Paper PS2-7

HOW TO REDUCE CO2 EMISSIONS IN THE LNG CHAIN

Pierre Rabeau
Henri Paradowski
Jocelyne Launois
with the participation of André Le Gall and Joelle Castel
Technip
Paris, France

ABSTRACT

LNG is a clean fuel and its use instead of other hydrocarbons reduces pollution and
CO2 emissions. However the liquefaction of natural gas to produce LNG, the
transportation in LNG carriers, the vaporization of LNG to produce natural gas, and the
use of that gas for the generation of electric power and heat produce large quantities of
CO2.

Whereas previous studies have examined costly and unproductive techniques for
capture and sequestration of CO2 at LNG production facilities, in this paper the reduction
of CO2 production and hence emissions at moderate cost are discussed at some levels of
the LNG plant, including the production of electric power and heat.

Based on the results of LNG projects, the contribution of each step to the total CO2
release in a typical LNG plant is analyzed.

The CO2 emissions are reduced when the energetic efficiency of the processes is
increased. Possibility to increase the efficiency is discussed on some process units:
Condensates Stabilization, NGL Recovery, Liquefaction and LNG End Flash.

The efficiency of the generation of heat and power is of prime importance and the
CO2 emissions of five different systems are compared.

The authors conclude that significant reductions of CO2 emissions can be obtained.
Some of them are easy to implement and do not generate complexity or reduced
availability. The fuel savings are sufficient to justify most of the proposed solutions from
an economic point of view. A CO2 tax could lead to the selection of more sophisticated
solutions less proven in the LNG industry.

PS2-7.1
 Paper PS2-7

INTRODUCTION

Many authors have already discussed the subject of CO2 emissions in the LNG chain
and it is not the purpose of this paper to challenge the authors or present very innovative
solutions.

On the opposite what we wish to demonstrate is that very simple techniques, proven
on some projects, easy to use, can contribute to reduce significantly the CO2 emissions.

Natural gas is a clean fuel and its proper use produces limited amounts of CO2.

To reduce the CO2 emissions we will follow two routes, one on the process side, and
another one on the energy generation.

The possible process optimizations will be illustrated by few examples but many
other improvements are feasible.

The method used to determine CO2 emissions in each case study is rigorous. It takes
into account reduced efficiency of power generators when running at partial load. This
model is also considering the split between process units for all energy uses (steam,
electricity, fuel gas).

LNG CHAIN CO2 EMISSIONS

CO2 Emissions from Natural Gas

Natural gas can be used to produce power or heat. It is a much better fuel than liquid
hydrocarbons.

To produce power the emissions of CO2 depend on the technology that is used:

• 0.55 kg/kW.h for a simple cycle Industrial Gas Turbine,

• 0.39 kg/kW.h for a combined cycle.
To produce heat the emissions of CO2 depend on the temperature level and on the
technology that is used:

To produce heat at 150°C the emissions are the following:

• 0.23 kg/kW.h for direct fired heater,

• 0.13 kg/kW.h for recovery on Gas Turbine’s Exhaust Gases,
• 0.09 kg/kW.h for recovery on a Combined cycle.
To produce heat at 250°C the emissions are the following:

• 0.25 kg/kW.h for direct fired heater,

• 0.16 kg/kW.h for recovery on Gas Turbine’s Exhaust Gases.
If we use Propane instead of Natural Gas the emissions are 15% higher and the use of
Fuel Oil increases the emissions by more than 50%. This is due to the ratio of hydrogen
to carbon that is much lower in heavy hydrocarbons than in methane.

PS2-7.2
 Paper PS2-7

Production of Natural Gas by Means of the LNG Chain

Large reserves of natural gas are located overseas and to be used in the countries that
need imports it is necessary to build an LNG chain:

• Transportation of Natural gas to the LNG Plant,

• Liquefaction and storage and loading of LNG on an LNG carrier,
• Transportation of LNG,
• Regasification of LNG.
Each of these steps produces CO2 emissions. Typical numbers for a Chain connecting
Nigeria to Europe [1] are as follows :

• 0.01 kg CO2/kg LNG for step 1

• 0.32 kg CO2/kg LNG for step 2
• 0.05 kg CO2/kg LNG for step 3
• 0.03 kg CO2/kg LNG for step 4
More than 75% of the CO2 emissions are due to the LNG plant.

Use of Natural gas

The production of electric power has been given a lot of consideration and very
efficient gas fired combined cycles are used. Research and development is on going and
should result in even better efficiencies.

The use of natural gas for domestic heating purposes is very inefficient from a
thermodynamic point of view. The development of the micro turbine technology is not
promoted as it should be.

LNG PRODUCTION PLANT

As the LNG plant is the main contributor to the CO2 emissions, we shall focus on this
subject.

There are two ways to increase the efficiency and decrease the emissions:

• Improve the processes,

• Improve the efficiency of the production of heat and power.
Of course there are many interactions between these two ways.

IMPROVE PROCESS TO REDUCE ENERGY REQUIREMENT

At first we have to analyze where the consumptions of energy and the emissions of
CO2 are located.

For a plant producing about 25 MTA of liquefied gases: Low Btu LNG, Propane and
Butane, the figures are summarized in Table 1 hereafter:

PS2-7.3
 Paper PS2-7

Table 1 – CO2 balance for LNG plant

Process units % Tons/h of CO2

Warm units 14.0 % 135
Cold units 82.0 % 790
Storage and loading 2.2 % 21
Others 1.8 % 17
Total 100.0% 963
The cold units that are the NGL recovery and the LNG production are the main
contributors but the warm units that include the Condensates Stabilization, the Acid Gas
Removal unit and the Dehydration should not be neglected.

Use of Heat Integration in Warm Pre-Treatment Units

The condensate stabilization unit represents 20 to 45% of the CO2 emissions of the
“warm units” depending on the heat power generation systems that are used and that will
be discussed later on. To reduce the energy consumption we do have two main
possibilities:

• Optimize the process scheme to obtain a better heat integration,

• Optimize the operating parameters, mainly the pressure of the stabilizer.
We will show the improvements obtained on the stabilizer reboiler duty and on the off
gas compressor power.

Condensates Stabilisation Unit Heat Integration. The simplest process scheme

used for the condensates stabilization is shown of figure 1a.

HP Gas

K2 K1
M

A2 A1
HP Feed

V4 V3
55 bar
15°C 9 bar
V1 25 bar

V2 E1

Stabilized
A3
C5+
40°C
HP steam

E2

Figure 1a – Condensates Stabilization unit

PS2-7.4
 Paper PS2-7

In this scheme n° 1, the feed from the MP separator is split in two parts:

• One is cold and fed on the first tray of the stabilizer,

• The second is heated against the hot condensates from the bottom of the column.
In a second scheme we add a reflux to the stabilizer to decrease the power of the off
gas compressor.

In a third scheme we add a side reboiler to scheme n°2,

In a fourth scheme that is shown on figure 1b we add a second side reboiler.

HP Gas

K2 K1
M

HP Feed A2 A1
8 bar

V4 V3 A4
55 bar
15°C
V1 25 bar

V5

V2 E1

E4

A3
Stabilized
C5+
E3
40°C
HP steam

E2

Figure 1b – Condensates Stabilization Unit Heat Integration

For each scheme we optimize the pressure of the stabilizer to obtain the lowest CO2
emissions. The improvements obtained on the stabilizer reboiler duty and on the off gas
compressor are shown on Table 2.

Table 2 – Condensates stabilization heat integration results

Scheme 1 Scheme 2 Scheme 3 Scheme 4

Reboiler duty kW 53.6 54.5 42.2 38.4
Off gas compressor power kW 11.2 10.9 11.4 11.3
CO2 emissions T/h 24 24 20.6 19.4
Stabilizer pressure Bar 9 8.5 8 8

PS2-7.5
 Paper PS2-7

The conclusion is that 20% savings can easily be obtained on that process by using
heat integration and by optimization of the stabilizer pressure. The use of side boilers
does not affect the operability of the unit.

