Download Valorisation of CO2 from Waste Incineration Flue Gases Phase 2

P R O C E D E G A S T R E A T I N G B.V.
Valorisation of CO2 from Waste
Incineration Flue Gases
Phase 2: Business Cases
FINAL REPORT
J.M.G.-S. Monteiro
P.J.G. Huttenhuis
G.F. Versteeg
Enschede, November 2015
Clients:
CONTENT LIST
CONTENT LIST .......................................................................................................... 2
1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 3
2
COST ESTIMATIONS ......................................................................................... 3
2.1
INVESTMENTS .................................................................................................. 3
2.2
CONSUMABLES ................................................................................................ 5
2.3
ADDITIONAL COSTS .......................................................................................... 6
2.4
TOTAL COSTS .................................................................................................. 7
2.5
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ................................................................................ 7
3
CASH FLOWS ..................................................................................................... 8
4
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 10
5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................. 14
6
APPENDIX – PLOT SPACE .............................................................................. 16
Bilisol PAS vs Conventional Business Cases
Procede Gas Treating B.V.
1 Introduction
This report presents two business cases, based on basic design data for two different plants for CO 2
capture and compression. Both plants are based on absorption technologies and use Bilisol as the
absorbent, but while the first plant has a conventional CO2 capture plant configuration, the second uses
the PAS technology developed for low temperature regeneration. The plants are designed to produce
14.9 ton/h CO2.
A schematic representation of the processes is given in Figure 1. The designs are described in detail
elsewhere (see previous report: Valorisation of CO2 from Waste Incineration Flue Gasses. Phase 1:
Feasibility Study).
Figure 1: Process scheme for CO2 capture and compression plants
2 Cost estimations
2.1
Investments
We provide budget prices for both plant configurations. The scope of supply includes:



Basic engineering
Detailed engineering
Fabrication and assembly
Due to the limited information on the project, the following items are excluded from the budget price
scope:



Civil and buildings
Connections and modifications of interface systems.
Safety systems and related equipment.
FINAL REPORT
3
Bilisol PAS vs Conventional Business Cases
Procede Gas Treating B.V.









Lighting
Platforms and ladders
Assembly at location of AEB
Commissioning, start-up and training
Motor cabling and switches
MCC (hardware and cabling)
PLC (hardware and programming)
Spare parts
Instrument air system
To account for the abovementioned scope exclusions, a value of 3 million euros is added to the
investment in each case. Additionally, it is estimated that the project coordination costs adds up to 0.5
million euros, and that contingencies are about 5% of the investments. The total investment is given in
Table 1, with expected accuracy of ±30%.
Table 1: Total Investment Calculations
Quench unit
Capture unit
Compression unit
Total Budget Price
Budget Price exclusions (see above)
Project coordination
Contingencies (5% investment)
Total investment
Conventional [€]
PAS [€]
2 015 000
5 735 000
5 500 000
13 250 000
3 000 000
500 000
837 500
17 587 500
2 015 000
19 715 000
5 500 000
27 230 000
3 000 000
500 000
1 536 500
32 266 500
The price difference between the PAS and the conventional technologies is explained mainly by the
differences between the two designs as described in the report of phase 1, amongst which we highlight:

PAS compressors: in order to regenerate the solvent at low temperature, the pressure in the
1
reboiler has to be reduced . PAS compressor stages are needed to bring the stripped CO2 from
0.2 bar to 2 bar. These compressors account for 10 million euros in the investment for the PAS
plant. The PAS compressors are quite large (ca. 25 x 15 x 10m), due to the high volumetric flow;

Reboiler: because the reboiler in the PAS configuration operates at a lower temperature, it uses
hot water as heating medium, and requires a much larger area than the steam reboiler designed
for the conventional case;

Desorber: the PAS configuration has 3 packed desorption sections, while the conventional
scheme has only one packed section;
1
It is important to notice that this is a consequence of working at lower regeneration temperature (using
recovered waste heat), and not necessarily a characteristic of the PAS technology.
FINAL REPORT
4
Bilisol PAS vs Conventional Business Cases
Procede Gas Treating B.V.

