1-s2.0-S1876610212010971-main

8/12/2019 1-s2.0-S1876610212010971-main

1/12

Energy Procedia 23 (2012) 3 14

1876-6102 2012 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of SINTEF Energi AS

doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2012.06.057

Trondheim CCS Conference - 6

Comparison of current and advanced post-combustionCO2capture technologies for power plant applications

Miguel A. Gonzalez-Salazar1a*, Robert J. Perryb, Ravi-Kumar Vipperlac,Alvaro Hernandez-Nogalesa, Lars O. Norda, Vittorio Michelassia,

Roger Shislerb, Vitali Lissianskiba General Electric Global Research, 85748 Garching b. Munich, Germany

b General Electric Global Research, 1 Research Circle, Niskayuna, NY 12309, UScGE Energy, 300 Garlington Road, Greenville, SC 29615, US

Abstract

Most energy scenarios suggest carbon capture and storage (CCS) from power generation might contributeto reduce the carbon emissions necessary to stabilize the long-term global average atmospherictemperature. GE is actively investigating and developing novel technologies for both capturing and

compressing CO2from power plants with potential lower energy requirements and environmental impactthan state-of-the-art processes. One technology that is currently the focus of significant research effort is

phase-changing absorbents for post-combustion capture applications. This investigation compared theperformance of phase-changing absorbents to state-of-the-art monoethanolamine (MEA) capture for threedifferent flue gas conditions with CO2 concentrations ranging from 4 mole% to 13 mole%. Resultsindicate that depending on the flue gas conditions, the specific equivalent work necessary for operating

phase-changing absorbents is expected to be up to 40% lower than for MEA capture. However, as thelevel of maturity of phase-changing absorbents is certainly lower than MEA capture, higher uncertainty in

performance is expected. Besides lower energy requirements, a reduction of up to 6% in specific watercooling load is expected from the phase-changing absorbents compared to MEA capture, in particular forcases with high CO2concentrations in the flue gas.

2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd.Keywords: CCS; Carbon capture; Post-combustion; Phase-changing absorbents; CO2compression

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 (0) 89 55283-549; fax: +49 (0) 89 55283-180.E-mail address: [email protected]

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

2012 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of SINTEF Energi AS

8/12/2019 1-s2.0-S1876610212010971-main

2/12

4 Miguel A. Gonzalez-Salazar et al. / Energy Procedia 23 (2012) 3 14

1.IntroductionMost energy scenarios suggest carbon capture and storage (CCS) from power generation might

contribute to reduce the carbon emissions necessary to stabilize the long-term global average atmospherictemperature. While renewables would likely keep growing worldwide in the future, CCS from power

plants would still be required to respond to an increasing energy demand while meeting emission targets.

CCS technologies mainly address coal-fired power generation, partly because it offers the potential toreduce over 40% of the energy-related anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, applyingCCS to other power plants combusting carbon containing fuels might offer even further potential toreduce emissions.

GE is actively investigating and developing novel technologies for both capturing and compressingCO2from power plants with potential lower energy requirements and environmental impact than state-of-the-art processes. One technology that is currently the focus of significant research effort is phase-changing absorbents for post-combustion applications.

This investigation compared the performance of phase-changing absorbents to state-of-the-art

monoethanolamine (MEA) capture for three different flue gas conditions with CO2 concentrationsranging from 4 mole% to 13 mole%. Evaluated applications included retrofit and greenfield power plants.While MEA is considered a mature and near commercial technology that might be employed in retrofitand greenfield applications, phase-changing absorbent is considered a next generation capture technologyand its performance was evaluated only for greenfield applications. With regard to CO2compression, anintegrally geared compression train with supercritical pumping was evaluated, as this solution proved to

be the least energy intensive for a wide operational range. Aspen Plus and Thermoflex were used tosimulate the performance of both technologies for the different study cases. As the energy requirementsfor the two capture technologies varied qualitatively, the concept of specific equivalent work (MJ/kg-CO2) was used for comparing the performance of the capture technologies. Finally, the specific watercooling load (MJ/kg-CO2) was also estimated.