Condensates Stabilization Column Pressure. On a second study, the stabilizer

pressure only has been varied. The results are shown on Table 3.

Table 3 – Condensates Stabilization Pressure Variation

Stabilizer pressure Bar 9.5 9 8.5 8

Reboiler duty KW 43.3 41.8 40 38.4
Off gas compressor power KW 10.2 10.5 10.9 11.3
CO2 emissions T/h 20.1 19.9 19.6 19.4
The conclusion is that 5% savings can easily be obtained on that process by
optimisation of the stabilizer pressure.

Use of CFD to optimize the LNG Process efficiency

The process that is selected in this example to quantify the benefits of designs done
with CFD is the C3-MR process from APCI. A schematic is shown on figure 2.

LNG

MR Compression

Helper
MCHE GT MP HP

-37° C LP 60 bar
40° C
C3R Compression

Starter
GT

MR Separator LLP 60° C

LP MP HP

-34° C d H2o

40° C

70 bar
NGL 40° C

HP Gas

Figure 2 – Liquefaction unit

The line up is very simple. The propane precooling uses 4 pressure stages: LLP, LP,
MP and HP. The propane compressor has 2 casings : one for LLP, LP, and MP stages and
another for HP. A single shaft gas turbine rotating at 3000 RPM drives the propane
compressor. The propane is condensed in air coolers at about 60°C and is sub cooled to
40°C prior to being sent to the kettle type evaporators. The MR is compressed in 3 stages:

PS2-7.6
 Paper PS2-7

LP, MP and HP. The MR compressor has two casings: one for LP and another one for
MP and HP MR. A single shaft gas turbine rotating at 3000 RPM drives the MR
compressors. A variable speed helper motor provides additional power to the turbine.

C3 Precooling Kettles. The pre cooling process uses high efficiency Wieland tubes.
This makes it possible to use a cold end approach of 2°C instead of 3°C that is currently
used. The reduction of the approach makes it feasible to save 1500 kW per propane cycle
in each train. The total savings are then 6000 kW for the LNG plant, which correspond to
a reduction of CO2 emissions of about 4 T/h. The kettles are rather compact and it is
necessary to use CFD to determine the following details:

• The dimensions of the kettle,

• The size and the location of the inlet propane distributor,
• The size and location of the mist eliminator,
• The number, dimensions and location of the outlet nozzles.
Without the use of CFD, it would be almost impossible to obtain a robust design. On
figure 3, the geometry of the kettle and the velocity magnitude of the propane vapour are
shown.

Figure 3 – Velocities in C3 Pre-cooling Kettle

Decrease of Pressure Drop in Compressor Lines. In an LNG train the lines

connecting the exchangers to the suction of the refrigerant compressors are of very large
diameter (up to 80 inches); there are also valves, strainers, and suction drum internals.

Without the use of CFD, it is very difficult to optimize the line routing and obtain low
pressure drops and acceptable velocity profiles at the inlet of the suction drum and at the
inlet of the compressor.

PS2-7.7
 Paper PS2-7

When CFD is used for design then it is possible to reduce the pressure drops at
compressor suction from the conventional 0.15 bars to 0.10 bars. By doing that we can
save 1600 kW per LNG train, that is 6400 kW for the LNG plant and 4 t/h of CO2
emissions.

On figures 4a and 4b the LP MR line connecting the MCHE to the LP MR suction

drum is shown.

Figure 4a – Model for LP MR Line from MCHE to Suction Drum

Figure 4b – Pressure profile in LP MR Line from MCHE to Suction Drum

PS2-7.8
 Paper PS2-7

Optimization of Suction Drums. Another area where CFD has become a design tool
is the design of the suction drums.

With use of CFD it has become obvious that the feed distributors previously used,
such as half open pipes, were not able to ensure a proper distribution of gas in large KO
drums.

The vane type distributor has proved to be much more efficient.

Many separation drums have been retrofitted with this type of distributor in capacity
enhancement projects and the results have always been good.

For new projects the size of the suction drum will depend on the capacity of the mist
eliminator but also on nozzle diameters, distances between the distributor and the mist
eliminator and distance between the distributor and the liquid level.

On figure 5 we can see a KOD designed with the use of CFD.

Figure 5 – Velocities in Knock Out Drum

Integration of NGL recovery and LNG units

The cold units that are the NGL recovery and the LNG production are the main
contributors to the consumption of fuel gas and therefore for the emissions of CO2.

The successful integration of the NGL unit with the LNG unit is very important.

PS2-7.9
 Paper PS2-7

Two main parameters are to be considered:

• The pressure of the recovery tower in the NGL unit,

• The pressure of the gas sent to the liquefaction.
Pressure of Recovery Tower. A schematic of the NGL recovery unit is presented on
figure 6. The process selected ensures a propane recovery of more than 98%.

Dry feed gas

Turbo-expander
De-ethanizer T2
Treated gas
to compression
Cold box

Recovery tower
C3R T1

C3R V1

C2

LP steam

P1

NGL

Figure 6 – NGL Recovery Unit

The dry feed gas is cooled to about –43 °C and partly condensed in the cold box.
Vapor and liquid are separated in the cold separator V1. The vapor is sent to the turbo-
expander where it is cooled and partly condensed by means of an isentropic expansion.
The resulting two-phase flow is sent to the Recovery Tower operating at 20.5 bars. The
liquid from the cold separator is directly sent to the bottom of the recovery tower. The
liquid from the bottom of the recovery tower is sent to the de-ethanizer after reheating in
the cold box.

The de-ethanizer is operated at a pressure slightly higher than the Recovery tower. It
produces a C3+ cut that is sent to the fractionation, a C2 cut used for refrigerant make-up
and a vapor distillate that is a methane-ethane mixture. The vapor distillate is condensed
in the cold-box and sent to the recovery tower as reflux. The Vapor from the Recovery
Tower is reheated in the cold box and compressed in the compressor driven by the
expander to about 24 bars. The treated gas is compressed in a booster compressor to the
liquefaction pressure. (Refer to figure 7).

Propane refrigerant from the liquefaction unit is used in the cold box to supply
refrigeration required at about –30°C.

PS2-7.10
 Paper PS2-7

The recovery tower pressure has to be optimized. When the pressure is increased, the
power of the expander is reduced and more propane is required. The power of the booster
compressor is decreased but additional power is required from the propane cycle. Results
are shown in Table 4.

Table 4 – NGL Recovery Optimization results

Recovery Cold Propane Booster Propane Total CO2

tower separator refrigerant compressor compressor power emissions
pressure temperature flow rate power power
Bars °C Kmoles/h MW MW MW T/h
20.5 -42.8 2030 40.3 3.4 43.7 26.2
21.5 -43.8 2350 38.7 3.9 42.6 25.6
22.5 -45 2620 37.4 5.2 42.6 25.6
23.5 -46.2 3000 36.0 6 42.1 25.3
24.5 -47.3 3370 34.8 6.8 41.6 25.
25.5 -48.4 3800 34.6 7.8 42.4 25.4
26.5 -49.3 4300 34.4 8.9 43.3 26
27.5 -50.1 5600 34.2 10 44.2 26.5
28.5 -50.9 6600 33.9 11.7 45.6 27.4

A careful optimization of the recovery tower pressure can save about 2 MW of energy
per LNG train (i.e. 8 MW for the LNG plant) and 5% on CO2 emissions.

Booster Compressor Discharge Pressure. The discharge pressure of the Booster

Compressor can be selected so as to minimize the power consumption and the CO2
emissions. When the gas to be liquefied is available at the MCHE inlet at high pressure it
is much easier to liquefy. The MR can then contain more propane and less methane.

The results of a detailed study are shown on Table 5 here below. High pressure gives
a significant benefit: 13 MW per train are saved when the gas is liquefied at 67.8 Bars
instead of 47.8. This reduces the CO2 emissions by 31 T/h for the LNG plant.

Table 5 – Booster Compressor Discharge Pressure Optimisation

NG NG Booster MR Propane Total Power Total Power

Pressure at Power compressor compressor
MCHE inlet Power Power
Bars MW MW MW MW %
42.8 17.2 153.9 88.0 259.1 107.6
47.8 21.5 145.2 87.0 253.7 105.4
52.8 25.3 139.6 84.2 249.1 103.4
57.8 28.8 133.4 83.0 245.2 101.8
62.8 32.2 128.9 81.7 242.8 100.8
67.8 35.3 124.5 81.0 240.8 100.0

PS2-7.11
 Paper PS2-7

Use of LNG Deep flash

At the outlet of the MCHE the LNG is often sent to an End Flash unit.

The use of End Flash has many advantages:

• Reduced size of the MCHE,

• Reduced power and volume flow rate of the MR compressor,
• Produces high quality Fuel Gas,
• Eliminates from LNG light components such as Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Helium.
• Prevents high LNG flash at LNG tank inlet
With the line up that is considered in this paper and that is shown on figure 7, one
question arises: would it be beneficial to produce more end flash gas than necessary for
the fuel and recycle the excess Fuel Gas to the suction of the Booster Compressor ?

Dry gas
50 bar

NGL Recovery Liquefaction

Gas LNG EFG

compression 70 bar Compression

M M

NGL

EFG recycle 30 bar

LNG

Fuel gas

Figure 7 – End Flash Gas Unit

A study was conducted with variation of the temperature of the LNG at the outlet of
the MCHE. The results are presented on Table 6 here after for a constant LNG
production.

PS2-7.12
 Paper PS2-7

Table 6 – Deep End Flash Study Results

Temperature of LNG at °C -136.25 -141.25 -146.25 -151.25 -156.25

outlet of MCHE
End Flash gas MW 32.1 24.8 17.9 11.2 5.6
compressor power
MR compressor power MW 103.9 110.2 118.4 126.8 141.6
C3R compressor power MW 82.7 82.5 82.3 80.7 83
NG Booster compressor MW 39.2 37.7 36.3 34.9 33.7
power
Total power of MW 257.9 255.2 253.9 253.6 253.9
compressors
Total power of % 101.7 100.6 100.1 100 100.1
compressors

The total power is fairly constant in a large range of temperature. The split of the
power is different. Increasing the End Flash leads to a decrease of power of the MR
compressor and increases the power of End Flash Gas compressor and the power of the
NG Booster compressor. The choice can then be dictated by the energetic scheme and the
selection of the driver for the End Flash Gas compressor.

BETTER ENERGY INTEGRATION TO REDUCE CO2 EMISSION

A rigorous model linked to all the process units and reflecting the reduced efficiency
due to running N+1 power generators at a partial load has been considered. This model
allows to determine CO2 emissions in a multicase study. This model is identical to the
ones used on the large LNG projects.

Base Case

A common practice in existing LNG plant is to use steam as heating medium and to
produce it in package boilers, to use gas turbines as refrigerant compressor drivers and to
produce electricity with another set of gas turbines in a dedicated power generation unit
as shown on figure 8.

By allocating shares of steam and electricity to the consuming process units, a CO2
balance per process units has been established and is presented in Table 7 here below as
the base case. The CO2 contained in the feed gas and rejected to the atmosphere from the
acid gas removal unit is not included in this balance because capture and reinjection of
CO2 is not considered in this paper.

PS2-7.13
 Paper PS2-7

FG

MOTOR

LP MR MP/HP MR GE9

PROCESS HEAT
EXCHANGERS
FG
PACKAGE BFW
BOILER

MOTOR

BFW
LP C3 HP C3 GE9

LS

BFW

Figure 8 – Base Case Energy Scheme

The process units have been grouped in four different entities.

• Warm units are the inlet facilities, acid gas removal, dehydration and mercury
removal units.
• Cold units are the NGL recovery, Fractionation, Liquefaction and End flash units.
• The storage and loading are for LNG, LPG and Condensates storage and loading.
• Others are for Excess steam air coolers and Fuel gas heater, water and air utility
units.
The main contributors of the inlet facilities and of the acid gas removal units are the
steam consumptions. The main contributors of the NGL recovery, liquefaction and end
flash units are the refrigerant compressor drivers and the refrigeration air coolers. The
main contributors of the storage and loading units are the loading pumps and compressor
drivers.

Table 7 – CO2 Balance for base case

Process units % Tons/h of CO2

Warm units 14.0 % 135
Cold units 82.0 % 790
Storage and loading 2.2 % 21
Others 1.8 % 17
Total 100.0 % 963

PS2-7.14
 Paper PS2-7

Use of Heat Recovery Steam Generation

The idea of reducing CO2 emissions by applying better energy integration at the
sources led us to consider the well-known and mature technology of heat recovery steam
generation (HRSG).

In the first case, the steam generation though HRSG has been adjusted to the steam
demand (figure 9) In this configuration, only one gas turbine needs to be equipped with a
HRSG system. Conventional steam pressure level has been selected and at the same time
a back pressure steam turbine has been added to replace the electric motor driving the end
flash gas compressor.

FG
EFG

MOTOR

LP MR MP/HP MR GE9

PROCESS HEAT
EXCHANGERS
FG
HRSG
BFW

MOTOR BFW

LP C3 HP C3 GE9

LS

BFW

Figure 9 – Heat Recovery on One Gas Turbine

In the second case, the two gas turbines have been equipped with HSRG and the
excess steam is used to produce electricity within the LNG trains through condensing
steam turbines generators (figure 10).

PS2-7.15
 Paper PS2-7

FG
HRSG
EFG

MOTOR BFW

LP MR MP/HP MR GE9

PROCESS HEAT
EXCHANGERS
FG
HRSG
BFW
G
MOTOR BFW

LP C3 HP C3 GE9

LS

BFW

Figure 10 – Heat Recovery on Two Gas Turbine and Electricity Generation

The CO2 balance showing the emissions reduction is shown in Table 8.

Table 8 – CO2 balance for one HRSG per train and two HRSG per train

Number of HRSG One per train Two per train

Tons/h of Tons/h of
Process units % CO2 % CO2
Warm units 7.4% 61 7.5% 51
Cold units 88.2% 725 90.0% 614
Storage and loading 2.8% 22 1.4% 10
Others 1.6% 13 1.1% 7
Total 100.0% 821 100.0% 682

It can be observed that for one HRSG per train, the main benefit on the reduction of
CO2 emissions is within the warm units (mainly inlet facilities and amine unit) because
of the steam generation package boilers deletion. With two HRSG per train, the reduction
is observed everywhere because of the reduction of CO2 emission in the power
generation unit. Compared to the base case, CO2 emissions have been reduced by about
15% by using one HRSG per train and by about 30% by using two HRSG per train.

Use of Combined Cycle in Power Generation Unit

The next technique that is available and can be applied in the power generation unit is
to use aero-derivative gas turbines known for their better efficiency than the widely used
heavy-duty gas turbines. The comparison has been done on the basis of the GE LM6000

PS2-7.16
 Paper PS2-7

aero-derivative gas turbine but many other possibilities exist as described by Peterson [2],
Avidan [3] and Yates [4].

Finally, this idea can be extended by using combined cycle power generation instead
of open cycles. The new case with combined cycle has been done on the basis of the GE
PG9171 and same level of steam as base case but many other possibilities exist as
described by Kikkawa [5, 6].