Low density: the PAS process operates at low pressures resulting in low gas density and very
large pipe and valve diameters (52 inches). Also the amount of piping and valves is higher at
PAS compared to the conventional configuration.
The PAS compressors in the desorption section also significantly contribute to the PAS configuration
having a higher price. These compressors are quite large (ca. 25 x 15 x 10m), due to the high volumetric
flow. Additionally, PAS requires additional compressor coolers which are not present in the Conventional
case.
Some of the items listed above may be object of a process optimization, in special the dimensions of the
PAS desorption columns and the design of the reboiler, which can help making the PAS technology more
competitive.
2.2
Consumables
The costs of consumables are assumed as follows:

Electricity: € 50/MWh
(confirmed
by AEB);
Confidential
information

Cooling water: € 0.10/m
(estimated
by Procede). Sweet water cooling has been assumed to be
Confidential
information
3
available at 20ºC, and a cooling approach of 10ºC is used to the calculate the cooling water
demand;

3
Heating water: € 0.10/m
(estimated
by Procede). Heating water is used for low temperature
Confidential
information
heating and is assumed to be available at 80ºC. A heating approach of 10ºC is used to the
calculate the heating water demand;

Steam: € 6/GJ (estimated by Procede). Steam is used for high temperature heating, and is
assumed to be saturated at 4 bara (ca. 143.7ºC).

Solvent price is 2 €/kg (consumption is estimated at 1 kg/ton CO2 captured).
The plants are assumed to operate for 4000 h/y, due to the seasonal need for CO 2 by the consumer. The
consumables are assumed to be available abundantly, i.e. in the quantities defined by each simulation.
These quantities are given in Table 2.
Table 2: Consumable requirements
Conventional
PAS capture
capture plant
plant
216
1 477
13 744
3 692
0
57 596
0
0
3
6 299 772
3 084 823
1 613 843
563 537
3
0
0
2 697 508
0
Quench unit
Electricity (MWh/y)
Steam (MWh/y)
Cooling water (m /y)
Heating water (m /y)
Compression
As can be seen in Table 2, the PAS technology with low temperature regeneration does not require
steam. Heating water is used instead, allowing for waste heat utilization. The electricity consumption in the
PAS capture plant is higher than that of the conventional plant due to the PAS compressors. On the other
FINAL REPORT
5
Bilisol PAS vs Conventional Business Cases
Procede Gas Treating B.V.
hand, the cooling water demand is lower in the PAS configuration, due to lower power requirement in the
stripper condenser (as the water evaporated in the reboiler is to a large extent condensed in the stripper
itself).
The PAS configuration leads to about 31% savings on consumables expenditures as compares to a
conventional plant, as can be seen in Figure 2. The additional cost of electricity, due to the PAS
compressors, is overcompensated by the savings in heat and cooling water.
As seen in Table 2 and Figure 2, most of the cooling water consumption/cost is due to the quench unit.
The quench unit serves two purposes: it removes impurities from the flue gas, and also cools the flue gas
down. As indicated in Figure 1, the quench unit is optional and is included in the present configurations as
to provide a conservative design. If the quench unit is not present, the cooling of the flue gas will take
place in the absorber column itself (heat will be transferred to Bilisol). This can potentially lower the total
cooling cost, but more precise figures can only be given upon simulation of such a case.
Confidential information
Figure 2: Consumables costs per unit
2.3
Additional costs
Maintenance is estimated as 3.5% of the total investment cost per year and the plants are assumed to
require 2 FTE at a cost of 68.000 €/FTE/year.
FINAL REPORT
6
Bilisol PAS vs Conventional Business Cases
Procede Gas Treating B.V.
2.4
Total costs
The total costs associated to each technology route are calculated using a depreciation period of 20
years. The price of capturing and compressing CO2 is about 69.5 €/ton for the conventional process, and
nearly 82 €/ton for the PAS process (see Figure 3 for cost per unit). It should be pointed out that this price
also includes the gas quenching and the compression of the captured CO 2 to 21 bar.
Although the PAS technology leads to a reduction in consumable costs, that does not compensate for the
higher investment. The higher investment in the PAS case also leads to higher maintenance costs
(additional costs), which is reasonable, since the PAS configuration includes significantly more (rotating)
equipment.
In Figure 3, the budget cases results are given separately for each unit. From this graph it is clear that the
cost of capturing CO2 is about 40
€/ton for the conventional process, and 52
€/ton for the PAS technology.
Confidential
Confidential
Quenching contributes with ca. 15Confidential
€/ton to the price; while compression contributes with 15.4
€/ton.
Confidential
Confidential information
Figure 3: Results from budget cases per unit
2.5
Additional information
2
The total plot space required if the conventional CO2 capture technology is used is 850 m , whereas if the
2
PAS technology is chosen, the total plot space is 1450 m . The difference is due to the PAS compressor
(ca. 25 x 15 x 10m), as well as to the higher volumetric flow in the latter case, since the desorption
operates at low pressure. The plot space is given in details in the appendix.
FINAL REPORT
7
Bilisol PAS vs Conventional Business Cases
Procede Gas Treating B.V.
3 Cash flows
Figure 4 shows the cash flows of both process alternatives: PAS and conventional, considering that the
captured CO2 is sold at the price of 35 €/ton, which is the estimated price of CO2 sold to the OCAP. The
project economic analyses consider inflation of 1.5%, discount rate of 8% and depreciation time of 20
years. A third curve is also included in the graph, identified as PAS#2, which represents the results that
would be obtained with a theoretical 2
nd
generation of the PAS technology in which the investment costs
are reduced by 40%. In this scenario, all the evaluated technologies give negative results.
Figure 4 : Accumulated Discounted Cash Flow for the CO2 price of 35€/ton
A similar study is presented in Figure 5, but considering the CO2 price as 80 €/ton, which is the estimated
price of food-grade CO2 in the food and beverage industry. In this scenario, the accumulated discounted
cash flow for conventional and the PAS#2 technologies turn positive around year 21 and 16, respectively.
FINAL REPORT
8
Bilisol PAS vs Conventional Business Cases
Procede Gas Treating B.V.
Figure 5: Accumulated Discounted Cash Flow for the CO2 price of 80€/ton
FINAL REPORT
9
Bilisol PAS vs Conventional Business Cases
Procede Gas Treating B.V.
4 Sensitivity Analysis
The next figures shows the net present value of both process alternatives (PAS and conventional) under
different scenarios, and how it is affected by the project variables. As can be seen in Figure 6, the NPV of
the conventional plant when the CO2 base price is 35 €/ton is mostly affected by the CO2 price itself, the
investment cost, the heat demand/price and the cooling water demand/price, in this order. The break-even
point (NPV=0) occurs at CO2 price of about 84 €/ton, with all other variables kept constant.
Figure 6: Sensitivity analysis for the NPV. Conventional Bilisol plant with CO 2 base price of 35€/ton
Figure 7: Sensitivity analysis for the NPV. Conventional Bilisol plant with CO 2 base price of 80€/ton
FINAL REPORT
10
Bilisol PAS vs Conventional Business Cases
Procede Gas Treating B.V.
When the CO2 base price is 80€/ton, the NPV is mostly affected by the CO 2 price itself, as illustrated in
Figure 7. The other variables have less influence on the NPV.
The internal return rate (IRR) for the conventional plant with CO2 base price at 80€/ton is ca. 6.2%, and is
highly affected by the CO2 price and the investment costs, as can be seen in Figure 8.
Figure 8: Sensitivity analysis for the IRR. Conventional Bilisol plant with CO2 base price of 80€/ton
As can be seen in Figure 9, the NPV of the PAS plant when the CO2 base price is 35€/ton is mostly
affected by the investment cost and the CO2 price itself. The shift in the relative impact of these variables
in comparison to the conventional scenario is a consequence of the high investment cost in the PAS
scenario. When the CO2 base price is 80 €/ton, the NPV of the PAS plant is mostly affected by the CO2
price itself, as illustrated in Figure 10. In the PAS scenario, the heat demand/price has a low influence on
the plant’s NPV. The break-even point (NPV=0) occurs at CO2 price of 106 €/ton, with all other variables
kept constant. This price is nearly equal to the estimated price for food-grade CO2 (80 €/ton).
The internal return rate (IRR) for the PAS plant with CO2 base price at 80€/ton is ca. -0.1%, and is highly
affected by the CO2 price and the investment costs, as can be seen in Figure 11.
FINAL REPORT
11
Bilisol PAS vs Conventional Business Cases
Procede Gas Treating B.V.
Figure 9: Sensitivity analysis for the NPV. PAS Bilisol plant with CO2 base price of 35€/ton
Figure 10: Sensitivity analysis for the NPV. PAS Bilisol plant with CO2 base price of 80€/ton
FINAL REPORT
12
Bilisol PAS vs Conventional Business Cases
Procede Gas Treating B.V.
Figure 11: Sensitivity analysis for the IRR. PAS Bilisol plant with CO2 base price of 80€/ton
FINAL REPORT
13
Bilisol PAS vs Conventional Business Cases
Procede Gas Treating B.V.
5 Conclusions and Recommendations
This report presents two business cases, based on basic design data for two different plants for CO 2
capture. Both plants uses Bilisol (a CO2 capture solvent developed by Procede) as the absorbent, but
while the first plant has a conventional plant configuration, the second uses the low temperature PAS
technology. The designs are described in detail elsewhere (see our previous report: Valorisation of CO2
from Waste Incineration Flue Gases. Phase 1: Feasibility Study).
It is estimated that the total cost of treating the flue gas (quench + CO 2 capture + compression to 21 bara)
is 69.45 €/ton for the conventional process, and nearly 82 €/ton for the PAS process, as shown in Figure
3. Both plant configurations where designed as having gas quenching units. In these units, the inlet gas
comes (presumably) from the upstream flue gas treating system at 66ºC, and is cooled down to 40ºC
before entering the quench tower. It should be further investigated whether the quench unit can be
skipped, thus significantly lowering the operational and capital costs of both process configurations (PAS
and conventional).
Although the low temperature PAS configuration leads to lower OPEX (about 31% savings), the higher
investment cost makes the PAS configuration unattractive. Improved process design could make the low
temperature PAS technology economically competitive. For instance, depending on the produced flue gas
moisture content, temperature and pressure, and due to the low temperature in the reboiler (60ºC), the
flue gas may have enough heat to regenerate Bilisol in the PAS low temperature configuration. Although
the suggested heat integration would lead to higher investment, it could lower the regeneration cost to
nearly zero, while also potentially saving cooling costs in the upstream flue gas treating system. Moreover,
a subsidy for waste heat utilization would further increase the competitiveness of the PAS technology.
The break-even CO2 price for the conventional technology is 84 €/ton, whereas for the PAS technology it
is 106 €/ton. It is estimated that the OCAP CO2 price is about 35 €/ton. Therefore, the economic feasibility
of the technologies improved achieved if CO2 emission penalty is adopted.
The economical assessment is greatly dependent on the cost and design parameters. It is recommended
that, for the next phases of the AEB project, the design basis are defined according to the existing plant
capacities, especially regarding (utilities availability and quality). These quantities should be clearly
defined before any design activity. This also allows for identifying opportunities for efficiently integrating
the units (compression, quench, capture and hot water units). Moreover, the cost of utilities should be
FINAL REPORT
14
Bilisol PAS vs Conventional Business Cases
Procede Gas Treating B.V.
defined by AEB. Finally, costing of equipment and EPC should be re-estimated by contacting vendors, so
that a higher accuracy can be provided.
FINAL REPORT
15
Bilisol PAS vs Conventional Business Cases
Procede Gas Treating B.V.
6 Appendix – Plot space
Figure 12: Plot space for plant using the conventional technology
FINAL REPORT
16
Bilisol PAS vs Conventional Business Cases
Procede Gas Treating B.V.
Figure 13: Plot space for plant using the PAS technology
FINAL REPORT
17