Evaluations on CO2 Rich Natural Gas. Jörg Wenzel - Sick

Transcription

1 Evaluations on CO2 Rich Natural Gas Jörg Wenzel - Sick

2 ULTRASONIC GAS FLOW METER - EVALUATION ON CO 2 -RICH NATURAL GAS Author: Co-Author: Jörg Wenzel SICK AG E. Riedel, S. Stoof, Dr. V. Herrmann SICK AG European Flow Measurement Workshop 2015

3 AGENDA WhyisCO2 measurementan issue? Whatisthestatusquo forusm sin CO2 applications Calibration let s think about it! Verification at CEESI,Nunn

4 INTRODUCTION Global natural gas production is changing Diverse Gas compositions with increased CO 2 levels Marginal gas fields with high CO 2 content Gas from unconventional gas reservoirs Gas Re-Injection Carbon dioxide capture and storage Measurement during synthetic gas production, such as Power to Gas 3

5 INTRODUCTION Application Type CO 2 Content Other Components Pressure Accuracy Requirements Natural Gas, low CO 2 <5% CH 4, N 2, higher HC 10 to 150 bar(g) Custody Transfer Natural gas, high CO 2 5% to 20% CH 4, N 2, higher HC 10 to 150 bar(g) Custody Transfer Inject/withdrawl Up to 60% CH 4 50 to 100 bar(g) Allocation Carbon Capture & Storage Nearly 100% No 10 to 100 bar(g) Allocation How can Ultrasonic meter technology contribute? 4

6 INTRODUCTION Two major questions: Can Ultrasonicmetersmeasurehigh CO 2 contents? Proof was givenbysick in 2009 (NEL SEA Conference 2009, KL) Sensor signal quality, meter design and expertise are vital Also measurementof100% CO 2 ispossible 5

7 INTRODUCTION Two major questions: Can Ultrasonicmetersmeasurehigh CO 2 contents? Proof was givenbysick in 2009 (NEL SEA Conference 2009, KL) Sensor signal quality, meter design and expertise are vital Also measurementof100% CO 2 ispossible Can Ultrasonicmetersmeasureaccuratelyhigh CO 2 contents?? Andhowcantheybecalibrated? 6

8 CALIBRATION ISSUES Field conditions often differ from test lab conditions Temperature effects Pressure effects Installation effects Gas composition effects 7

9 CALIBRATION ISSUES HOW TO OVERCOME? Todays USM can partly compensate for these effects Path layout Algorithms(P/T correction,c) Reynolds Number compensation Calibration conditions are matched closely to target application conditions Pressure, flow rate Meter runs and installation equipment Gas compositions? Rarely possible! 8

10 CALIBRATION ISSUES HOW TO OVERCOME? OIML R e12 gives following recommendation: If the evaluation test shows that the difference between two gases is below 1/3 MPE the initial meter verification maybeperformedwiththealternative gas (1) Fora class1 devicethatmeans: IfthedeviationbetweenNG andco 2 is< 0.33% the ínitial meter calibration can be performed with NG only (1) OIML R e12, chapter

11 CALIBRATION EFFECTS WITH HIGH CO 2 CONTENT Compensation of effects caused by gas compositions Reynolds Equivalence EffectofCO 2 on Flow profilecanbedescribedwith Reynolds Number Re Reynolds Number ρ Gas density v g Gas velocity d effective length η Dynamic gas viscosity ComparisonNG andco 2 withv g, d andp/t unchanged Change onlyin which represents kinematicviscosity 10

12 CALIBRATION EFFECTS WITH HIGH CO 2 CONTENT Comparisonofmedium characteristicsfornaturalgas andco 2 P=amb / T=20 C Natural gas (Typ.) CO 2 100% Dyn. Viscosity [µpas] Density[kg/m³] Kin. Viscosity[m²/s] 8 x x10-6 Equivalence factor "# $%&'(%) *%+,-. #

13 CALIBRATION EFFECTS WITH HIGH CO 2 CONTENT 12

14 CALIBRATION EFFECTS WITH HIGH CO 2 CONTENT Equivalence factor "# $%&'(%) *%+,-. #1.96 Howcanthisfactorbeused? Possibility for compensation during calibration Increase velocity range by factor 1.96 Increase of pressure by factor

15 Time for testing! 14

16 COMPENSATION DURING CALIBRATION Proof of USM performance under flowing conditions Independent test lab CEESI, Nunn Testing of 8 inch USM at flowing conditions Comparison against 8 inch orifice plate meter Natural gas with 2% CO 2 and 42% CO 2 Flow range: 3C16.8 m/s (10C55 ft/s) 15

17 CALIBRATION EFFECTS WITH HIGH CO 2 CONTENT a=1.45 Reynolds equivelence: 30bar with NG == 20 bar with 42% CO 2 16

18 FLOW TESTING AT CEESI Test Plan Test 1&2: Flow Test & Calibration at 2% CO 2 Natural 30 barg Test 3: Flow Test at 42% CO 2 Natural 30 barg Test 4: Flow Test at 42% CO 2 Natural 20 barg Test conditions Flow lab uncertainty ±0.35 % Max. additional uncertainty: ±0.33% (acc. OIML) Expected additional error by SICK: ±0.1% in FWME* 17

19 FLOW TESTING AT CEESI 18

20 USM FLOW TEST 1 & 2 FLOW TEST & CALIBRATION AT 2% CO 2 NATURAL 30 BARG 19

21 USM FLOW TEST 3 FLOW TEST AT 42% CO 2 NATURAL 30 BARG FWME-Shift = 0.04% < 0.1% << 0.33% 20

22 DIAGNOSTIC COMPARISON 2% VS 42% CO 55 FT/S AND 30 BARG CO 2 =2% CO 2 =42% 21

23 USM FLOW TEST 4 FLOW TEST AT 42% CO 2 NATURAL 30 & 20 BARG FWME-Shift = > 0.1% << 0.33% >0.1% 22

24 DIAGNOSTIC COMPARISON 20 BARG AND FT/S AND 42% CO2 p=30 barg p=20 barg 23

25 ORIFICE PLATE TEST RESULTS 24

26 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Results from 2009 verified under flowing conditions Effect on meter accuracy for natural gas calibrations shown USM forco 2 canbecalibratedwithng only, coveredbyoiml UltrasonicmetersarewellapplicableforCO 2 -rich applications CustodytransferapplicationswithCO 2 applicableforusm 25

27 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Ultrasonic meters provide added value by diagnostic data Compensation possibility using equivalence factor discussed but shall be evaluated further Reynolds equivelence may also be of interest for gas mixtures like NG & Hydrogen to enable economical calibrations End users worry: An international standard not available 26

28 MANY THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION. Jörg Wenzel Product Management SICK Flow Solutions

29 INTRODUCTION Two major questions: Can Ultrasonicmetersmeasurehigh CO 2 contents? Proof was givenbysick in 2009 (NEL SEA Conference 2009, KL) Sensor signal quality, meter design and expertise are vital Also measurementof100% CO 2 ispossible Can Ultrasonic meters measure accurately high CO2 contents? Low influenceon accuracyfortypicalco 2 range Compensation during calibration possible via Reynolds equivalence Expertise at meter manufacturer is beneficial 28

30 FLOW PROFILE IDENTIFICATION AND CORRECTIONS Alternated flow profile due to Reynolds number variation 29

31 DIAGNOSTIC COMPARISON 2% VS 42% CO 55 FT/S AND 30 BARG CO 2 =2% CO 2 =42% 30

32 DIAGNOSTIC COMPARISON 20 BARG AND FT/S AND 42% CO2 p=30 barg p=20 barg 31