A Castrogiovanni-ACENT-ICES PDF

A premier aerospace and defense company
A High
g Efficiency
y
Inertial CO2 Extraction System
(ICES)
Dr. Anthony Castrogiovanni, Dr. Vladimir Balepin,
Andrew Robertson, and Bon Calayag
Presented at the
NETL CO2 Capture Technology Meeting
Pittsburgh, PA
July 11, 2012
Company Backgrounds
ATK is a leading aerospace & defense contractor

ATK GASL in Ronkonkoma, NY operates the ATK
Center for Energy and Aerospace Innovation
Expertise and research interests include :
Aerospace propulsion
Carbon capture
Hydrogen fueled vehicles
Clean coal technologies
Oil recovery solutions
ACENT is a small business dedicated to

applying expertise in aerospace and defense to
clean energy challenges
Founded in 2007, ACENT is developing
technologies in CO2 capture, algal biomass,
hydrogen vehicles, and enhanced oil recovery
ICES utilizes some methods developed under

a DOE SBIR with ACENT
Project Overview
Funding Summary:
ARPA e:
ARPA-e:
$2
2,693
693 K
ATK and ACENT Cost Share:

NYSERDA ((New York State)) $
TOTAL
632 K
200 K
$ 3,525 K
Project Performance Dates:

Phase 1:
July 2010 March 2011 (completed)
Ph
Phase
2
2:
J l 2011 June
July
J
2013 ((ongoing)
i )
Project Participants:
Alliant Techsystems (ATK)
ACENT Laboratories LLC
WorleyParsons
3
Overall Project Objectives

Demonstrate proof-of-concept of aero-thermodynamic

CO2 condensation and separation
Develop and benchmark analysis tools with experimental
d t to
data
t enable:
bl
Scaling of demo system to power plant size
Projection of economics in terms of COE and parasitic loads
Provide basis for next-phase slip-stream testing with real
flue gas
Minimize flue gas pressurization requirements
Maximize CO2 capture (>90%
( 90% goal)
4
ICES Technology Fundamentals

Pulverized coal power plant

flue gas contains ~16%
CO2 in gaseous form at low
pressure
In ICES we compress flue
gas to a moderate level and
use the low temperature
created by supersonic
expansion to freeze the
CO2 in the flow
ICES uses turning induced
in the flow to inertially
separate the solid particles
from the gas stream
We capture and collect the CO2 (as dry ice)
and then process using a self-pressurization
system exploiting power plant waste heat
ICES on a P-T Diagram Supersonic Expansion

IsentropicExpansionof16%CO2 inNitrogenRelativetoPhaseDiagramofCO2
1000
12.0
Liquid Phase
Triple Point
100
10.0
Region of
incipient
p
condensation
Gas Phase
8.0
Solid Phase
6.0
Evolution of Partial
Pressure of CO2 during
Isentropic Expansion
in Supersonic Nozzle
(p0=30psia,
30psia, T0=520R)
520 R)
0.1
4.0
0.01
2.0
0.001
0.0
0
100
200
300
400
500
MachNum
mber
Pressure[[psia]
10
600
T
Temperature[R]
[R]
ICES Integration in PC Plant

TBDCoolant
FlueGas 18
C l
Cooler
FlueGas
Compressor
19
17
ICES Unit
ICESUnit
22
Water
20
21
ICES System Schematic

22
Compressor/HEX
16
18
19
TT=330K
330K
P=1.05atm
15%CO2
Supersonic
expansion
HEX
SolidCO2
CaptureDuct
T=300K
P=1.03atm T=300K
P=2.0atm
X
T=400K
Cycloneseparator P=1atm
<1.5%CO2
(slipgas+CO2)
21
X
X
Fluegas
Flue
gas
fromFGD
Subsonicdiffusion
T=298K
P 150 t
P=150atm
>99.5%CO2
CO2 accumulation
accumulation
&self
pressurization
system
X
20 WaterDrain
8
ICES Economic Impact

ICES operating costs are driven by flue

gas pre-compression
Pressure
P
recovery factor
f t = P22/P19
Low CapEx/OpEx combined with low
power consumption result in a
projected
j t d costt off electricity
l t i it increase
i
ffor
CO2 capture just over 1/3 that of the
amine process
Compression to 2,250 psi from low
grade waste heat (constant volume
heat addition to solid). Cost is limited
t CAPEX + energy to
to
t move media.
di
Metric
ICES
Amine
35%
81%
Parasitic Load
12.5%
21.5%
Cost per ton of CO2 avoided
US$ 27
US$ 68
COE % increase
Energy Consumption
Process
Minimum Energy
[kJ/kg CO2]
ICES
[kJ/kg CO2]
Amine
[kJ/kg CO2]
S
Separation
ti
-175
175
-683*
683*
CO2 Compression
-247
~68**
Total
-422
422
-751
751
-1,506
1,506
* Pre-compression of flue gas to 2 bar (absolute)

** + Approximately 760 kJ/kg of low grade waste heat used to compress CO2
from solid phase to 2,250psia
2 250psia
Fixed volume at
ambient
pressure
partially filled
with solid CO2 at
-200
200 F
~760 kJ/kg latent

sensible heat
Initial Volume %
filled with solid
Pressure at
70F
70
F [psia]
60%
3,000
65%
6,000
Supercritical
CO2
Compression energy is nearly economically free but it is not

thermodynamically free i.e. this energy would otherwise be wasted
10
ICES Plant Integration and Footprint

An ICES system sized for 545MW-equivalent flue gas contains twelve 60 ICES
units (flue gas compression not shown)
L= 183 ft
W= 60 ft
H = 70ft
ICES is projected to have a significantly smaller footprint and complexity

compared to competing CO2 capture technologies and hence significantly
lower capital and maintenance costs
11
Key Advantages of ICES over other options

No moving parts (after start)

No
N chemicals/additives
h i l / dditi
or other
th consumable
bl media
di
No refrigeration expense low temperatures from supersonic
expansion
Inexpensive construction (concrete, sheet metal)
Small footprint
ICES units in test are equivalent to 0.3-0.6 MW slip stream
The latest unit (0
(0.3
3 MW) is 24
24 x 24
24 x 3
3
Small size enables distributed deployment for other process
applications
pp
in the p
petroleum and chemical industries
Availability of cold sink in solid CO2 accumulated
12
ICES Development Challenges

Development of optimized supersonic contour to

maximize particle size/migration and minimize pressure
losses
Minimization of slip gas that is removed with solid CO2
CO2 purity unknowns - other flue gas impurities that
condense will be removed with the CO2
Solid
S lid CO2 management/self
t/ lf pressurization
i ti
This reallyy is rocket science.but once the design
g is
complete, it is easy and inexpensive to build and operate
13
Project Status Phase 1

Phase 1 and early Phase 2 efforts focused

on an axisymmetric system with swirl
ICES test bench
14
Axisymmetric System Results

Phase 1 data showed good CO2 condensation and apparent, but

erratic migration due to unsteady and separated flow
Outer (glass) wall)
Centerbody
Solid CO2
15
We recently changed to a 2D version of ICES

Better aerodynamic
performance (lower
losses)
Easier to fabricate
and
d ttestt
No swirl vanes to
induce
turbulence/wake
effects
Simpler capture duct
without swirl
Aluminum plenum
chamber and throat
Aluminum plate reinforces

plenum chamber
Clear acrylic sidewalls

Supersonic flowpath
components made on
3D printer (ABS)
Vacuum interface
flange (steel)
16
Gen5 Test Article Design ATK Installation

24 Vacuum Pipe
17
Test Data Comparison to CFD Static Pressure

0.5
Test Data - Top Surfaces
T t Data
Test
D t -BottomSurfaces
B tt S f
CFD Simulation - Top Surfaces
CFD Simulation - Bottom Surfaces
Mach 1
1.9
9
Mach 2.1
Mach 2.75
Static Prressure Rattion (Ps/Pc

chamber)
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0 25
0.25
0.2
0 15
0.15
Nucleation Begins
0.1
0.05
0
-5
10
15
20
X Position in Rig Coordinates
25
30
18
Laser Particle Imaging Diagnostic

Test Article
Laser Sheet
Image
High Speed HD
camera
Nd:YAG Laser
19
1, 10, and 100 Micron Particle Trajectories

1 m
10 m
100 m
At 10 microns+ particles separate and coalesce allowing for

a slender capture slot
20
Three modes in typical ICES test

CO2 migration
toward lower
wall evident
1) Air flow only
2) 30 psi, 20% CO2
3) 30 psi, 10% CO2
Optical and CO2 sampling results show condensation as

e pected but
expected,
b t less than desired migration evident.
e ident Particle si
size
e
does not appear large enough in these tests
21
Condensate Particle Size Control

Classical nucleation theory provides basis for predicting critical condensate

cluster size and subsequent growth rate:
Both are strong function of the saturation ratio (S) = partial pressure of
vapor/saturation pressure (pv/ps)
DimensionlesssCriticalClusterD
Diameter
1.2
Maximum initial cluster size near S=1
Desirable to grow these clusters versus

nucleating new ones at higher S
08
0.8
0.6
Nozzle contour shape needs to be

optimized for this purpose
0.4
02
0.2
Need to further increase residence time

of flow in this critical region
0
0.2
0.4
0.900
0.950
1.000
1.050
1.100
Increasing scale toward power plant

size
i will
ill help
h l
SaturationRatio
22
Current Plans
Remaining portion of Phase 2

IInvestigate
ti t flow
fl
seeding
di with
ith solid
lid CO2 (self
( lf generated)
t d) and
d other
th
media to promote large particle formation (ongoing)
Update contour to further optimize particle size
Integration of capture duct to remove CO2
Integration of diffuser to return flow to atmospheric pressure with
minimal losses
Phase 3
Ideal next step desired is a slip stream test, e.g. at the National
Carbon Capture Center (NCCC)
23
Accomplishments to date
Three ICES configurations have been developed and

tested to date
Demonstrated clean nozzle flow with low apparent losses
(to be verified with later diffuser tests)
Demonstrated supersonic condensation with some
migration
Plans
Pl
iin place
l
tto iincrease particle
ti l size
i tto achieve
hi
d
desired
i d
migration performance
24
Acknowledgements
ARPA E:
Dr. Karma Sawyer,
y , Dr. Scott Litzelman,, Dr. Daniel Matuszak,, Dr. Mark Hartneyy
NYSERDA:
Dr. Barryy Liebowitz
ATK & ACENT Labs:
Dr. Pat Sforza, Troy Custodio, Vincenzo Verrelli, Skip Day, Dean Feola, Ed Mihalik,
Florin Girlea, Kirk Featherstone, Fred Gregory, Randy Voland
25
BACKUP
26
Schematic of Condensation Process

S = ps / pv , where pv is the partial

pressure of the vapor and ps is the
vapor saturation pressure at the
temperature of the system.
27

A Castrogiovanni-ACENT-ICES PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

A Castrogiovanni-ACENT-ICES PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

A premier aerospace and defense company

ATK is a leading aerospace & defense contractor

ACENT is a small business dedicated to

ICES utilizes some methods developed under

ATK and ACENT Cost Share:

Project Performance Dates:

July 2010 March 2011 (completed)

Overall Project Objectives

Demonstrate proof-of-concept of aero-thermodynamic

ICES Technology Fundamentals

Pulverized coal power plant

ICES on a P-T Diagram Supersonic Expansion

ICES Integration in PC Plant

ICES System Schematic

ICES Economic Impact

ICES operating costs are driven by flue

Cost per ton of CO2 avoided

* Pre-compression of flue gas to 2 bar (absolute)

~760 kJ/kg latent

Compression energy is nearly economically free but it is not

ICES Plant Integration and Footprint

ICES is projected to have a significantly smaller footprint and complexity

Key Advantages of ICES over other options

No moving parts (after start)

ICES Development Challenges

Development of optimized supersonic contour to

Project Status Phase 1

Phase 1 and early Phase 2 efforts focused

ICES test bench

Axisymmetric System Results

Phase 1 data showed good CO2 condensation and apparent, but

We recently changed to a 2D version of ICES

Aluminum plate reinforces

Clear acrylic sidewalls

Gen5 Test Article Design ATK Installation

Test Data Comparison to CFD Static Pressure

Static Prressure Rattion (Ps/Pc

Laser Particle Imaging Diagnostic

1, 10, and 100 Micron Particle Trajectories

At 10 microns+ particles separate and coalesce allowing for

Three modes in typical ICES test

2) 30 psi, 20% CO2

3) 30 psi, 10% CO2

Optical and CO2 sampling results show condensation as

Condensate Particle Size Control

Classical nucleation theory provides basis for predicting critical condensate

Maximum initial cluster size near S=1

Desirable to grow these clusters versus

Nozzle contour shape needs to be

Need to further increase residence time

Increasing scale toward power plant

Remaining portion of Phase 2

Three ICES configurations have been developed and

A premier aerospace and defense company

Schematic of Condensation Process

S = ps / pv , where pv is the partial

S-ar putea să vă placă și