3.8 Proceedings Paper

Cost optimised CO2 capture from aluminium production

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.egypro.2014.07.021

关键词

Aluminum production; CO2 capture; MEA; cost estimation; Aspen Hysys

资金

  1. Norwegian Research Council (the Climit program)
  2. Aker Clean Carbon AS
  3. Elkem Thamshavn AS
  4. E. ON Sverige AB Hydro Aluminium AS
  5. NOAH AS
  6. Norcem AS
  7. Noretyl AS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The process gas from aluminium production generally has a CO2 concentration close to 1 vol%, which is usually considered too low for economically viable CO2 capture. Changes made to the current technology, the Hall-Heroult, together with advances in mechanical and automotive components can facilitate for a higher CO2 concentration in the process gas. However, the assessment of the feasibility of achieving this is outside of the scope of this article. The aim of the work presented in this article is to investigate the optimal CO2 concentration from a CO2 capture perspective. Capture of CO2 from aluminum production has been simulated using CO2 concentrations of 1, 4, 7 and 10 vol%, the current 1 vol% case is included for references purposes. Generic MEA based CO2 capture models have been built-up in Aspen Hysys and Aspen Plus. The results from these simulations provide input to the cost estimation of the CO2 capture process. Based on the results from the economic assessment with the current assumptions, the overall recommendation is to increase the CO2 concentration to 4 vol%. Further increase to 7 and 10 vol% shows only minor savings potential. In addition, the potential for extracting energy from the process gas for utilization in the CO2 capture process has been assessed. The results show that the highest capture rate, around 55 %, can be achieved, further affirming that the optimal CO2 concentration in the process gas is 4 vol%. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).

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

3.8
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