Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Vladimir Kindra
 -- 1883 2023-08-24 08:45:17 |
2 layout & references
Sirius Huang
 Meta information modification 1883 2023-08-24 10:29:14 |

Video Upload Options

We provide professional Video Production Services to translate complex research into visually appealing presentations. Would you like to try it?
No, upload directly Yes

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Kindra, V.; Rogalev, A.; Oparin, M.; Kovalev, D.; Ostrovsky, M. Oxy-Fuel Combustion Technology for Electricity and Hydrogen Production. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/48410 (accessed on 21 December 2024).
Kindra V, Rogalev A, Oparin M, Kovalev D, Ostrovsky M. Oxy-Fuel Combustion Technology for Electricity and Hydrogen Production. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/48410. Accessed December 21, 2024.
Kindra, Vladimir, Andrey Rogalev, Maksim Oparin, Dmitriy Kovalev, Mikhail Ostrovsky. "Oxy-Fuel Combustion Technology for Electricity and Hydrogen Production" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/48410 (accessed December 21, 2024).
Kindra, V., Rogalev, A., Oparin, M., Kovalev, D., & Ostrovsky, M. (2023, August 24). Oxy-Fuel Combustion Technology for Electricity and Hydrogen Production. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/48410
Kindra, Vladimir, et al. "Oxy-Fuel Combustion Technology for Electricity and Hydrogen Production." Encyclopedia. Web. 24 August, 2023.
Oxy-Fuel Combustion Technology for Electricity and Hydrogen Production
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/en16165983

Modern trends in improving environmental safety have determined the urgency in creating innovative technologies that allow the production of electricity and hydrogen without the emission of harmful substances. However, at the moment, there are not so many technical solutions offering the combined production of these useful products with a high degree of efficiency and environmental friendliness. The transition to oxy-fuel combustion power cycles for the co-production of electricity and hydrogen is a prospective way to decrease carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere from the energy sector.

carbon dioxide oxygen efficiency net zero emission power generation

1. The Relevance of the Decarbonization of Electricity and Hydrogen Production

The continuous growth of the population and the active industrialization of countries are the reasons for the significantly increasing demand for energy products, both electricity and hydrogen. This is evidenced by the data of the Centre for Energy Economics Research and Policy [1], according to which from 2020 to 2050, the demand for electricity will increase by more than 160% and the demand for hydrogen by 246%. Taking into account the identified trend towards the growth in energy production, one should expect an increase in emissions of toxic substances and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
The concern of the global community with regards to global climate change has led to the adoption of a number of international treaties mandating countries to stabilize or reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reforming their energy sectors. In particular, in 1997, the Kyoto Protocol was signed, and in 2015, the Paris Agreement. However, to achieve the desired effect of reducing CO2 emissions, relevant agreements need to be adopted by the largest industrial nations [2].
Decarbonization of the energy industry is one of the key challenges on the way to achieving carbon neutrality [3]. In addition to electric energy, steam, and hot water, hydrogen is another energy product that is in high demand. It is employed across numerous industries. In particular, hydrogen fuel is used in oil refining, metallurgy, and the construction and food industry. In addition, hydrogen is used as a fuel in engines and in standalone power and heat generators; it is a convenient medium to supply heat to distributed consumers, and to transport and store energy [4][5]. An important advantage of hydrogen is its environmental safety; the sole product of its combustion is water vapor. However, since pure hydrogen is almost never found in nature, it needs to be produced first, and the method of its production will largely determine the environmental effect of its use [6][7].
Specifically, approximately 48% of hydrogen is produced by conversion [8]. The conversion of gases involves processing them to change the composition of the initial gas mixture. The conversion is normally applied to hydrocarbon gases (methane and its homologues) and carbon monoxide to produce hydrogen or a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide. The conversion process is carried out using various oxidizing reagents (such as oxygen, steam, CO2, and mixtures thereof).
The most cost-efficient feedstock for conversion is methane (natural gas). Currently, the majority of the industrially produced hydrogen is generated using the steam methane reforming (SMR) process. However, the carbon dioxide formed during the SMR process is not captured and is released into the atmosphere. Such hydrogen is referred to as “gray” hydrogen. To ensure that this process is environmentally neutral, one needs to additionally apply the carbon capture and storage technologies; however, their addition results in the process being considerably more expensive. On average, the cost of SMR production of “blue” hydrogen is 23% higher than that of “grey” hydrogen [9]. The above considerations result in the development of an environmentally safe and economically viable SMR-based hydrogen production process being a high-priority objective.