2.ApproachMost studies in literature comparing the performance of CO2capture technologies for power plants

applications used two different methodologies. On one hand, some studies included very detailed modelsof the power plant and its interaction with the capture unit [1]-[3]. On the other hand, some other studiesdid not include any detail of the power plant and focused only on the capture unit [4]-[6]. In this study,

priority was given to understand the performance of the capture and compression technologies for genericflue gas conditions, rather than the performance of specific power plants with CCS. Thus, the

performance of both phase-changing absorbents and MEA was estimated at 90% capture for threedifferent flue gas conditions with CO2concentrations ranging from 4 mole% to 13 mole% (see Table 1).

These selected flue gas conditions are representative for large scale power plants fuelled with fuelsranging from natural gas to coal.

8/12/2019 1-s2.0-S1876610212010971-main

3/12

Miguel A. Gonzalez-Salazar et al. / Energy Procedia 23 (2012) 3 14 5

T

p

3

t

v

r

l

able 1.Flue gas

To estimat

ethodology

1. Identif

case th

2. Identifperfor

3. Define

4. Design

depend

5. Run th

6. Build t

7. Quanti

A more de

rocess is pres

.Phase-chaThe phase-

tramethyldis

iscosity (4 c

eadily conver

The amino

aterial is m

wer freezing

conditions for st

CO2c

H2O c

N2conO2con

Tempe

Pressu

Flow r

the mean a

as followed.

key perfor

e specific equ

the key desiance indicat

mean values

experiment t

ent variables.

e experiment

ransfer functi

fy the mean a

tailed descrip

ented in next

ging absorb

hanging abs

iloxane) [GA

@ 25oC) liq

ted back into

silicone offe

re thermally

point than

dy cases.

ncentration (

ncentration (

centration (mcentration (m

rature (C)

e (bar)

ate (kg/s)

d variability

The method

ance indicat

ivalent work

gn parameterrs.

and standard

o evaluate th

sing softwar

ons that defin

d standard d

tion of phas

sections.

nt

rbent is base

P-0] as show

uid that readi

the starting a

s a number

stable, has a

EA. Additio

ole%)

ole%)

ole%)ole%)

in performa

logy can be s

rs (depende

and the speci

(independen

deviation for

effect of the

e process sim

e the depende

eviation of ea

-changing ab

d on an amin

in Equatio

y forms a sol

inosilicone

f advantage

lower vapor

ally, the am

ase 1 Ca

4

9

7512

57

1,014 1,

650 6

nce for both

ummarized i

t variables)

ic water cool

t variables) f

the identified

independent

ulation.

nt variables i

ch of the per

sorption and

osilicone mat

1. This sub

id on contact

n thermal tre

over the tr

ressure, a lo

nosilicone s

se 2 Cas

8 13

0 17

8 674 2

7 57

14 1,01

50 65

capture tech

the followin

o compare b

ing load are u

r both techn

independent

variables and

terms of the

ormance indi

MEA captu

erial (1,3-bis

trate is a hi

with CO2. Th

atment.

ditional aqu

wer heat cap

rbent is used

3

4

ologies a Si

steps:

oth technolo

sed.

logies that in

ariables.

their interact

independent

ators.

e as well as

3-aminoprop

h boiling (2

is solid carba

ous MEA s

city and a s

in a non-aqu

x Sigma

ies, in this

fluence the

ions on the

variables.

the design

yl)-1,1,3,3-

5oC), low

mate salt is

stem. This

bstantially

eous based

(1

8/12/2019 1-s2.0-S1876610212010971-main

4/12


p

t

g

p

b

i

3

a

o

c

c

t

t

f

t

t

s

a

t

1

rocess which

e MEA syst

as to generat

AP-0 expos

reliminary p

alances and

odel accounput needed f

.1.Process dThe genera

nd formation

f lean GAP-

arbamate par

yclone-type s

e high press

osimetric Putemperatur

inal step is th

the desorbe

e desorber c

eparator whe

nd then deliv

e desorber.

