4.7 Article

Energy minimization in monoethanolamine-based CO2 capture using capacitive deionization

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESEARCH
卷 38, 期 12, 页码 1531-1540

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/er.3168

关键词

CO2 capture; capacitive deionization; post-combustion; energy minimization

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) [NRF-2011-0017220]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [2011-0017220] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Post-combustion CO2 capture using monoethanolamine (MEA) is a mature technology; however, the high energy input requirements for solvent regeneration are still a challenge for MEA-based CO2 capture. In this paper, a novel approach is presented in which a conventional CO2 absorption-desorption system is integrated with capacitive deionization (CDI) in such a way to minimize the heat duty requirement of the stripper. The CO2-rich solution drawn from the absorber column is first sent to CDI where ionic species are adsorbed at oppositely charged electrodes during the charging cycle, and an ion-free solution is sent back to the absorber. The adsorbed ions released during the regeneration cycle are sent to the stripper column. The concentrated solution from the CDI process that was sent to the stripper required low heat duty to regenerate the solvent because of the high CO2 loading of the solution. The feasibility of the suggested modelling technique is verified at various stripper inlet temperatures and lean CO2 loadings. The results indicate that 10-45% of the total energy supplied to the stripper can be conserved at a lean CO2 loading of 0.0000-0.0323 using the suggested process model. Moreover, the required size of the stripper column will be small due to the small volume of the concentrated ionic solutions from the CDI cell, eliminating the initial cost of the CO2 capture system. Copyright (c) 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据