4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Worst case scenario study to assess the environmental impact of amine emissions from a CO2 capture plant

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREENHOUSE GAS CONTROL
Volume 5, Issue 3, Pages 439-447

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2010.11.001

Keywords

Amines; Carbon capture; Safety limits; Critical load; Photo-oxidation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Use of amines is one of the leading technologies for post-combustion carbon dioxide capture from gas and coal-fired power plants. This study assesses the potential environmental impact of emissions to air that result from use of monoethanol amine (MEA) as an absorption solvent for the capture of carbon dioxide (CO2). Depending on operation conditions and installed reduction technology, emissions of MEA to the air due to solvent volatility losses are expected to be in the range of 0.01-0.8 kg/tonne CO2 captured. Literature data for human and environmental toxicity, together with atmospheric dispersion model calculations, were used to derive maximum tolerable emissions of amines from CO2 capture. To reflect operating conditions with typical and with elevated emissions, we defined a scenario MEA-LOW, with emissions of 40 t/year MEA and 5 t/year diethyl amine (DEYA), and a scenario MEA-HIGH, with emissions of 80 t/year MEA and 15 t/year DEYA. Maximum MEA deposition fluxes would exceed toxicity limits for aquatic organisms by about a factor of 3-7 depending on the scenario. Due to the formation of nitrosamines and nitramines, the estimated emissions of DEYA are close to or exceed safety limits for drinking water and aquatic ecosystems. The worst case scenario approach to determine maximum tolerable emissions of MEA and other amines is in particular useful when both expected environmental loads and the toxic effects are associated with high uncertainties. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available