A Simulation Study of The Effect of Post-Combustio

Discover Sustainability
Research
A simulation study of the effect of post‑combustion amine‑based

carbon‑capturing integrated with solar thermal collectors
for combined cycle gas power plant
Amir Ayyad1,2 · Ayman Abbas2 · Nabil Elminshawy2,3
Received: 28 January 2021 / Accepted: 15 February 2021

© The Author(s) 2021 OPEN
Abstract
Post-combustion carbon capture with solvent designed to sequestrate carbon from power plant is a promising and well-
known technology. However, a vital drawback is the reduction of the power plant output due to the energy required
to separate captured CO2 from the solvent, known as a re-boiler duty. In this paper, two configurations were simulated
and economically examined to mitigate the re-boiler duty and power loss from the 495 MW West Damietta power plant,
Egypt. The first approach is to increase carbon concentrations in the feed to carbon capture plant by recycling part of
exhaust gas back to the combustion chamber with different ratios (0%–35%), the second approach is implementing
parabolic-trough solar collectors to handle the reboiler load instead of low-pressure steam extracted from the power
plant. Both power and C O2 capturing plants were simulated using Aspen Hysys. Parabolic trough solar collector plant was
simulated using system advisor model software. The results revealed that increasing carbon content led to a remarkable
decrease in reboiler duty by up to around 20%. It was also found that integrating the solar plant with thermal storage
system highly improved the optimum production compared to plant without thermal storage. Carbon increase also
affected the levelized cost of energy which had 1.39% reduction and 6% decrease in carbon cost of avoidance using
35% recirculation ratio.
Keywords Carbon emissions · Post-combustion capture · Exhaust gas recirculation · Solar heating · Combined cycle gas
turbine
1 Literature review
The crucial issue for each nation’s sustainable economic growth is energy. However, the balance of economic growth and
protection of environment is always an inevitable challenge for the sustainable development of the human population
worldwide. Rapid economic growth has gradually increased demand for energy in recent years, through low cost, high
calorific value fossil fuels, such as coal and natural gas which are commonly used in power plants [1]. The concern is that
emissions of greenhouse gases contribute to global warming, rising sea levels and other environmental effects. In 2015,
countries around the world signed the Paris Agreement calling for lower CO2 emissions to slowdown the increase in
average global temperature. Renewable energies are green sources that escalate with a noticeable rate [2]. However, in
the near term, fossil-based fuels will be the primary selection for most energy applications. Combined cycle gas turbine
(CCGT) power generation plants currently account for more than 20% of global electricity production and the efficiency
* Amir Ayyad, ayaad.a@hotmail.com | 1Operations Department, Egyptian Methanex Methanol Company (EMethanex), Cairo,
Egypt. 2Mechanical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, The British University in Egypt, El-Shorouk City, Cairo 11837,
Egypt. 3Mechanical Power Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Portsaid University, Portsaid 42526, Egypt.
Discover Sustainability (2021) 2:9 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-021-00018-x
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Research Discover Sustainability (2021) 2:9 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-021-00018-x
of CCGT plants can reach up to 55–60% [3, 4]. To reach the desired CO2 reduced emissions, CCGT power plants equipped
with CO2 capture and sequestration unit will be a vital solution to be used. Carbon capture and utilization technologies
are categorized into three sections, pre-combustion capture, post-combustion capture (PPC) and oxy-fuel combustion
capture [5, 6]. Among these technologies, post combustion capture eliminates the need for major to existing combustion
processes and facilities; thus, it provides a way for near-term CO2 capture for existing stationary fossil fuel-based power
plants and can be used for new ones in future with further advancement of the technology [7]. Different types underlie
post-combustion carbon capture such as MEA-solvent based chemical absorption process [8], adsorption process [9],
membrane technology [10] and temperature swing adsorption [11]. Post-combustion CO2 capture based on monoeth-
anol-amine (MEA) is one of the most feasible approaches and recognized as the first choice for most demonstration
projects due to its high technical maturity, large-scale applicability, good absorption effect and strong ability to remove
CO2 from low CO2 concentration flue gas and very effective when integrating with CCGT power plant [12]. The current
commercially available gas turbine technologies, CCGT with post combustion capture systems have been reported to
have higher thermal efficiencies, and appear likely to give low total electricity costs and incurs lower capital costs, when
compared with pre-combustion capture and oxy-fuel technology [13]. However, flue gases from natural gas-fired power
plants raise challenges for post combustion capture technologies due to the relatively low C O2 concentration which
decreases partial pressure of CO2 and then escalates the required reboiler duty which will finally impact net plant effi-
ciency [14]. The main drawback that appears when integrating a post-combustion carbon capture unit with CCGT is the
high reduction in power plant efficiency due to solvent regeneration requirement and auxiliaries load of the capture unit.
Energy consumption due to integrating PCC can be decreased by adjusting the configuration of the system structure.
For instance, the exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) process has demonstrated that CO2 concentration is increased in flue
gas, the power penalty is relatively decreased and overall performance of the power plant is enhanced. Various studies
were conducted on the amount of energy deducted from different types of power plants integrated with distinct PCC
technologies were found to range from 20 to 60% of the overall output power [15].
Integration of PPC using 30 wt% MEA absorption technology with power plants has shown a notable reduction in
net efficiency with 9.7%. The highest contributor of the total thermal energy losses was for reboiler heat duty required
to regenerate the solvent, compression of produced gaseous C O2 and the parasitic powers of PCC circulating pumps
[16]. Global contributions focused on two main bases to partially reduce the issues concerned with lost energy after
integrating PCC to power plants. The first pillar is increasing CO2 content in the feed of PCC unit by a replacing frac-
tion of the excess air entering combustion box by either circulation part of the exhaust gas, steam injection or water
vaporization to control the flame temperature and combustion gas produced after combustion chamber. Burning more
fuel which used as a comburant to the excess air in exhaust gas. Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) is recycling part of the
exhaust gas back to the gas turbine inlet to be combusted with fuel and air. Process simulation models and experimental
works have been initiated for the effect of absorption process using monoethanolamine (MEA) with strength (30 wt%)
solution with water on the reboiler specific duty and size of contactor column with improving the CO2 levels in the inlet
gas, results from process models revealed that a notable reduction in specific reboiler duty happened when CO2 levels
rise to 6 vol%. Further, increase in the concentration of C O2, the specific reboiler duty still decreases but relatively slower
[17]. Jordán et al. [18] have showed that, using 40% of EGR ratio on 400 MWe CCGT integrated with MEA based capture
plant, will increase the CO2 levels in the inlet stream to PCC unit from 4.2 vol% to 7.05 vol% and also decrease the mass
flow rate of the feed entering the unit. As a result of that, the required thermal energy witnessed a reduction from 3.6 to
3.52 GJ/tCO2 and noticeable decrease 16% in levelized cost of energy (LCOE). Simulation work is done by Junjiang et al.
[19] on 391 M We CCGT equipped with solvent based post-combustion carbon capture plant. Integrating PCC with CCGT
has reduced power plant efficiency by 7.8%. They proposed three different configurations. First one involving EGR with
power plant and carbon capture plant, the results showed that applying 35% EGR decreased energy penalty percentage
from 13.95 to 12.46% and increased efficiency around 2%. The second one is recovering waste heat from the system
using double-pressure organic Rankine cycle (ORC), the power generation efficiency increased efficiency approximately
1%. The third configuration was using cold gas stream to generate power which increased efficiency by around 2.51%.
Agustín et al. [20] showed that EGR is a viable technique after increasing the efficiency of the CCGT power plant by 0.5%
points which reduced the reboiler duty and capture plant size.
Renewable energy has a high potential in decreasing energy penalties than the other strategies that were dis-
cussed. Renewable energy includes wind, photovoltaic and solar thermal. The potential of using solar energy in
industrial processes was reviewed and discussed in the work done by Sharma et al. [21] where solar energy is used
in a wide range of industries such as food processing, textile, pulp, paper, chemical, pharmaceutical, cement, and
leather products. The chemical industries which include distillation columns heated by a reboiler usually requires a
13
Vol:.(1234567890)