The CO2 balance showing the emissions reduction is shown in Table 9. It can be
observed that the CO2 emissions are reduced in the cold units because they have the
highest power demand. Compared to the base case, CO2 emissions have been reduced by
more than 30% by simply applying available techniques.

Table 9 – CO2 balance for improved efficiency in power generation unit

Power generation type LM 6000 gas turbines Combined Cycle

Process units % Tons/h of CO2 % Tons/h of CO2
Warm units 7.5% 50 7.5% 48
Cold units 90.2% 602 90.6% 581
Storage and loading 1.3% 9 1.0% 6
Others 1.0% 7 0.9% 6
Total 100.0% 668 100.0% 641

CONCLUSION

In this study we have quantified some improvements that can be implemented in an

LNG plant to reduce the CO2 emissions by increasing the efficiency of processes and
energy generation systems.

In the following Table 10 and Table 11 a summary of the savings is shown together
with the fuel savings. The admissible CAPEX increase is calculated on the basis of the
fuel savings only for a financed project and 20 years of operation. The figures are based
on fuel cost of 1.5 $/Mbtu and on a CO2 tax of 10 $/t. One day of production loss gives a
20.5 M$ penalty.

Table 10 – Summary of possible reductions of CO2 for process units

CO2 emissions Fuel Admissible CO2 tax

Reduction consumption CAPEX reduction for
reduction increase 20 years
T/h T/h M$ M$
Condensates 5 2 8 7
stabilization
NGL recovery 5 2 9 8
Liquefaction 31 11 56 50
pressure
Liquefaction 8 3 15 13
unit
Total 48 18 88 78

PS2-7.17
 Paper PS2-7

All the proposed options for the optimization of the process units are economically
justified.

Table 11 – Summary of possible reductions of CO2 for generation of energy

Option CO2 Fuel Admissible CO2 tax

emissions consumption CAPEX reduction for
Reduction reduction increase 20 years
T/h T/h M$ M$
1 One HRSG per LNG 142 52 258 229
train instead of
conventional boiler
2 Two HRSG per LNG 139 51 259 224
train instead of one
3 Aero derivative GTs 14 6 56 26
instead of heavy duty
GTs for electricity
generation
4 Combined cycle instead 27 10 15 44
of aero derivative GTs
for electricity
generation
Total 322 119 588 523

The savings in this field are very important. The use of HRSG on the exhaust gases of
the process GTs brings a lot of advantages and option 1 does not lead to any loss of
availability and production.

For option 2, it is more difficult because the steam generated by the second HRSG is
used for electricity generation. If the system is not correctly engineered the loss of
availability for the LNG plant may exceed 1% and the loss of production may exceed
1500 M$ over a 20 years period.

In regard of possible loss of availability options 3 and 4 are very dependent on the
design basis and project strategy.

REFERENCES

1. “How to reduce CO2 emissions from the LNG chain”, H. Paradowski, J. Launois, GPA
technical meeting - Bergen – Norway, May 2002

2. “Higher efficiency, lower emissions”, N. Peterson, D. Messersmith, B. Woodard, K.

Anderson , Hydrocarbon Processing, December 2001

3. “LNG liquefaction technologies move toward greater efficiencies, lower emissions”,

A. Avidan, D. Messersmith, B. Martinez, Oil and Gas Journal, August 19, 2002

4. “The DARWIN LNG Project”, D.E. Yates, C. Schuppert, LNG14 - Doha - Qatar,
March 2004

PS2-7.18
 Paper PS2-7

5. “Zero CO2 emission for LNG power chain ?” , Y. Kikkawa, Y.N .Liu, LNG 13 - Seoul
- Korea, May 2001

6. “How to optimize the power system of baseload LNG plant with minimizing CO2
emission”, Y. Kikkawa, M. Ohishi , AICHE Spring meeting - New Orleans - 30/03/2003

PS2-7.19