4.7 Article

A study of the CO2 capture pilot plant by amine absorption

期刊

ENERGY
卷 47, 期 1, 页码 41-46

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2012.07.016

关键词

Carbon dioxide capture; Monoethanolamine; Test bed(2 ton-CO2/day)

资金

  1. Power Generation & Electricity Delivery of the Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP)
  2. Ministry of Knowledge Economy, Republic of Korea [2010201020006A]
  3. Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology (KEIT) [2010201020006A] 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

A pilot plant for CO2 recovery of 2 ton-CO2/day from flue gas emitted from a 500 MW coal fired power plant was tested with aqueous amine absorbents. Based on a chemical absorption/regeneration process with 30 wt% aqueous monoethanolamine (MEA) solution, we studied the CO2 recovery as a function of flow rate and input location of absorbent, pressure and temperature of stripper, and temperature of flue gas. Experimental data include the temperature profile of the absorber/stripper and CO2 lean/rich loading values, which remained stable during the operation. We evaluated the energy requirement for regeneration of aqueous amine and the degree of CO2 removal. While regeneration energy of aqueous amine increased with an increase in flue gas temperature and stripper pressure, it decreased with an increase in injection height of absorbent. The optimum point in flow rate of absorbent was 1300 kg/h in 350 Sm-3/h flue gas. The regeneration energy using 30 wt% MEA solution was 3.92 GJ/ton CO2 in 90% CO2 removal, flue gas temperature of 40 degrees C, stripper pressure of 0.5 kgf/cm(2) and L/G ratio of 3.7 kg/Sm-3. In addition, corrosion rate of the pilot plant were measured in six points. It is the largest as 79.11 mpy in the bottom of the stripper tower. (C) 2012 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