Groups keyboard shortcuts have been updated
Dismiss
See shortcuts

Regarding Calcium Looping models

32 views
Skip to first unread message

Yuvraj Goyal

unread,
May 24, 2024, 2:09:05 AM5/24/24
to IECM User Forum
Dear team,
I have tried to simulate a 660 MW supercritical powerplant with Calcium Looping technology.I wish to seek clarification on a couple of aspects regarding the software's calculations in Calcium Looping models.I'd really appreciate team help with these:


The results showed that auxiliary power produced is greater than the gross power output, which can't be justified. The literature suggests that the total increase in the net power output of the plant ranges between 30-45% when retrofitted with the CaL technology. The results showed an increase of over 100% in the net power produced (screenshot attached). I also wish to know the efficiency considered for the steam turbines used in the calcium looping.

Plant performance.jpg

The literature suggests that there would be an increase in the coal usage of the power plant when retrofitted with CaL. The results for the plant simulation, although, show a decrease in coal usage (screenshot attached). 

coal usage comparison.jpg

Thank you 

Karen Kietzke, Programmer, IECM

unread,
Jun 21, 2024, 7:30:18 PM6/21/24
to IECM User Forum
The coal flow rate for the calcium looping model is misleading in the current interface. "Coal" on the Mass In/Out result screen  and on the fuel diagram only includes the primary fuel, and the only auxiliary fuel shown is gas. The auxiliary coal used by the calcium looping model is not currently shown in these places, so with the additional net output, it looks like you're using less coal than you really are. We will correct this in the next release. For now, if you look at the Overall Plant Performance result screen, Auxiliary Fuel Input  includes auxiliary coal.

Regarding the magnitude of the increase in net output, the original calcium looping model is fairly old (2012), and we do not have any funding to update it, so it will unfortunately have to stay as it is. (The magnitude was noted at the time the model was written, and the author stated that it was consistent with the data he had, so we presume this is the result of what is now an older configuration rather than a bug.) The technical documentation ("IECM Technical Documentation: Calcium Looping Cycle for Post-Combustion CO2 Capture", available in the Publications section of our website, iecm-online.com) gives a lot of detail as to the equations used and the assumptions made. Sorry we couldn't be of more help here.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages