4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

CO2 capture from power plants -: Part II.: A parametric study of the economical performance based on mono-ethanolamine

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREENHOUSE GAS CONTROL
Volume 1, Issue 2, Pages 135-142

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S1750-5836(07)00032-1

Keywords

CO2 capture; absorption process; MEA; ASPEN plus; economics

Ask authors/readers for more resources

While the demand for reduction in CO2 emission is increasing, the cost of the CO2 capture processes remains a limiting factor for large-scale application. Reducing the cost of the capture system by improving the process and the solvent used must have a priority in order to apply this technology in the future. In this paper, a definition of the economic baseline for post-combustion CO2 capture from 600 MWe bituminous coal-fired power plant is described. The baseline capture process is based on 30% (by weight) aqueous solution of monoethanolamine (MEA). A process model has been developed previously using the Aspen Plus simulation programme where the baseline CO2-removal has been chosen to be 90%. The results from the process modelling have provided the required input data to the economic modelling. Depending on the baseline technical and economical results, an economical parameter study for a CO2 capture process based on absorption/desorption with MEA solutions was performed. Major capture cost reductions can be realized by optimizing the lean solvent loading, the amine solvent concentration, as well as the stripper operating pressure. A minimum CO2 avoided cost of (sic) 33 tonne(-1) CO2 was found for a lean solvent loading of 0.3 mol CO2/Mol MEA, using a 40 wt.% MEA solution and a stripper operating pressure of 210 kPa. At these conditions 3.0 GJ/tonne CO2 of thermal energy was used for the solvent regeneration. This translates to a (sic) 22 MWh(-1) increase in the cost of electricity, compared to (sic) 31.4 MWh(-1) for the power plant without capture. (C) 2007 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