World’s Largest Post-Combustion Carbon Capture Project Completed

[thackney]

World’s Largest Post-Combustion Carbon Capture Project Completed
http://www.powermag.com/worlds-largest-post-combustion-carbon-capture-project-completed
01/10/2017

Petra Nova—a commercial-scale post-combustion carbon capture project designed to remove more than 90% of the carbon dioxide (CO2) from a 240-MW slipstream of flue gas off of the W.A. Parish generating station in Fort Bend County, Texas—has been completed, according to project partners NRG Energy Inc. and JX Nippon Oil & Gas Exploration Corp.

The facility (Figure 1), the largest installed on an existing coal-fueled power plant to date, captured its first CO2 on September 19, 2016, and completed final performance acceptance testing on December 29, 2016. The system had already captured and delivered more than 100,000 tons of CO2 to the West Ranch oilfield for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) when the completion announcement was made on January 10, 2017.


1. Petra Nova. Sixteen-foot diameter ductwork takes flue gas from the coal plant to the carbon capture facility where the CO2 is removed from the flue gas by the amine solution in the tall absorption tower and then separated from the amine as 99.9% pure CO2 in the smaller regenerator tower to the right before being compressed and delivered to the oil field. Courtesy: Business Wire

“Completion of the Petra Nova project is an important milestone in our quest to help ensure reliable, affordable and increasingly cleaner energy from fossil fuels,” said Mauricio Gutierrez, president and CEO of NRG Energy.

Petra Nova is expected to capture about 1.4 million metric tons of CO2 per year. Hilcorp Energy Co., operator of the West Ranch oilfield, will use the CO2 to boost production at the field. The company expects production will increase from about 300 barrels per day before beginning EOR to as much as 15,000 barrels per day using captured CO2 delivered via an 80-mile-long pipeline....


2. Process flow for amine absorption. The Petra Nova project demonstrates the ability of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries’ CO2 capture technology to remove 90% of the CO2 emitted from a 240-MW flue gas stream. Source: National Energy Technology Laboratory

[thackney]

http://www.nrg.com/generation/projects/petra-nova/

Map
http://www.nrg.com/documents/business/generation/599224-flyer-generation-map-final.pdf

https://www.google.com/maps/place/WA+Parish+Plant/@29.6758834,-95.7034238,75285m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x2863691d12367c50!8m2!3d29.4843967!4d-95.6304073

[Just_Victor]

I wonder what the cost of that albatross is to NRG customers?

[driftdiver]

Im not sure I understand this.   So they separate out the CO2 by burning more fossil fuels?

[Joe Wooten]

I wonder what the cost of that albatross is to NRG customers?

Or the American taxpayer. Back when I was a junior engineer for Texas Utilities at the Morgan Creek power plant Colorado City, TX), we had an approved modification to install a CO2 capture unit on Unit 6 there, a 500 MWe gas fired plant. We had gone as far as getting the preliminary design drawings approved in early 1980 when the project was cancelled. The CO2 was going to be sold to the local oil field operators for tertiary recovery projects.

The reason it was cancelled?

There was a huge deep gas strike in the northern panhandle and a large percentage of the raw gas was CO2. It would have to be separated out before being sold, and separation from the raw natural gas was orders of magnitude cheaper than doing it from furnace flue gas. That gas field is still selling CO2 to the oil patch.

[Joe Wooten]

Im not sure I understand this.   So they separate out the CO2 by burning more fossil fuels?

Essentially correct. If I remember right, the power to run the proposed Morgan Creek separator station was about 3-4 MW. I bet this one is about half that.

[thackney]

Im not sure I understand this.   So they separate out the CO2 by burning more fossil fuels?

Those pumps and the heat require energy from somewhere.  So more of the generated electricity at the power plant is used internal and less power is available for consumers.

The bonus is the CO2 is sold to the oil company to enhance the production from the oil field, leaving the CO2 in the ground.  (some is actually produced with the oil, separated out, then re-injected)

[thackney]

I wonder what the cost of that albatross is to NRG customers?

Petra Nova is 50-50 joint venture by NRG and JX Nippon. Additionally, the United States Department of Energy (DOE) is providing up to $190 million in grants as part of the Clean Coal Power Initiative Program (CCPI), a cost-shared collaboration between the federal government and private industry. A portion of the project was financed with project loans from the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) and Mizuho Bank, backed by Nippon Export and Investment Insurance (NEXI).

http://investors.nrg.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=121544&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2236424

- - - - - - - - - -

The total project cost is estimated to cost $1 billion.

https://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/wa_parish.html

[thackney]

I wonder what the cost of that albatross is to NRG customers?

In addition, since NRG is an independent power producer, they have bid into a competitive market. That means they don’t have a captive base of ratepayers, so if the price of power jumps too high, their customers have the option of going elsewhere.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/world-s-largest-carbon-capture-plant-to-open-soon/

- - - - - - - - - -

In Texas, the cost of the power provided is separate from the cost to delivery it to the home.  I have one company that maintains the lines, substations, etc necessary to connect and power my home.  Another company generates and sells the power, with set fees to transfer the power across the lines.

https://www.choosetexaspower.org/

[Just_Victor]

In addition, since NRG is an independent power producer, they have bid into a competitive market. That means they don’t have a captive base of ratepayers, so if the price of power jumps too high, their customers have the option of going elsewhere.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/world-s-largest-carbon-capture-plant-to-open-soon/

- - - - - - - - - -

In Texas, the cost of the power provided is separate from the cost to delivery it to the home.  I have one company that maintains the lines, substations, etc necessary to connect and power my home.  Another company generates and sells the power, with set fees to transfer the power across the lines.

https://www.choosetexaspower.org/

I'm sure NRG is going to advertise their commitment to sustainable energy to justify their higher rates and hope that their customer base are enviro-wackos willing to pay more for "responsible energy production."

[thackney]

I'm sure NRG is going to advertise their commitment to sustainable energy to justify their higher rates and hope that their customer base are enviro-wackos willing to pay more for "responsible energy production."

It is more complicated than just the cost to store CO2.  Because the CO2 is used to produce additional oil, there is economic benefit.  But I haven't found details about that and if the carbon capture and selling is oil price dependent.

When the decision to begin this started in 2010 and progressed the price of oil varied from ~$80~95 per barrel while the design, sizing, etc was worked out over ~5 years.  It wasn't until after construction started and investments made that the oil price dropped significantly.

The rule of thumb was that you get an extra two barrels of oil out for every ton of carbon dioxide you put in.  Were contracts put in place based on dollar amounts oil sold for at that time?  Is the CO2 price sliding with the oil price?  With this set up, it could be a money maker for NRG with the shared cost arrangements.  It could be a money sink for the oil company.  I would like to find out more before I would claim NRG has price spikes for selling electricity.

Nearly all the Texas power companies have different rate plans available.  I've been in one for years (not NRG) that is tied to the cost of Natural Gas based upon using it for power generation.

[Just_Victor]

It is more complicated than just the cost to store CO2.  Because the CO2 is used to produce additional oil, there is economic benefit.  But I haven't found details about that and if the carbon capture and selling is oil price dependent.

When the decision to begin this started in 2010 and progressed the price of oil varied from ~$80~95 per barrel while the design, sizing, etc was worked out over ~5 years.  It wasn't until after construction started and investments made that the oil price dropped significantly.

The rule of thumb was that you get an extra two barrels of oil out for every ton of carbon dioxide you put in.  Were contracts put in place based on dollar amounts oil sold for at that time?  Is the CO2 price sliding with the oil price?  With this set up, it could be a money maker for NRG with the shared cost arrangements.  It could be a money sink for the oil company.  I would like to find out more before I would claim NRG has price spikes for selling electricity.

Nearly all the Texas power companies have different rate plans available.  I've been in one for years (not NRG) that is tied to the cost of Natural Gas based upon using it for power generation.

You may have already pointed it out in a different post, but there is probably a substantial government payout (taxbreak, whatever) to offset the capital outlays, because CO2=EVIL.  Whatever NRG's approach, they aren't stupid.  NRG isn't going into this expecting to lose money.

[thackney]

I'm sure NRG is going to advertise their commitment to sustainable energy to justify their higher rates and hope that their customer base are enviro-wackos willing to pay more for "responsible energy production."

In this area (I live in the adjacent county)  the NRG subsidiary for electrical power is Reliant. (from the Houston Looting & Plunder Lighting and Power  Co)

They offer 15 different rate plans including "100% solar" and "100% wind", fixed, variable and indexed plans.

https://www.reliant.com/files/0901751881236b40.pdf

https://www.reliant.com/files/090175188126c7e2.pdf

The make no mention (yet) of a carbon capture plan.

[thackney]

You may have already pointed it out in a different post, but there is probably a substantial government payout (taxbreak, whatever) to offset the capital outlays, because CO2=EVIL.  Whatever NRG's approach, they aren't stupid.  NRG isn't going into this expecting to lose money.

~20% of the project cost paid by tax payers.

[dfwgator]

What a waste.

[Smokin Joe]

What a waste.

Here it comes...PETP commercials on late night Teevee, showing poor starved plants, begging for just $19/month to save them....

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Here it comes...PETP commercials on late night Teevee, showing poor starved plants, begging for just $19/month to save them....

Yep, and the only ones that profit are the bureaucrat and their green cronies.

BTW, I saw that Julie LeFever passed away.  You guys in ND must have been shocked as she was indeed a geological institution for ND.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I'm sure NRG is going to advertise their commitment to sustainable energy to justify their higher rates and hope that their customer base are enviro-wackos willing to pay more for "responsible energy production."

Well, we here in Texas are free to choose whoever we want each year if we want.  I specifically avoided any companies who had larger renewables investments.  I will not be choosing NRG either in the future.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The rule of thumb was that you get an extra two barrels of oil out for every ton of carbon dioxide you put in.  Were contracts put in place based on dollar amounts oil sold for at that time?  Is the CO2 price sliding with the oil price?  With this set up, it could be a money maker for NRG with the shared cost arrangements.  It could be a money sink for the oil company. 

Be very careful using that old ROT.  The principal place that rule came about was for the huge oilfields in West Texas where CO2 usage was perfected.  Those fields had a perfect situation in that they were patterned waterflooded and needed redrilling to get spacing down which flushed out a lot of oil.  They were also carbonates which traditionally had lower recoveries compared to the mostly Frio reservoirs of the fields along the GC.

I worked the West field some in my younger days.  It had a lot higher primary recovery than the West Texas fields. And it was a waterdrive, which means it had less needs for enhanced recoveries.

I also worked another similar geology field up the coast at Magnet Withers in which we tried CO2.  It was not an economic success at all.

Bottom line: just because they are using CO2 does not mean they have a commercial venture.   Having cheap CO2 is a boon as it will always result in more oil, but may not be enough to actually pay for its cost to inject and produce.

[Smokin Joe]

Yep, and the only ones that profit are the bureaucrat and their green cronies.

BTW, I saw that Julie LeFever passed away.  You guys in ND must have been shocked as she was indeed a geological institution for ND.

Yep. I had known Julie since Grad school, and her passing was a surprise. If ever a person was an institution in and of themselves she was, and is a resource the oil industry and geologists up here will miss.