O2. Dissocia

O2for transp

Posimetric is a r

significantly

m. In this n

a solid. Whi

d to wet CO

ocess model

he system p

s for captureor sensible he

scription

l process envi

of the solid.

0 sorbent ar

ticles that ar

eparator. The

ure desorber

p1

. The ris of 100-115

ermal desorpt

to provide h

onsisting of

e the vapor a

ered to the C

he lean solv

ion of the C

ortation and s

Fig. 1 CO2Isl

egistered tradem

reduces the

vel procedur

le some wate

still maintai

was develop

rformance.

of CO2by Gating of the s

sioned consis

his may occ

e sprayed in

formed are

third action

hich may b

h sorbent froC before bei

ion of the C

eat, which re

O2is cooled

nd entrained

2compresso

ent that is re

2at elevated

torage.

nd process flow

ark of the Gener

mount of en

, the neat G

r will be pres

s its friable

d for the CO

he process

P-0 sorbentrbent.

ts of four uni

r in a spray t

o the CO2-r

isolated and

is transport o

e between 5-

m the absorbng fed to the

2from the so

leases CO2fr

in a heat ex

liquid are sep

. The liquid

ormed is ret

pressures wil

diagram

l Electric Comp

ergy required

P-0 liquid r

ent in the flu

solid charact

2separation

odel was ca

, heat input n

operations (

wer configu

ich flue gas

collected in

f the solid fr

0 bar. This

er is fed to thdesorber for

rbent at ~125

om the rich s

hanger utiliz

arated. The

rom the bott

rned to the a

l reduce com

ny.

to heat and

adily reacts

gas, experi

r with no lo

nit to calcul

librated with

eeded to des

ee Fig. 1). T

ation (absorb

stream at a

a second op

m a low pres

ay be acco

e rich-lean hseparation o

oC under pr

orbent. The h

ng water. Th

O2gas is re

m of the sep

bsorber unit

pression cost

ondense wat

ith the CO2

ents have in

s in capture

te the mass

experimenta

rb the CO2a

e first is CO2

er) wherein fi

proximately

ration which

sure (~ 1 bar

plished by t

at exchangerthe absorbe

ssure. Steam

ot vapor fro

e stream then

oved from th

rator is retur

for further re

of making s

er found in

in the flue

icated that

apacity. A

and energy

l data. The

nd the heat

absorption

ne droplets

50oC. The

may be a

) regime to

e use of a

and heatedCO2. The

is supplied

the top of

flows to a

e separator

ed back to

action with

upercritical

8/12/2019 1-s2.0-S1876610212010971-main

5/12


3.2.Key system assumptionsThe energy needed by the CO2separator is provided by extraction of steam from the power plant. The

steam will pass through the desorber reboiler, and must have a condensation temperature as high as thetemperature in the desorber. The system has four process variables that dominate the performance:absorber temperature, desorber temperature, desorber pressure, and rich/lean heat exchanger approachtemperature. The system model accounts for the major energy penalties for CO2 separation, and theyinclude the energy required:

1. For vaporization of water.2. For desorbing the carbon dioxide (i.e. reaction energy).3. For sensible heating of the sorbent.The model also accounts for CO2compression energy and auxiliary loads. The sorbent rich loading is

defined as the weight percentage of CO2in the rich sorbent leaving the absorber column. The sorbent leanloading is defined as the weight percentage of CO2in the lean sorbent leaving the desorber column. Thesorbent net loading is defined as the difference between the rich loading and the lean loading and is

obtained from lab-scale experiments. The lab-scale isotherm data indicate that sorbent net loading of 8%is achievable with GAP-0. The key assumptions for the CO2separation unit utilizing the GAP-0 sorbentare listed in Table 2.

Table 2.Parameters used in the baseline (GAP-0).Parameter Value

Temperature of flue gas after direct contact cooler (oC) 32

Absorber temperature (oC) 49

Absorber pressure (bar) 1,03Desorber temperature (oC) 127

Desorber pressure (bar) 13,8Rich-lean heat exchanger temperature approach (oC) 5,5

The GAP-0 sorbent utilizes less energy than the MEA sorbent due to lower water in the sorbent mixtureand a low specific heat of the sorbent.

Low water in the sorbent mixtureThe model accounts for absorption of water in the flue gas by the MEA sorbent and the vaporization of

water in the desorber column. The baseline MEA sorbent concentrations are limited to 20-30% and theremaining is water due to viscosity and corrosion issues. The water in the sorbent necessitates significantamount of energy due to sensible heat as well as vaporization of the water.

Low specific heat of the sorbentThe specific heat of GAP-0 is 2,3 kJ/kg-C while the specific heat of MEA is 3,73 kJ/kg-C. The lower

specific heat for GAP-0 improves the energy efficiency of the process.

8/12/2019 1-s2.0-S1876610212010971-main

6/12


3

v

T

4

a

c

a

a

e

0

s

c

.3.Design ofThe param

alues are giv

able 3. Design o

Desor

Net l

Heat

Rich l

.MonoethaThe investi

state-of-the

haracterized

bsorber colu

bsorber inter

specially sig

,28 mol CO2/

tripped from

ooled down

ateSep (ra

Fig.

Experiment (

ters that we

n below (see

f Experiment (D

ption pressur

ading (%)

f reaction (k

ean heat exc

olamine (M

ated captureart and de

by high ene

n the CO2c

cooler was c

ificant at hi

mol MEA). I

the solution.

nd sent bac

e-based distil

2. MEA capture

DOE)

e varied for

Table 3 ).

OE) for GAP-0.

(bar)

/kg)

anger temper

A) capture

configuratioonstrated te

gy requirem

ntained in th

osen to imp

h CO2conce

the desorbe

inally, purif

to the abso

lation). Fig.

process

the design o

ature approac

consists of achnology. T

nts, thermal

e flue gas rea

rove the exo

ntrations (hi

, the reactio

ed CO2is se

ber. The pla

shows the ca

experiment

M

15

7

1

h (C)

n absorber we selected

degradation

cts with the a

thermic abso

her than 8%

is reversed a

t for compre

t was model

pture process

and the mea

ean Stan

,85

,3

68

1

th intercoolesolvent is 3

above 125

queous MEA

ption reactio

and high le

nd the absorb

ssion while t

ed with Asp

flow diagra

and standar

ard deviatio

3,45

2

186

5,5

and a stripp0%wt MEA,

and corrosi

. The configu

n. This impr

n loadings (

ed CO2is he

e regenerate

n Plus 7.1

.

deviation

n

r, which iswhich is

ion. In the

ration with

ovement is

igher than

ted up and

solvent is

and Aspen

8/12/2019 1-s2.0-S1876610212010971-main

7/12


s

a

d

a

a

t

f

r

i

c

r

s

a

T

F

One simple

udies that s

pproach of F

he flue gas b

uty is higher

lower outlet

nd the abso

utomatically

e same quan

om the stripp

The strippe

boiler temp

creases, the

ompression

boiler, whic

percritical c

t 45C.Fig. 3

able 4.Paramete

ig. 3. CO2captur

train is use

ggest the u

luor that prop

lower is set u

but the absor

pressure is a

ber. Table 4

aried to ach

tity of CO2t

er outlet is th

pressure is

rature varies

driving for

ork. Howev

h increases

nditions (15

shows the C

rs used in the ba

apture ratio

tripper press

tripper heig

olumns dia

emperature

tripper cond

acking type

e process flow di

to process a

e of two ab

oses the con

stream of th

er of flue ga

tomatically

shows the

eve 90% cap

at was captu

e same as the

et to 1.9 bar

from 114C

es to strip

r, a higher s

he energy p

bar) by usi

2compressi

eline (MEA).

