In the last several years greenhouse gas emissions, and, in particular, carbon dioxide emissions, have become a major concern in the power generation industry and a large amount of research work has been dedicated to this subject. Among the possible technologies to reduce CO2 emissions from power plants, the pretreatment of fossil fuels to separate carbon from hydrogen before the combustion process is one of the least energy-consuming ways to facilitate CO2 capture and removal from the power plant. In this paper several power plant schemes with reduced CO2 emissions were simulated. All the configurations were based on the following characteristics: (i) syngas production via natural gas reforming; (ii) two reactors for CO-shift; (iii) “precombustion” decarbonization of the fuel by CO2 absorption with amine solutions; (iv) combustion of hydrogen-rich fuel in a commercially available gas turbine; and (v) combined cycle with three pressure levels, to achieve a net power output in the range of 400 MW. The base reactor employed for syngas generation is the ATR (auto thermal reformer). The attention was focused on the optimization of the main parameters of this reactor and its interaction with the power section. In particular the simulation evaluated the benefits deriving from the postcombustion of exhaust gas and from the introduction of a gas-gas heat exchanger. All the components of the plants were simulated using ASPEN PLUS software, and fixing a reduction of CO2 emissions of at least 90%. The best configuration showed a thermal efficiency of approximately 48% and CO2 specific emissions of 0.04 kg/kWh.

Issue Section:
Gas Turbines: Cycle Innovations
Keywords:
combined cycle power stations, air pollution control, gas turbines, carbon compounds, combustion, power system simulation, heat exchangers, natural gas technology
Topics:
Carbon capture and storage, Carbon dioxide, Combined cycles, Fuels, Gas turbines, Natural gas, Steam, Syngas, Temperature, Carbon, Energy generation, Combustion, Heat exchangers, Emissions, Pressure, Power stations, Methane, Flow (Dynamics), Compressors, Absorption
1.
Keeling, C. D., and Whorf, T. P., 2003, Atmospheric CO2 Records From Sites in the SIO Air Sampling Network, Trends: a Compendium of Data on Global Change, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN.
2.
IPCC Third Assessment Report: “Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis—Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),” J. T. Houghton, Y. Ding, D. J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P. J. van der Linden, and D. Xiaosu, eds., Cambridge University Press, UK.
3.
Desideri
,
U.
, and
Paolucci
,
A.
,
1999
, “
Performance Modelling of a Carbon Dioxide Removal System for Power Plants
,”
Energy Convers. Manage.
,
40
(
18
), pp.
1899
–
1915
.
4.
Desideri, U., and Proietti, S., 2002, “CO2 Capture and Removal System for a Gas-Steam Combined Cycle,” Proc. of Int. Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, November 17–22, New Orleans, LA.
5.
Chapel, D. G., Mariz, C. L., and Ernest, J., 1999, “Recovery of CO2 From Flue Gases: Commercial Trends,” Originally presented at the Canadian Society of Chemical Engineers Annual Meeting. October 4–6, 1999, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
6.
Bolland
,
O.
, and
Mathieu
,
P.
,
1998
, “
Comparison of Two CO2 Removal Options in Combined Cycle Power Plants
,”
Energy Convers. Manage.
,
39
(
16–18
), pp.
1653
–
1663
.
7.
Korens, N., Simbeck, D. R., and Wilhelm, D. J., 2002, “Process Screening Analysis of Alternative Gas Treating and Sulphur Removal for Gasification,” Final Revised Report prepared for US Department of Energy, SFA Pacific, December.
8.
Pruschek, R., Oeljeklaus, G., Brand, V., Haupt, G., and Zimmermann, G., 1994, GUD Power Plant With Integrated Coal Gasification, CO Shift and CO2 Washing. POWER-GEN EUROPE ’94, Conference Papers, 6, Ko¨ln/D, 17–19 May, 1994, pp. 205–225.
9.
Lozza, G., and Chiesa, P., 2002, “CO2 Sequestration Techniques for IGCC and Natural Gas Power Plants: A Comparative Estimation of Their Thermodynamic and Economic Performance,” Proc. of the Int. Conference on Clean Coal Technologies, (CCT2002), Chia Laguna, Italy.
10.
Audus, H., Kaarstad, O., and Skinner, G., 1998, “CO2 Capture by Pre-Combustion Decarbonisation of Natural Gas,” Proc. of 4th Int. Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Interlaken, Switzerland, Aug. 30–Sep. 2, 1998.
11.
Andersen, T., Kvamsdal, H. M., and Bolland, O., 2000, “Gas Turbine Combined Cycle With CO2 Capture Using Auto-Thermal Reforming of Natural Gas,” ASME Paper 2000-GT-162.
12.
Kvamsdal, H. M., Ertesva˚g, I. S., Bolland, O., and Tolstad, T., 2002, “Exergy Analysis of Gas-Turbine Combined Cycle With CO2 Capture Using Pre-Combustion Decarbonization of Natural Gas,” ASME Paper GT-2002-30411.
13.
Lozza, G., and Chiesa, P., 2001, “Low CO2 Emission Combined Cycles With Natural Gas Reforming, Including NOx Suppression,” ASME Paper 2001-GT-0561.
14.
Dybkjær
,
Ib.
,
1995
, “
Tubular Reforming and Autothermal Reforming of Natural Gas-An Overview of Available Processes
,”
Fuel Process. Technol.
,
42
, pp.
85
–
107
.
15.
Audus, H., and Jackson, A. J. B., 2000, “CO2 Abatement by the Combustion of H2-Rich Fuels in Gas Turbines,” Fifth Int. Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Cairns, Australia, August, 13–16.
16.
Chiesa, P., Lozza, G., and Mazzocchi, L., 2003, “Using Hydrogen as Gas Turbine Fuel,” ASME Paper GT-2003-38205.
17.
Todd, D. M., and Battista, R. A., 2000, “Demonstrated Applicability of Hydrogen Fuel for Gas Turbines,” Proc. of IchemE Gasification 4 Conference, Noordwijk, Netherlands.
18.
Aspen Technology Inc., 2000, “Aspen Plus—User Guide. Version 10.2.”
19.
Aspen Technology Inc., 2000, “Aspen Plus—Unit Operation Models. Version 10.2.”
20.
Aspen Technology Inc., 2000, “Aspen Plus—Physical Property Methods and Models. Version 10.2.”.
Copyright © 2005
 by ASME
You do not currently have access to this content.