2. Reducing Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Steam Methane Reforming Plants

In the SMR process, steam reacts with natural gas at high temperatures and moderate pressure (1.5–2 kgf/cm2) in the presence of a nickel-containing catalyst (up to 20% Ni as NiO). Steam and thermal energy are needed to separate the hydrogen from the methane carbon base.
SMR is currently the cheapest (and most mastered) process for the industrial production of hydrogen. However, it is accompanied by CO and CO2 emissions. There are various solutions available to handle those emissions.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) has provided comparative analysis data for different versions of the combined hydrogen, heat, and electricity generation process in its publication [10], where emerging SMR process configurations are examined alongside their feasibility analysis. The publication has identified several methods of CO2 capture: (a) a method based on chemical absorption technology; (b) a method based on introduction of burners running on H2-saturated fuel; and (c) a method based on low-temperature separation of CO2 and the application of membrane technology.
It should be noted that in SMR plants, three areas are identified where CO2 can be captured: (1) from the syngas stream downstream the water–gas shift reactor; (2) from the tail gas stream of the PSA (pressure swing adsorption) unit; and (3) from SMR flue gases [11].
Obviously, the most efficient option for a SMR unit is the one without any CO2 capture systems, and in the complete absence carbon emissions control, there is no reason to implement such systems.
The introduction of a system for capturing CO2 from the syngas stream using a chemical absorption process results in a 54% reduction in CO2 emissions compared to the version without the capture. Adding the H2-saturated fuel fed to the burners of the reformer furnace further increases the share of prevented CO2 emissions to 64% [12].
There are versions of the process involving purification of the tail gases from the PSA unit. The introduction of capture systems based on chemical absorption technology leads to a reduction in CO2 emissions by 52%, and the introduction of systems based on low-temperature separation of CO2 and the application of membrane technology by 53%. The latter option has been noted to be most effective in the partial implementation of carbon border adjustment [13].
With the full implementation of the carbon border adjustment mechanism, the most efficient option is an SMR unit with CO2 capture from SMR flue gases. The introduction of such a capture system can reduce emissions by as much as 90% [10].
Therefore, most of the known SMR-based hydrogen production processes with minimum greenhouse gas emissions result either in an increase in the present value of hydrogen production by 44% for the most efficient capture option, or in a low percentage of CO2 capture for other options. This means that the development of a highly efficient SMR technology with minimal emissions of harmful substances is a high-priority objective.

3. Oxy-Fuel Combustion Technology for the Combined Production of Electricity and Hydrogen

Today, the main global trend in the development of energy is to reduce the number of toxic substances and greenhouse gases emissions into the atmosphere. Much research has been devoted to investigating the issue of reducing emissions of harmful substances from the power generation units [14][15][16][17][18][19]. Many emission reduction methods are successfully used at the existing thermal power plants. In particular, methods of controls of atmospheric pollutants, such as nitrogen and sulfur oxides, are widely used. At the same time, the prevention of carbon dioxide emissions, which are formed in large quantities during the combustion of fossil fuels, still causes difficulties. The introduction of carbon dioxide capture technologies leads to a significant increase in the electricity cost; therefore, the issue of creating environmentally friendly and economically viable high-capacity energy systems remains open [20][21].
Oxy-fuel energy complexes with a CO2 working flow have great potential as a way of reducing emissions while maintaining a high level of thermal efficiency. Oxy-fuel technologies for power generation are based on the combustion of hydrocarbon fuels in pure oxygen and the capture of carbon dioxide and its disposal. Currently, more than thirty cycles with oxygen fuel combustion are known [22][23][24]. In particular, the following closed thermodynamic cycles are widely known: SCOC-CC, MATIANT cycles, NET Power cycles, Graz cycles, CES cycles, AZEP cycle, and ZEITMOP [25].
The initial versions of such cycles were introduced at the end of the past century. Today, the US, Japan, and European countries are actively developing this avenue. Due to the allocation of grants, active subsidization of “green” technologies for power generation, and the establishment of legislative frameworks facilitating the reduction of CO2 emissions, scientific research is being conducted, experimental plants are being built, and prerequisites are being created for building actual power units with “zero” emission of harmful substances. Large energy corporations are joining their efforts to build demo plants capable of releasing up to 50 MW of electricity to the power grid [26].
Recent developments in the field of creating environmentally friendly energy complexes are aimed at creating power units that simultaneously generate both electric power and hydrogen. Such solutions can simultaneously produce two important energy products at high efficiency rate and without harmful emissions.
In particular, in the work of Zhang N. [27], two novel system configurations were proposed for oxy-fuel natural gas turbine systems with integrated steam reforming and carbon dioxide capture and separation. The steam reforming heat is obtained from the available turbine exhaust heat, and the produced syngas is used as fuel with oxygen as the oxidizer. The authors were focused on the integration of the turbine exhaust heat recovery with both reforming and steam generation processes, in ways that reduce the heat transfer-related exergy destruction. According to the modeling results, a net efficiency of power generation unit is in the range of 50–52%. The key disadvantage of the proposed configuration is the losses occurring in the condenser and the performer.
The article [28] presents a combination of CCGT with steam conversion of methane; however, the reformer is used in this cycle as a method of producing fuel for the power unit. To purify the outgoing gases from the reformer from carbon dioxide, an installation with monoethanolamine is used, which allows the generation of electricity without emissions, with an efficiency of 41.77%. The disadvantage of this technology is the lack of the possibility of producing hydrogen for sale to an external consumer, large heat losses in the condenser of the steam turbine unit and outgoing gases, and large expenses for cleaning carbon dioxide at the outlet of the methane steam conversion plant.
In the work [29], an oxy-fuel combustion power plant for electricity and hydrogen production is presented with near-zero emissions. It represents the combination of two technologies: the Allam cycle and the steam methane reforming plant. According to the modeling results, the power plant efficiency is 54.9% at equal production of the supplied electricity and chemical energy of the produced hydrogen. The absence of a water steam source in the Allam cycle thermal loop is one of the key issues that one faces when trying to integrate a steam methane reformer into the process. It necessitates the supply of low-grade heat to the multi-flow regenerator, which further complicates the issue of controlling the output of electricity and hydrogen in the course of the combined production of energy products.
The above issue can be solved by creating an oxy-fuel energy complex for zero-emission electricity and H2 production based on the SCOC-CC cycle. The fact that this configuration includes a steam turbine circuit results in it being possible to draw steam from its individual branches, which should considerably simplify the load control issue. Moreover, the solution allows an increase in the combined unit efficiency. However, in open sources, no references are available to the results of studies on the energy performance and modes of operation of such power units. 

References

  1. Lisin, E.; Kurdiukova, G.; Okley, P.; Chernova, V. Efficient Methods of Market Pricing in Power Industry within the Context of System Integration of Renewable Energy Sources. Energies 2019, 12, 3250.
  2. Rogalev, N.; Sukhareva, E.; Mentel, G.; Brozyna, J. Economic Approaches for Improving Electricity Market. Terra Econ. 2018, 16, 140–149.
  3. Atkinson, A.; Messy, F.A. Measuring Financial Literacy: Results of the OECD/International Network on Financial Education (INFE) Pilot Study. 2012. Available online: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/finance-and-investment/measuring-financial-literacy_5k9csfs90fr4-en (accessed on 8 February 2023).
  4. Litvinenko, V.; Tcvetkov, P.; Dvoynikov, M.; Buslaev, G. Barriers to Implementation of Hydrogen Initiatives in the Context of Global Energy Sustainable Development. J. Min. Inst. 2020, 244, 428–438.
  5. IE Kopteva, A.; Kalimullin, L.; Tcvetkov, P.; Soares, A. Prospects and Obstacles for Green Hydrogen Production in Russia. Energies 2021, 14, 718.
  6. Amez, I.; León, D.; Ivannikov, A.; Kolikov, K.; Castells, B. Potential of CBM as an Energy Vector in Active Mines and Abandoned Mines in Russia and Europe. Energies 2023, 16, 1196.
  7. Staffell, I.; Scamman, D.; Abad, A.V.; Balcombe, P.; Dodds, P.E.; Ekins, P.; Shah, N.; Ward, K.R. The role of hydrogen and fuel cells in the global energy system. Energy Environ. Sci. 2019, 12, 463–491.
  8. Ma, L.C.; Castro-Dominguez, B.; Kazantzis, N.K.; Ma, Y.H. Integration of membrane technology into hydrogen production plants with CO2 capture: An economic performance assessment study. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2015, 42, 424–438.
  9. Anantharaman, R.; Jordal, K.; Roussanaly, S.; Fu, C.; Wahl, P.E.; Brakstad, E.; Riboldi, L.; Gilardi, C.; Clapis, A.; Mancuso, L.; et al. Understanding the cost of retrofitting CO2 capture to an integrated oil refinery. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, GHGT-14, Leeds, Melbourne, Australia, 21–25 October 2018; 6p.
  10. Collodi, G.; Azzaro, G.; Ferrari, N.; Santos, S.; Brown, J.; Cotton, B.; Lodge, S. IEAGHG,“Techno-Economic Evaluation of SMR Based Standalone (Merchant) Plant with CCS”, 2017/02, February 2017. Available online: https://ieaghg.org/exco_docs/2017-02.pdf (accessed on 8 February 2023).
  11. Yun, J.; Cho, K.; Lee, Y.D.; Yu, S. Four different configurations of a 5 kW class shell-and-tube methane steam reformer with a low-temperature heat source. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2018, 9, 4546–4562.
  12. Descamps, C.; Bouallou, C.; Kanniche, M. Efficiency of an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plant including CO2 removal. Energy 2008, 6, 874–881.
  13. Raksajati, A.; Ho, M.T.; Wiley, D.E. Reducing the cost of CO2 capture from flue gases using aqueous chemical absorption. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 47, 16887–16901.
  14. Chen, W.; Zhang, G.; Li, B.; Liu, M.; Liu, J. Simulation study on 660 MW coal-fired power plant coupled with a steam ejector to ensure NOx reduction ability. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2017, 111, 550–561.
  15. Sohn, J.; Hwang, I.S.; Hwang, J. Improvement of ammonia mixing in an industrial scale selective catalytic reduction De-NOx system of a coal-fired power plant: A numerical analysis. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2021, 147, 334–345.
