347.56 258.78

Net power efficiency (E/A * 100) % 37.35 29.78 22.17

Hydrogen thermal efficiency (C/A * 100) % 0.00 12.85 25.70

Cumulative energy efficiency (H2 + power) % 37.35 42.63 47.87

35
Carbon capture rate % 90.00 90.00 90.00

CO2 specific emissions kg/MWh 86.28 75.58 67.30

36
Table 6.

Economic assumptions of IGCC plants with and without carbon capture

Coal price 2.5 € / GJ

Auxiliary fuel (natural gas) price 6.0 € / GJ

Limestone (flux) price 20 € / t

Sulphur (by-product) price 100 € / t

BFW and process water price 0.10 € / t

Cooling water price 0.01 € / t

Annual catalysts (WGS, Claus) price 1500000 €

SelexolTM solvent price 6500 € / t

MDEA solvent price 4500 € / t

CW chemical treatment 0.0025 € / m3

BFW and process water treatment 90000 € / month

Slag disposal price 10.0 € / t

Direct labour 112 persons (no CCS case)

120 persons (CCS cases)

Average annual direct labour cost 50000 € / person

Administrative, support & overhead cost 30 % from direct labour cost

Annual maintenance costs 3.5 % from capital costs

Working capital 30 days’ supply

Average operational hours per year 7500 h / y

Discount rate 8%

CO2 price 5€/t

Plant construction time 3 years

Economic plant life 25 years

37
Table 7.

Operation & maintenance (O&M) costs, CO2 capture costs and levelised cost of electricity for IGCC plants (power only)

O&M costs Units Case 1 Case 2a Case 2b Case 2c Case 3

Fixed O&M costs

Annual maintenance cost M€ / y 27.49 31.85 31.14 38.73 30.58

Direct labour cost M€ / y 5.60 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00

Administrative, support & overhead cost M€ / y 1.68 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80

Total fixed O&M costs (year) M€ / y 34.77 39.65 38.94 46.53 38.38

Total fixed O&M costs (MWh net power) € / MWh 9.57 12.10 12.00 10.57 11.87

Variable O&M costs

Fuel M€ / y 71.98 82.35 78.21 104.47 78.21

Auxiliary fuel M€ / y 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16

Make up water M€ / y 0.07 0.28 0.28 0.35 0.28

Catalysts M€ / y 0.00 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50

Solvents M€ / y 0.73 0.98 0.98 1.46 1.01

Chemicals M€ / y 1.74 1.72 1.83 1.84 1.94

38
Waste disposal M€ / y 1.49 1.69 1.62 2.14 1.62

Total variable O&M costs (year) M€ / y 76.16 88.67 84.57 111.92 84.73

Total variable O&M costs (MWh net power) € / MWh 20.98 27.06 26.07 25.42 26.21

Total fixed and variable costs (year) M€ / y 110.93 128.32 123.51 158.45 123.11

Total fixed and variable costs (MWh net power) € / MWh 30.55 39.16 38.07 35.99 38.08

Levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) € / MWh 57.89 81.05 80.46 75.33 81.65

CO2 removal cost €/t - 26.32 26.72 20.92 26.23

CO2 avoided cost €/t - 34.06 33.17 25.38 35.03

39
 Table 8.

Operation & maintenance (O&M) costs and levelised costs of electricity & hydrogen for co-generation designs (Case 2b)

O&M costs Units Case 2b Case 2b Case 2b

Power only 150 MW H2 300 MW H2

Fixed O&M costs

Annual maintenance cost M€ / y 31.14 29.61 27.92

Direct labour cost M€ / y 6.00 6.00 6.00

Administrative, support & overhead cost M€ / y 1.80 1.80 1.80

Total fixed O&M costs (year) M€ / y 38.94 37.41 35.72

Total fixed O&M costs (MWh net energy) € / MWh 12.00 10.02 8.52

Variable O&M costs

Fuel M€ / y 78.21 78.21 78.21

Auxiliary fuel M€ / y 0.16 0.16 0.16

Make up water M€ / y 0.28 0.26 0.25

Catalysts M€ / y 1.50 1.50 1.50

Solvents M€ / y 0.98 0.98 0.98

40
Chemicals M€ / y 1.83 1.58 1.50

Waste disposal M€ / y 1.62 1.62 1.62

Total variable O&M costs (year) M€ / y 84.57 84.31 84.22

Total variable O&M costs (MWh net energy) € / MWh 26.07 22.73 20.22

Total fixed and variable costs (year) M€ / y 123.51 121.72 119.94

Total fixed and variable costs (MWh net energy) € / MWh 38.07 32.75 28.74

Levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) € / MWh 80.46 69.20 59.03

Levelised cost of hydrogen (LCOH) € / MWh - 68.60 60.16

41
 Research highlights

 Techno-economic evaluations of gasification-based hydrogen & power co-generation;

 Evaluations of various pre-combustion capture options suitable for gasification plants;

 Evaluations of various gas turbine options suitable for gasification plants with CCS;

 Flexible hydrogen & power co-generation based on gasification plants with CCS;

 Assessment of key techno-economic and environmental performance indicators.

42