Par

ure (bar)

t (m)

eter conditio

f flue gas an

nser tempera

agram

ll the exhaus

orber trains

truction of b

flash cooler.

s inlet tempe

designed to

fixed parame

ure in the ab

ed in the abs

absorber sol

o avoid possi

and 120C,

the CO2 are

ripper worki

enalty. After

g a 6-stage i

n process flo

meter

solvent at a

ture (C)

t gases from

and one stri

gger absorbe

. Compared t

ature is redu

vercome the

ters used in

sorber. The s

rption colu

ent inlet.

ble MEA de

epending on

enhanced,

ng pressure

the capture

tegrally gea

w diagram.

sorber inlet

the power pl

per [7], [8]

r diameters t

the downstr

ed, enhancin

pressure dro

the simulati

ripping proc

n. Therefore,

radation (125

the loading.

reducing the

eeds better q

process, the

ed compress

V

80%

4

4

FLEXI

ant. In spite

this study

reduce capit

am position,

the absorpti

s in the flue

n. The solv

ss is designe

the solvent l

C). At this p

As the stripp

reboiler dut

uality steam

CO2 is co

r train with i

alue

0%

1,9

10

looding

0C

0C

AC 1Y

f previous

ollows the

al cost [9].

the blower

on process.

gas cooler

ent rate is

d to desorb

an loading

ressure the

er pressure

y and the

to feed the

pressed to

tercooling

8/12/2019 1-s2.0-S1876610212010971-main

8/12


4.1.Design of Experiment (DOE)In order to evaluate the behavior of the capture plant under different flue gas conditions, three

variables were selected: lean loading, absorber height and heat exchanger temperature approach. The leanloading and the heat exchanger temperature approach affect the energy requirements in the stripper, in

particular the sensible and the latent heat. The absorber height affects significantly the absorption capacityand water cooling load in the absorber and just slightly the energy requirement in the stripper. Table 5shows the selected parameters for the design of experiments.For the sake of brevity not all steps of theSix Sigma methodology are shown.

Lean loadingThe lean loading is defined as the molar ratio of CO2to MEA in the absorber inlet solvent stream. A

low lean loading means a high capacity of the solvent to absorb CO2, but also a lower CO2 partialpressure at the bottom of the stripper which means a higher amount of energy to desorb CO2. Althoughother studies consider lean loading levels higher than 0,3 mol CO2/mol MEA [4], [10], the market preferslower loading levels to reduce the absorber capital cost. Based on previous experience and data found inthe literature [7], [8], the selected most likely values for the lean loading are 0,25, 0,27 and 0,29 for Case

1, 2 and 3 respectively, see Table 5. It is important to note that while these are most likely values,optimizing the lean loading for each case was not in the scope of this work.

Absorber heightThe absorber height was varied for the three flue gas conditions. As the CO2concentration of the flue

gas increases, higher solvent rate is needed to achieve 90% capture rate. While the diameter of thecolumns is automatically designed to achieve 80% flooding, it is still necessary to adapt the height to theincreasing solvent rate for the different flue gas conditions. Based on previous experience and data foundin the literature [7], [8], the most likely absorber heights are 15, 20 and 25 m for Case 1, 2 and 3respectively.

Heat exchanger temperature approachThe cold side temperature approach of the heat exchanger considerably affects the sensible heatrequirements in the reboiler duty. Recent papers [10] show the possibility of using 5C instead of 10C toimprove the performance of the plant. This reduction leads to a strong increase in the capital cost. Thesuitability of using a smaller or higher temperature approach will be determined by the business plan. Inthis investigation the selected most likely value for the heat exchanger temperature approach is 9C andthat agrees with another study [11].

Table 5.Design of Experiment (DOE) for MEAMean Standard

deviationCase 1 Case 2 Case 3

Absorber height (m) 15 20 25 1Lean loading (mol CO2 / mol MEA) 0,25 0,27 0,29 0,005

Heat exchanger approach (C) 9 9 9 0,8

8/12/2019 1-s2.0-S1876610212010971-main

9/12


5.Equivalent workAs the energy requirements for the phase-changing absorbent and MEA varied qualitatively, the

concept of specific equivalent work was used for comparing the performance of the capture technologies.The specific equivalent work has been used in the literature to compare the overall energy requirements(heating, electricity) of different process configurations, capture technologies or solvents [4], [6], [12].Rochelle et al. define the specific equivalent work as the sum of the electric power consumed in the

process (CO2compressor, pumps, flue gas blower, others) and the work that otherwise could be generatedwith the steam condensing in the reboiler, assuming a 75% Carnot efficiency (see Equation 2).

Weq=

(2)

While the specific equivalent work as defined above might be useful to compare capture technologieswithout the need for specifying details of the power plant, it does not fully describe the overall energy

penalty. In particular the first term of the equation, defined as the work that could be generated with thesteam condensing in the reboiler (THeating), assumes that the steam extracted from the power plant issaturated and that the heating process is isothermal. However, extraction steam at the specific pressurerequired in the reboiler (~3 bar) rarely occurs in most of todays steam power plants and when it occurs isin superheated condition. This means that the actual extraction temperature is much higher than thesaturation temperature required in the reboiler (max. 125C for MEA to avoid solvent degradation) andtherefore the extracted steam should be desuperheated. This desuperheating effect is though not describedin Equation 2.

An alternative to account for the desuperheating effect in the specific equivalent work is suggestedhere (see Fig. 4). The approach of converting the heating requirements of the capture plant into specific

equivalent work is accomplished in two steps. In the first step, the needed steam flow is calculated inThermoflex based on the heat requirements of the desorption process (Q) and the conditions of theextraction steam. It is assumed that the reboiler has a pinch temperature of 10C and therefore therequired steam temperature should be 10C higher than the reboiler temperature. As such, the conditionsof the steam required for the desorption process with MEA are 2,7 bar/130C, 2,6 bar/128,8C and 2,5

bar/127,6C for cases 1, 2 and 3 respectively. For the phase-changing absorbent the conditions of therequired steam are 2,47 bar/127C. Regarding retrofit and greenfield applications, it is assumed that theextraction steam conditions in both cases are different. For retrofit applications extraction steamconditions are assumed to be those of state-of-the-art supercritical steam power plants, i.e. 5 bar / 291C(Case 11 from DOE/NETL report [1]). For greenfield applications it is assumed that future steam power

plants will be designed to have steam extraction close to the conditions required for the desorptionprocess, i.e. 3,1 bar/135C. Note that as the pressure and temperature of the available steam are higherthan required, a throttle valve and a desuperheater are used to ensure the right conditions. Throttling anddesuperheating the extraction steam have been commonly used in the CCS literature [1]-[3].

Once the amount of extraction steam is estimated, the second step is calculating the equivalent powerthat could be otherwise generated. For this purpose a simplified process layout including a low-pressuresteam turbine, a condenser and water pumps was built in Thermoflex. A condenser pressure of 0,069

bar (1 psia) and a dry step efficiency of 90% for the steam turbine are assumed. Although the described

8/12/2019 1-s2.0-S1876610212010971-main

10/12


t

a

p

a

6

a

s

d

4

s

f

o-steps app

ccount for th

ressure drop

Fig.

The modifi

Weq=

Where WEqddition to th

ater cooling

WCD =

.Results anResults for

nd MEA are

pecific water

efined in the

.1. Results in

pecific equiv

or MEA capt

oach accoun

e effect of r

t the inlet an

. Two-steps app

d expression

.Turbine is thespecific eq

load is define

discussion

specific equ

shown in Fig.

cooling load

Design of Ex

dicate that fo

lent work ne

re.

ts for the de

nning the L

d reduced effi

oach for calculat

for the speci

equivalent pivalent work,

d as follows:

valent work

5. The figur

within one st

eriment (DO

all flue gas

cessary to op

uperheating

turbine in o

ciency).

ing the specific e

ic equivalent

wer calculat the specific

and specific

shows the v

ndard deviati

E) for each c

onditions stu

rate phase-ch

effect in the

ff-design for

quivalent work.

work is show

d in the twwater coolin

water coolin

ariability in t

on (1 sigma

pture techno

died in both r

anging absor

specific equi

retrofit cases

n in followin

-steps appro load is also

load for ph

e specific eq

) based on va

ogy and expl

etrofit and gr

ents is expe

alent work,

(effects incl

equation:

ch describeestimated. T

se-changing

ivalent wor

riation in the

ained in secti

enfield appli

ted to be low

it does not

de mainly

above. Inhe specific

absorbents

and in the

parameters

ons 3.3 and

cations, the

er than that

(3)

(4)

8/12/2019 1-s2.0-S1876610212010971-main

11/12


o

f

a

a

o

a

c

c

a

d

c

s

4

cs

s

c

7

s

s

r

Reduced e

f three main

or non-absor

bsorption an

nd 3) lower

ccurs at a

bsorbents is

oncentration

EA retrofit,

ases the spe

pplications,

esorption pro

With regar

oncentration

pecific water

mole% CO

ooling load tpecific water

EA capture

tandard devia

hanging abso

Fig. 5. (a) Comp

.ConclusionGE is activ

O2 from po

tate-of-the-ar

tate-of-the-ar

etrofit applica

ergy require

actors: 1) les

ing co-solve

desorption a

O2compress

ressure high

expected to

in flue gas t

at 13 mole%

cific equival

s it is assu

cess in green

to the speci

for both pha

cooling load

concentrati

han MEA recooling load,

and therefor

tion of the sp

rbent was ab

arison of specifi

s

ely investiga

er plants w

processes. T

monoethan

tions.

ents are exp

heat is requi

ts that shoul

oids the ther

ion power is

er than ME

e more pron

e specific e

CO2the redu

ent work fo

ed that the

ield cases tha

fic water co

se-changing

is 8% lower

ns phase-ch

pectively. Inthe level of

higher unce

ecific equival

ut 0,05 MJ/k

equivalent wor

ting and dev

th potential

his investiga

lamine (ME

ected for pha

red in the des

be heated (

mal separatio

equired as th

(~16 bar).

ounced at hi

uivalent wor

ction could b

r MEA in

conditions

n in retrofit c

ling load, th

absorbents a

or MEA than

nging absor

spite of offaturity of th

rtainty in pe

ent work in

-CO2.

; (b) Compariso

loping novel

ower energy

ion compare

) capture f

se-changing

orption proce

ater in the c

n and distillat

e desorption

This impro

gher CO2 co

k of phase-c

e as high as 4

reenfield ap

f extraction

ases.

lowest obse

d MEA cap

for phase-ch

ent presente

ring potentiae phase-chan

formance is

EA was abo

of specific wat

technologies

requirements

the perform

r different f

bsorbent co

ss as a pure a

ase of MEA),

ion processes

rocess in the

ed perform

centrations.

anging abso

2%. It is imp

plications is

steam are

rvable value

ture. At this

nging absor

d 5% and 6

l lower speciing absorbe

expected. Fo

t 0,010 MJ/

r cooling load.