Discover Sustainability (2021) 2:9 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-021-00018-x Research
temperature range between (100–200 °C) and the heat transfer fluid used is usually hot water or steam. A life cycle
approach was studied by on 300 MWe coal-fired power plant integrated with PCC plant and assisted by Wang et al.
[22] using parabolic trough solar collectors they proposed two configurations, the first one is solar assisted plant
which directly heating regenerator reboiler and the second one solar assisted repowering stage applying thermal
energy for high pressure feedwater preheater. Results showed that, a high increase in LCOE in the case of reboiler
direct heating compared to the second system and the output power loss reduced about 16.62 MW while in the
second configuration, no energy loss was detected. Wang et al. [23] constructed a solar assisted pilot module to
test the performance of the system. Parabolic Trough Collector (PTC) and Linear Fresnel Reflector (LFR) were evalu-
ated to provide heat duty for solvent regeneration. The results showed that, the two types can handle the required
temperature. However, PTC expressed more efficiency than LFR. Lambert et al. [24] utilized solar energy by using
solar power tower to support CCGT integrated with a pre-combustion carbon capture unit. They also applied EGR
which took place after the compression stage of the gas turbine. EGR reduced the specific energy penalty from 15.3
to 13.6% and the renewable option was able to reduce energy loss associated with capture plant. Simulation model
carried by Asiri et al. [25] on 555 M We CCGT plant integrated with post combustion carbon capture plant using amine
located in Mexico. They adopted solar plant using parabolic trough solar collectors to assist post combustion carbon
capture with reboiler heat load 258 M Wth with and without thermal energy storage. Their results showed that the
most optimum design was applying (SkeyFuel Sky) collector with 6 h of thermal energy storage had the best energy
production for reboiler heat duty is 250 M Wth due to thermal energy storage (TES) compared to system without TES
which provided only 190 MWth.
According to the above literature review, the power loss after integrating carbon capture unit can be reduced by using
exhaust gas recirculation due to carbon dioxide increase that is reflected on the reboiler thermal load which is the main
cause of power plant penalty. Designing solar thermal plant to support 100% of the reboiler duty thermal load which
in return will minimize the parasitic loads. Moreover, through deep analysis of what was done in the above-mentioned
literature review. In this article, the researchers aimed to fill the gap that existed in the previous works. As none of the
preceding works had implemented a fully integrated system with carbon capture plant, increasing carbon concentra-
tion by using EGR, using solar thermal plant to take 100% of reboiler thermal load and study the impact of EGR on the
solar plant, designing CO2 onshore pipeline and calculating levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for the overall system based
on EGR ratios.
2 System description
The proposed system is integrating CCGT power plant with post-combustion carbon capture plant equipped with EGR
configuration and solar thermal plant using parabolic trough solar collectors to provide reboiler thermal load during
the available sun hours instead of extracting low-pressure steam from the power plant. CO2 is transported via onshore
pipeline to be used as a feedstock for petrochemical product. CCGT is composed of two gas turbines, steam turbines
and PCC have two main sections, CO2 absorption unit by MEA and CO2 compression section. A schematic process flow
diagram for CCGT integrated with PCC and compression is shown in Fig. 1.
2.1 Combined cycle gas turbine power plant description
The main components of the plant are an air compressor (AC), gas turbine (GT) and heat recovery steam generator
(HRSG) with two stage pressure steam turbines high pressure steam turbine (HPST) and low-pressure steam turbine
(LPST). The air is compressed by an axial air compressor and then mixed with natural gas in the combustion chamber
before to combustion. The flue gases resulted from the combustion will go through the turbine impellers and then drive
the turbine. The flue gases are discharged through HRSG to extract the remaining heat for water preheating and steam
generation. HRSG consists of two steam generation systems called low pressure evaporator and high-pressure evaporator,
it drives a steam turbine to generate electricity in form of a steam Rankine cycle. EGR configuration is the recycling of a
specified portion of the flue gas from the outlet of HRSG to the air compressor for mixing with fresh air. EGR enhances
CO2 concentration in the flue gas inlet to capture unit and reduces the penalty of the system with no big change in plant
main structure as mentioned before in the literature. A schematic diagram of the CCGT power plant is shown in Fig. 2.
13
Vol.:(0123456789)

Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of CCGT power plant with PCC process and EGR
13
Vol:.(1234567890)