  16. Ma, T.; Takeuchi, K. Technology choice for reducing NOx emissions: An empirical study of Chinese power plants. Energy Policy 2017, 102, 362–376.
  17. Dutta, R.; Nord, L.O.; Bolland, O. Selection and design of post-combustion CO2 capture process for 600 MW natural gas fueled thermal power plant based on operability. Energy 2017, 121, 643–656.
  18. Mahmoudi, R.; Emrouznejad, A.; Khosroshahi, H.; Khashei, M.; Rajabi, P. Performance evaluation of thermal power plants considering CO2 emission: A multistage PCA, clustering, game theory and data envelopment analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 223, 641–650.
  19. Kindra, V.O.; Milukov, I.A.; Shevchenko, I.V.; Shabalova, S.I.; Kovalev, D.S. Thermodynamic analysis of cycle arrangements of the coal-fired thermal power plants with carbon capture. Arch. Thermodyn. 2021, 42, 103–121.
  20. Kanniche, M.; Le Moullec, Y.; Authier, O.; Hagi, H.; Bontemps, D.; Neveux, T.; Louis-Louisy, M. Up-to-date CO2 Capture in Thermal Power Plants. Energy Procedia 2017, 114, 95–103.
  21. Peng, J.; Yu, B.-Y.; Liao, H.; Wei, Y.-M. Marginal abatement costs of CO2 emissions in the thermal power sector: A regional empirical analysis from China. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 171, 163–174.
  22. Hong, J.; Chaudhry, G.; Brisson, J.G.; Field, R.; Gazzino, M.; Ghoniem, A.F. Analysis of oxy-fuel combustion power cycle utilizing a pressurized coal combustor. Energy 2009, 34, 1332–1340.
  23. Kindra, V.; Rogalev, A.; Zlyvko, O.; Sokolov, V.; Milukov, I. Research and development of a high-performance oxy-fuel combustion power cycle with coal gasification. Arch. Thermodyn. 2021, 42, 155–168.
  24. Kindra, V.; Osipov, S.; Zlyvko, O.; Shcherbatov, I.; Sokolov, V. Thermodynamic analysis of an innovative steam turbine power plant with oxy-methane combustors. Arch. Thermodyn. 2021, 42, 123–140.
  25. Barba, F.C.; Sanchez, G.M.D.; Segui, B.S.; Darabkhani, H.G.; Anthony, E.J. A technical evaluation, performance analysis and risk assessment of multiple novel oxy-turbine power cycles with complete CO2 capture. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 133, 971–985.
  26. Allam, R.; Martin, S.; Forrest, B.; Fetvedt, J.; Lu, X.; Freed, D.; Brown, G.W.; Sasaki, T.; Itoh, M.; Manning, J. Demonstration of the Allam Cycle: An update on the development status of a high efficiency supercritical carbon dioxide power process employing full carbon capture. Energy Procedia 2017, 114, 5948–5966.
  27. Zhang, N.; Lior, N. Two novel oxy-fuel power cycles integrated with natural gas reforming and CO2 capture. Energy 2008, 33, 340–351.
  28. Ahn, J.H.; Jeong, J.H.; Choi, B.S.; Kim, T.S. Influence of various carbon capture technologies on the performance of natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants. J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 2019, 33, 1431–1440.
  29. Kindra, V.; Zlyvko, O.; Zonov, A.; Kovalev, D. An Oxy-Fuel Power Plant for Hydrogen Production with Near-Zero Emissions. In SMART Automatics and Energy: Proceedings of SMART-ICAE 2021; Springer Nature Singapore: Singapore, 2022; pp. 291–301.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Energy & Fuels
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Vladimir Kindra
,
Andrey Rogalev
,
Maksim Oparin
,
Dmitriy Kovalev
,
Mikhail Ostrovsky
View Times: 501
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 24 Aug 2023
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Video Production Service
    Feedback