4.7 Article

Techno-economic process design of a commercial-scale amine-based CO2 capture system for natural gas combined cycle power plant with exhaust gas recirculation

期刊

APPLIED THERMAL ENGINEERING
卷 103, 期 -, 页码 747-758

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.04.145

关键词

Exhaust gas recirculation; Natural-gas power plant; Process design; Economic analysis

资金

  1. University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore Pakistan
  2. University of Sheffield, UK
  3. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/K000446/1, EP/K000446/2, EP/M001482/1, EP/K02115X/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. EPSRC [EP/M001482/1, EP/K02115X/1, EP/K000446/2, EP/K000446/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Post-combustion CO2 capture systems are gaining more importance as a means of reducing escalating greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, for natural gas-fired power generation systems, exhaust gas recirculation is a method of enhancing the CO2 concentration in the lean flue gas. The present study reports the design and scale-up of four different cases of an amine-based CO2 capture system at 90% capture rate with 30 wt.% aqueous solution of MEA. The design results are reported for a natural gas-fired combined cycle system with a gross power output of 650 MWe without EGR and with EGR at 20%, 35% and 50% EGR percentage. A combined process and economic analysis is implemented to identify the optimum designs for the different amine-based CO2 capture plants. For an amine-based CO2 capture plant with a natural gas-fired combined cycle without EGR, an optimum liquid to gas ratio of 0.96 is estimated. Incorporating EGR at 20%, 35% and 50%, results in optimum liquid to gas ratios of 1.22, 1.46 and 1.90, respectively. These results suggest that a natural gas-fired power plant with exhaust gas recirculation will result in lower penalties in terms of the energy consumption and costs incurred on the amine-based CO2 capture plant. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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