for both ca

and environ

ance of phas

ue gas cond

pared to M

sorbent avoi

2) phase cha

needed in M

phase-changi

nce of phas

hile at 4

bent is 25%

rtant to note

lower than

ore appropri

occurs at 8

CO2 concen

ent. Howeve

lower spe

ic equivalent is certainly

instance the

g-CO2, while

turing and c

ental impa

-changing ab

tions in gre

A because

ds the need

nge during

EA capture

ng concept

e-changing

ole% CO2

lower than

that for all

in retrofit

ate for the

ole% CO2

ration, the

, at 13 and

cific water

work andlower than

calculated

for phase-

mpressing

t less than

sorbents to

nfield and

8/12/2019 1-s2.0-S1876610212010971-main

12/12


Results indicate that depending on the flue gas conditions, the specific equivalent work necessary foroperating phase-changing absorbents is expected to be up to 40% lower than for MEA capture. Besideslower energy requirements, a potential reduction of up to 6% in specific water cooling load might beexpected for phase-changing absorbent over MEA, for the cases of 4 and 13 mole% CO2 concentrations.However, as the level of maturity of the alternative capture technology is certainly lower than MEAcapture, higher uncertainty in performance is expected.

Acknowledgements

The information, data, or work presented herein was funded in part by the Advanced ResearchProjects Agency - Energy (ARPA-E), U.S. Department of Energy under the following contract: Award

Number DE-AR0000084 in collaboration with University of Pittsburgh.

Disclaimer: "The information, data, or work presented herein was funded in part by an agency of theUnited States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any oftheir employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any information, apparatus, product,or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe on privately owned rights. Reference

herein any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, orotherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by theUnited States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein donot necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government of any agency thereof."

References

[1] DOE/NETL. Cost and performance baseline for fossil energy plants, Volume 1: bituminous coal and natural gas to electricity.Revision 2; 2010.

[2] Galindo Cifre P, Brechtel K, Hoch S, Garcia H, Asprion N, Hasse H, Scheffknecht G. Integration of a chemical process modelin a power plant modeling tool for the simulation of an amine based CO 2scrubber.Fuel 2009; 88:2481-2488.

[3] Korkmaz , Oeljeklaus G, Grner K. Analysis of retrofitting coal-fired power plants with carbon dioxide capture. EnergyProcedia2009; 1: 1289-1295

[4] Plaza J M, Van Wagener D, Rochelle G T. Modeling CO2capture with aqueous monoethanolamine. International Journal ofGreenhouse Gas Control 2010; 4: 161-166

[5] Kothandaraman A, Nord L, Bolland O, Herzog HJ, McRae GJ. Comparison of solvents for post-combustion capture of CO2bychemical absorption.Energy Procedia 2009; 1: 1373-1380

[6] Oyenekan B A, Rochelle G T. Stripper models for CO2capture by aqueous solvents. Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies2005; 7: 1861-1864

[7] Berstad D, Arasto A, Jordal K, Haugen G. Parametric study and benchmarking of NGCC, coal and biomass power cyclesintegrated with MEA-based post-combustion CO2 capture.Energy Procedia2011; 4: 1737-1744

[8] Lawal A, Wang M, Stephenson P, Obi O. Demonstrating full-scale post-combustion CO2 capture for coal-fired power plantsthrough dynamic modelling and simulation.Fuel2010. Article in Press.

[9] Reddy S, Johnson D, Gilmartin J. Fluors Econamine FG PlusSM technology for CO2 capture at coal-fired power plants. Airand Waste Management Association - 7th Power Plant Air Pollutant Control 'Mega' Symposium 20081, pp. 63-79

[10] Van Wagener D H, Rochelle G T. Stripper configurations for CO2 capture by aqueous monoethanolamine and piperazine. Energy Procedia2011; 4: 1323-1330

[11] Schach M O, Schneider R, Schramm H, Repke J U. Exergoeconomic Analysis of Post-Combustion CO2 Capture Processes.Computer Aided Chemical Engineering2010; 28: 997-1002

[12] Rochelle G T, et Al. CO2capture by absorption with potassium carbonate.DOE Report, DE-FC26-02NT41440; 2007

1-s2.0-S1876610212010971-main

Documents

Transcript of 1-s2.0-S1876610212010971-main