Capital Cost for CO2 Capture

Doug Palfreyman

unread,

Jan 13, 2021, 8:32:21 PM1/13/21

to IECM User Forum

Firstly, thanks for a great tool.

I have been modelling an IGCC plant with CO2 capture via sour shift and Selexol. To start with, I used the standard configuration of 2 GE 7FB turbines with no modifications. I then changed this to 4 turbines to see the effect of scale on capital cost, expecting it to be less than twice the price. However, the total cost for the CO2 plant (not including shift or storage) went from ($M)159.4 to ($M)389.9. Can anyone explain why? I have attached a screenshot of the capital cost for both cases. Some of the item costs have less than doubled, while others have increased over threefold.

Checking the configuration, in the base case, the capture plant requires 3 absorbers, while in the double case it requires 5.

Thanks

Doug

Selexol - 4 turbines.PNG

Selexol - 2 turbines.PNG

Karen Kietzke, Research Programmer, IECM, CMU

unread,

Jan 21, 2021, 6:07:21 PM1/21/21

to IECM User Forum

Thanks for pointing this out. We're looking into it - thanks for your patience!

Karen Kietzke, Research Programmer, IECM, CMU

unread,

Jan 26, 2021, 6:00:41 PM1/26/21

to IECM User Forum

We’ve taken a look at the problem you reported and it appears that you have found a bug in the IGCC code that had not been discovered previously. We need to look a bit further to identify and fix the problem. We’ll let you know as soon as it’s been resolved. Thanks again for bringing this to our attention.

Karen Kietzke, Research Programmer, IECM, CMU

unread,

Feb 16, 2021, 5:15:56 PM2/16/21

to IECM User Forum

A further update: we have determined that this is in fact a bug in the IGCC code; we are in the process of fixing and testing it.

Doug Palfreyman

unread,

Mar 31, 2021, 3:49:32 AM3/31/21

to IECM User Forum

Just wondering how the update is going?

Karen Kietzke, Research Programmer, IECM, CMU

unread,

Apr 6, 2021, 7:33:31 PM4/6/21

to IECM User Forum

Doug,

Thank you for your patience, and for taking the time to report this issue. We believe we have solved the problem, but we aren't quite ready to put out a release yet. (There was some double-counting going on, and a couple of parameters were allowed to have values outside the range supported by the simulation this model is based on.) I will be contacting you shortly by email with a link to a version that should allow you to finish your analysis. Thanks again for your patience.

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward