4.8 Review

Modeling of CO2 capture via chemical absorption processes - An extensive literature review

Journal

RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS
Volume 50, Issue -, Pages 547-566

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.124

Keywords

Chemical absorption; CCS; Rate-based model; Dynamic modeling; CO2

Funding

  1. Laboratory of Applied Thermodynamics, Thermal Engineering Section, School of Mechanical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Climate change mainly due to the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is getting alarming dimensions. CO2 capture from point source emissions is a promising solution, lately receiving significant attention. In particular, chemical absorption of CO2 from flue gases using aqueous solvents (mainly alkanolamines) is a well-known process, studied in detail. Modern research aims to optimize this process, maximizing the absorption rates and minimizing the parasitic but not negligible energy requirements for solvent regeneration. This type of analysis requires considering the coupling of the absorption with the power plant operation or other source of CO2. The operation fluctuations and disturbances, such as load variations or start-up mode have to be reflected in the process modeling, justifying the emerging need for dynamic modeling. However, dynamic analysis is not always realizable as dynamic experimental data are scarce in order to enable accurate model validation. Thus, steady state models are still convenient for certain cases. The current work provides a short description of the main modeling approaches followed and enlists representative steady state and dynamic models found in literature. Finally, a primary comparison is performed for some comparable models that used the same set of experimental data for model validation. (C) 2015 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

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available