Fig. 2 Schematic diagram of CCGT power plant
2.2 Post‑combustion carbon capture plant description
The PCC unit consists of CO2 capture and compression unit as shown in Fig. 3. The flue gas from the HRSG outlet is
introduced to the contactor or absorber column where absorption reaction takes place. The capture unit uses MEA
solvent with (30% wt) solution with water [18]. The CO2-free gas, called sweet gas, is discharged from the column
overhead to the atmosphere. However, the liquid containing CO2 is called a rich solution that leaves the tower from
the lower end and is preheated using the hot stream that left the regenerator tower to optimize the heat utilization of
the unit and then flows to the stripper column. C
O2 is separated from the regenerator overhead and solvent without
CO2 is called lean solvent is cooled and directed again to absorber tower. The traces of CO2 and water mixture from
stripper overhead are cooled and condensed and recycled back to the tower. The non-condensed phase which is
mainly CO2 is compressed and pumped through the onshore pipeline.
2.3 Solar industrial process heating
Industrial process heating (IPH) involves heating tool that provides heat transfer medium for specific user which
requires this heat for a final product. This heat can be transferred directly or indirectly, the direct method includes
13
Vol.:(0123456789)

Fig. 3 Schematic diagram of PCC unit
heating the desired material instantly, while the indirect requires another stream which is called heat transfer medium
is heated and then transfer the heat to the final destination. Implementing heat transfer medium in industrial process
heating relays on the type of application which requires the heat. The heat transfer fluid must have some features
which make it as a good option for most of the industries. These features such as: low vapor pressure, high heat
capacity, low viscosity, low degradation rate and less corrosive. Most of the heat transfer mediums used in industries
involves thermal oil, steam and pressurized water. Steam is the most dominant heat transfer fluid used in industrial
process. From the above literature review, it can be seen that the solar thermal plant is used as a mitigation method to
minimize the thermal load of the PCC plant. Solar energy utilized in the industrial process heating is one of the prom-
ising methods as an alternative option for energy supplier to a lot of oil importing countries. The steam is generated
by heating water in a heat exchanger. Parabolic trough solar collectors are used to collect solar heat, heat is picked
up by working fluid which is called heat transfer fluid (HTF) which extracts heat from the collectors, and then heats
the water until it converted into steam. The steam is finally directed to the PCC reboiler to regenerate the solvent.
2.3.1 Solar thermal plant with thermal energy storage
The higher energy requirement makes it economically useful to increase dispatchability in the device by thermal
storage combined with solar energy. The uses of thermal storage in the industry are demonstrated in Fig. 4. Thermal
energy storage (TES) is the most common source of energy supply for potential use by concentrating solar thermal
power plants. The primary driver of construction of a storage facility in solar power plants is also the transient quan-
tity of solar radiation. The solar thermal storage system typically comprises three main elements, storage medium,
heat transfer mechanism and containment system. The energy stored can take the form of sensible or latent heat or
even chemicals. The aim of the part of the process of heat transfer is to supply and collect energy from the media.
TES is used for containment to reduce system losses. Sensible heat storage involves materials such as molten salts
and synthetic oils. In this configuration the thermal energy is retained by increasing the temperature of the fluid.
The difference of heat and temperature during charging and discharging is used in this system. The quantity of
heat depends on the specific heat of the medium and the storage content. Latent heat systems are built based on
the principle of phase change in a material at a constant temperature. The storage process is nearly isothermal
13
Vol:.(1234567890)

Fig. 4 Schematic diagram of
SIPH supporting plant
which provides a higher amount of energy compared to sensible heat storage system. This is very beneficial when
combined with solar thermal plants to reduce system intermittences.
2.3.2 System design description
The full heat demand for the amine regeneration is provided by the solar field which will support 100% of the thermal
load of carbon capture plant. Figure 4 illustrates the configuration of the solar thermal plant with TES that fulfils reboiler
duty. The system actually composed of three main parts; the solar field to collect heat from the sun, a reboiler to extract
the required heat load for carbon capture unit and a thermal storage system to save energy for later use. The two tanks
(hot and cold) configuration to store energy was assumed in this study to improve the intermittency in the system. The
hot tank holds a high temperature thermal fluid, while the cold tank holds the cold recycled fluid after the energy was
extracted by the reboiler. The solar field charging process is based on direct or indirect methods. The difference between
them is the medium used. Indirect method involves two tank system using a thermal storage media in addition to HTF.
This will require additional heat exchanger to transfer heat between the two fluids. In this study direct energy storge
was used. The CSP models concerned with IPH have some differences from the original models which involve electric-
ity production. In concentrated solar plant with electricity production, the solar plant is coupled to the normal steam
Rankine cycle thermal power block where both produces steam and generate electricity, but in case of the IPH model
the power block section is ignored where the solar field energy is used to provide direct steam or heating for different
13
Vol.:(0123456789)

thermal processes. In cloudy days the plant is backed up with TES system. In case of TES is not working or unable to be
charged during winter, reboiler duty is supplied by the low-pressure steam cross-over point and it will affect the power
plant output power accordingly.
3 Research methodology
3.1 Model establishment
To analyze the system with fewer complications, the following assumptions are considered in the simulation, in order to
help the solver converging smoothly specially heat exchanger module.
1) CCGT is simulated in the steady state model.

2) No leakages are occurred in the different configurations of the system.
3) The energy loss and friction loss in all equipment are neglected.
4) The heat exchange between the environment and equipment is also neglected.
3.1.1 Energy balance of the combined cycle gas turbine power plant
For a CCGT power plant, the power output derives from a gas turbine and a steam turbine. The gas turbine and axial air
compressor are connected on a single shaft by a mechanical device. The net power output of the gas turbine is shown as
follows [26]:
Wgt − Wac
[ ]
WGT = × [𝜂gen] (1)
𝜂mech
where Wgt gas turbine power output 681.8 MW, Wac air compressor power consumption 280 MW, ηmech mechanical effi-
ciency 99.8% and ηgen is the generator efficiency 99.8%.
The net power output of the steam turbine can be expressed as follows [26]:
[ ] [ ]
WST = WHPST + WLPST xgen − WHPP + WLPP (2)
where WHPST, WLPST mechanical work of high-pressure and low-pressure steam turbines 62.43 MW and 81.6 MW respec-
tively, and WHPP, WLPP are the consumed power by high-pressure and low-pressure recirculation pumps 1.603 MW and
0.04 MW.
The total power output of the CCGT power plant can be expressed as follows [26]:
WnetCCGT = WGT + WST (3)
Table 1 Air and fuel Parameters Air Fuel

composition inlet to gas
turbine Mass flow rate (kg/s) 650 18.8
Pressure (bar) 1 15
LHV (KJ/kg) – 48,453
N2 79.5% –
O2 20.5% –
CO2 – 0.01%
CH4 – 95.4%
C2H6 – 4.24%
C3H8 – 0.3%
C4H10 – 0.04%
C5H12 – 0.01%
13
Vol:.(1234567890)

Table 2 Model parameters of Description Unit Values

CCGT process
Turbine inlet temperature °C 1050
Compression ratio – 10.44
Turbine exhaust temperature °C 515
HP turbine inlet pressure bar 106
LP turbine inlet pressure bar 5
Superheated steam temperature °C 500
Ambient temperature °C 25
Generator Efficiency % 90
Table 3 Comparison between Parameter Unit Actual Data Simulation

CCGT actual data and
simulation GT power MW 290 351
ST power MW 190 144
Plant net power MW 480 495
Plant efficiency % 56.02 56.6
Table 4 Comparison of PCC Parameter Benchmark work [26] Simulation

simulation with referenced
work Absorber column trays 14 13
Stripper column trays 10 8
Reboiler Duty ( MWth) 161 165
Reflux ratio 0.1 0.3
Table 5 PCC unit design Preliminary design Unit Values

parameters
Lean solvent flow rate kmole/h 160,000
Inlet gas flow rate kmole/h 109,141
No of absorber columns – 1
No. stripper columns – 1
Absorber capture efficiency % 85
Flue gas inlet temperature °C 40
Absorber pressure bar 1
Stripper pressure bar 2
3.1.2 Efficiency of the power plant
The calorific value QNG of the combusted fluid entering the combustion chamber of the power plant is calculated as
follows [19]:
QNG = ṁ NG XLHV (4)
13
Vol.:(0123456789)

where LHV is the low heating value of natural gas 48,453 kJ/kg, ṁ NG is mass flow rate of the fuel 18.08 kg/s.
Auxiliary equipment power consumption Waux consists of power consumption of cooling water and amine pumps is
as follows [26]:
Waux = WAminePumps + WCO2Comp + WCO2Pump (5)
where WAmine_Pumps, WCO2_Comp, W CO2_pump are total power consumed by amine pumps, CO2 compressors and CO2 pump
0.15 MW, 15.8 MW and 0.5 MW respectively.
The total power output of CCGT power plant is as follows [26]:
Wtotal = WNetCCGT − Waux (6)
The efficiency of CCGT power plant is as follows [26]:

WTotal
CCGT = (7)
QNG
3.1.3 Verification of power plant model
The simulation of the CCGT power plant with PCC unit is simulated by Aspen Hysys V8.6 workflow. Gas turbine SIEMENS
(V94.2) modelling used Peng-Robinson (PR) fluid package, while steam turbines were represented by ASME steam tables
model. Gas turbine and steam turbines are simulated and compared with the actual output power and overall efficiency
that represent Damietta power plant. The design data including feed air, fuel gas composition and other parameters are
listed in Tables 1 and 2. The comparison between actual data and simulation results are listed in Table 3. There is a small
deviation between actual and simulation data. Therefore, the accuracy of the model is verified.
3.1.4 Verification of carbon capture process
The acid gas absorption using aqueous amines is performed by using the Amine package which uses Ken-Eisenberg
or Li-Mather as thermodynamic models for the amine solutions. A model was selected as a benchmark that was
reported as a master thesis work. This published work data and results were utilized in this project to validate Aspen
Hysys model results and system performance [27]. Table 4 shows the comparison between the current work and the
cited ones, along with the operating parameters of the system that are given in Table 5.
3.2 Compression train and pipeline transportation
CO2 compression train is modelled by Aspen Hysys, its load is accounted for the total parasitic loads. The operating
pressure for the CO2 pipeline must be maintained at supercritical conditions or liquid dense phase with pressure
above 73.8 bar [28]. A final compression stage discharge pressure of 73.8 bar and a pump is provided to raise the
pressure to 110 bar, the compression and pumping are specified according to the work conducted by Herraiz [14]. The
compression train consists of three centrifugal compressors, intercoolers and scrubbers. The pumping section was
modelled in the same flowsheet with the compression train. CO2 transportation is the transition between capture and
storage or usage, it’s considered the lowest cost stage among the whole system. On land, C O2 can be transported by
tankers, trucks, railcars and pipelines. The efficient way to transport CO2 is via the appropriate design of pipeline [28].
In this study, CO2 pipeline design calculations were done an excel spreadsheet. Pipeline material was also selected
to best suit the specifications of the product.
3.2.1
Mathematical model of CO2 pipeline
An excel spreadsheet is used for pipeline design using the following equations.
The optimum inner diameter of the pipeline is estimated as follows [28]:
13
Vol:.(1234567890)

Fig. 5 The effect of EGR ratio

on O2, CO2 concentrations and
Reboiler duty
Table 6 Process parameters Case Unit CCGT CCGT + PCC CCGT + PCC + EGR

comparison
Gas turbine power MW 350 350 349
HP steam turbine power MW 62.43 62.41 64.90
LP steam turbine power MW 81.6 35.86 46.98
Acid gas booster power MW N/A 3 1.79
Power plant net output MW 495 430.65 444.11
Total power penalty MW N/A 65.27 51.80
Plant net efficiency % 56.61 49.15 50.62
Exhaust mass flow rate kg/s 976.1 976.1 628
Exhaust gas C O2 content mole% 3.2 3.2 5
Exhaust gas outlet temperature °C 515.21 515.21 521.53
Steam temperature °C 505 505 518
Total absorber circulation rate kg/s N/A 998.5 769.5
Heat required in reboiler MWth N/A 165 131.5
Net specific emissions kg CO2/MWh 351.53 58.62 56.18
Dopt = 0.363 × Q0.45

𝜐
× 𝜌0.13 × 𝜇0.025 (8)
where Qv is C 3/s, ρ is density 98.88 kg/m3, μ is viscosity 0.02285 cp, these values were obtained from
O2 flow rate 0.463 m
Aspen simulation flowsheet.
The friction factor is estimated using the follow equation:
1.325
f = [ ((
(9)
) ( ))]2
𝜀 5.74
ln 3.7D + Re 0.9
where D is inner diameter 375 mm, ε is pipe roughness 0.259 mm for carbon steel.
The pressure drop per unit length is represented as follows [28]:
8fQ2
ΔP/L = (10)
𝜌𝜋 2 D5
where f is friction factor 0.0128, L is pipeline length 15 km.

The thickness of pipeline is estimated as follows [29]:
13
Vol.:(0123456789)

P D
t = ( max ) (11)
2 SFE − Pmax
where, Pmax is the maximum operating pressure 10 MPa, F is the design factor 0.72, S is the specific yield stress of pipe
material 4137 MPa, E is a longitudinal joint factor 1.
The pipeline weight is calculated using the following [30]:
( )
Ws = 𝜋L𝜌steel t Di + t (12)
where, t is wall thickness 9.46 mm, ρsteel 7850 kg/m3.
4 Process integration
4.1 Combined cycle gas turbine power plant with carbon capture and exhaust gas recirculation
The integration of the carbon sequestration plant will decrease the output power and efficiency of the CCGT power
plant. The typical capture rate of post combustion carbon plant ranging from 85 to 90% of the CO2. In order to simu-
late on the least reboiler steam consumption rate, the removal rate 85% is selected for this project [27, 28]. Integrat-
ing post combustion carbon capture unit, part of LP steam existing HPST to LPST is used for solvent regeneration
in the reboiler resulting in decreasing the output power from LPST by 44%. This reduced the power plant efficiency
with nearly 13%. To restore part of that lost power, EGR is implemented to increase carbon levels in the feed to car-
bon capture unit, this will support the partial pressure of the carbon in the stripper section and then decrease the
required power to separate the carbon from the solvent. EGR is simulated at different ratios depending on the oxygen
Fig. 6 Hourly DNI for parabolic trough collector at Damietta City
13
Vol:.(1234567890)

levels returning back to the combustor. In order to determine the EGR ratio, the change of O2 concentration, CO2
concentration and capture energy consumption of the reboiler unit C O2 with EGR ratio are investigated as shown in
Fig. 5. With increasing EGR ratio, the reboiler energy is gradually decreasing, O2 concentration decreases while CO2
increases. Previous studies have showed that, oxygen levels in the combustion chamber below 16%, the flame shape
and flue gas temperature will be affected negatively and can lead to oxygen starvation [14, 31, 32]. At 35% EGR ratio,
oxygen content was around 17%, below that concentration, unburned hydrocarbon started to appear in the exhaust
gas. Therefore, the EGR ratio of 35% is selected in this paper. The system integrations results are shown in Table 6.
4.2 Solar thermal plant integration
4.2.1 Site description and solar energy available
The CCGT power plant is located in Kafr Al Battikh, a region in Damietta Governate, one of the coastal cities in Egypt. The
plant is simulated for a period of one-year (0 h to 8760 h). For the simulation of the hypothetical CSP power plant, the
site with direct normal irradiance (DNI) and the typical metrological year (TMY) data in the NREL database has been used
to evaluate the performance of the parabolic trough solar thermal plant. The climate data includes hourly DNI, ambient
temperature, wind speed, atmospheric pressure, sun angle and solar azimuth angle.
This region relies on medium solar radiation which enjoys Direct Normal Solar Irradiation (DNI) which equals accord-
ing to solar atlas data approximately by 5.455 KWh/m2 per day. The Global Horizontal Irradiation (GHI) for Damietta is
5.425 KWh/m2 per day, the Diffuse Horizontal Irradiation (DHI) is 2.024 KWh/m2 per day and the recorded Direct Normal
Irradiation (DNI) is 5.425 KWh/m2 per day (~ 1980 KWh/m2 per year) [33].
Figure 6 shows the variation of normal irradiance per each month at Damietta. The maximum DNI of 7.7 KWh/m2 per
day was recorded during June and July while the minimum 3.6 KWh/ m2 per day of DNI during December. The average
wind speed in Damietta is 4.33 m/s lower than the critical wind speed of 15.64 m/s that may lead to solar system structure
collapse. The average amount of sun hours for this location is 14 h per day in June which is the longest time for sunshine
in the year compared to 10 h in December which is the shortest time [34].
4.2.2 Parabolic trough concentrated solar plant with thermal energy storage in solar industrial process heating
Parabolic trough collector (PTC) is the best technology to reach high temperature ranges up to 550 °C with optimum com-
mercial concerns when compared to other solar technologies such as Fresnel collectors, solar towers and dish sterling [35].
PTC has a minimum energy loss by convection and conduction due to the annulus between the absorber tube and sur-
rounding glass, and the absorber is coated with a material that has a solar radiation absorptivity higher than 0.95 and low
emitted heat which lead to a good reduction of the radiation losses. The best used collector for SIPH applications is the
(SkyFuel SkyTrough) solar collector assembly (SCA). This module had been used in Stillwater hybrid solar-geothermal plant
in the USA [36]. A large number of studies that were simulated by system advisor model (SAM) have selected (Schott 2008
PTR80) as the optimum heat collector element (HCE) as it has the optimum efficiency which is enhanced by increasing the
length of the receiver by four meters and above. Most of the studies that used SAM to simulate parabolic trough solar plants
recommended only two types among all the fluids. Therminol VP-1 and HITEC Solar Salt are the suitable candidates because
they have a good heat capacity, higher specific heat and higher density and lower viscosity which gives them the ability to
flow through the pipe with good heat transfer properties [37]. In this work, direct thermal energy storage which involves
using the same HTF will be evaluated [25].
4.2.3 Mathematical model of solar field with thermal energy storage
For the heat gained by the collector is as follows [25]:

QCol = DNIXAC X𝜂C (13)
where, ηC collector efficiency 0.68% [29], DNI 875 W/m2.
The collector outlet temperature of heat transfer fluid (HTF) is as follows [25]:
13
Vol.:(0123456789)

QCol
Toc = Ti +
mxC
̇ p (14)
where, ṁ single loop mass flow rate 12 kg/s, Ti inlet temperature 130 °C, Cp HTF heat capacity 2.45(Kj/kg °C).
The number of collectors is estimated as follows [25]:
Qr
Nc = (15)
Qcol
where, Qr required thermal load for carbon capture plant (185 MWth to 151 M
Wth).
The Number of collectors per loop is calculated as follows:
To − Ti
NC∕L = (16)
Toc − Ti
where, To loop outlet temperature.

The total number of loops is expressed as follows [25]:
Nc
NL = (17)
NC∕L
In case of implementing solar thermal storage system, extra calculations are involved in the model to calculate the addi-
tional heat to be used in later time.
The total HTF mass flow rate after adding thermal energy storage is as follows [25]:
ṁ T = NL xṁ (18)
The mass of HTF stored in the tanks is represented by the following [25]:
ms = ṁ T xts (19)
where, ts is the storage time which is assumed to be 6 h [25]
The mass flow rate during the sun hours is estimated by the following:
ms
ṁ d = (20)
td
where, td is the total sun hours 10 h for Damietta city.

The total number of collectors after adding thermal storage system is calculated as follows:
ṁ d xCp x(To − Ti )
Ns = (21)
td
The number of loops added after thermal energy storage is calculated as follows [25]:
Table 7 Solar thermal plant EGR ratio (%) Target load No. of loops Total no. of Annual Gross LCOE ($/MWhth)
parameters without thermal (MWth) collectors Energy (MWhth)
storage
0 185 94 470 401,855 21.54
5 182 92 460 393,579 21.49
10 178 90 450 385,024 21.41
15 172 85 425 366,324 21.38
20 165 81 405 349,389 21.31
25 157 77 385 332,185 21.29
30 152 62 372 321,490 21.21
35 151 62 372 321,289 21.20
13
Vol:.(1234567890)

Fig. 7 Hourly thermal power per month for solar plant without TES
Table 8 Solar thermal plant EGR ratio (%) Target load Target receiver ther- No. of loops Annual net LCOE $/MWhth
parameters with thermal (MWth) mal power (MWth) energy (MWhth)
storage
0 185 277.5 140 597,873 21.20
5 182 273 138 589,521 21.15
10 178 267 135 576,586 21.00
15 172 258 127 545,865 20.81
20 165 247 121 520,227 20.53
25 157 235 116 498,573 20.14
30 152 228 93 479,959 20.05
35 151 226.5 93 479,958 20.03
Ns
NLs = (22)
NC∕L
The total number of loops of solar field and thermal storage is represented as follows [25]:
13
Vol.:(0123456789)

Fig. 8 Hourly thermal power per month for solar plant with TES
NTL = NLs + NL (23)
5 Results and discussion
5.1 Solar thermal plant without thermal energy storage
The constant heat loss is 4% (default value in SAM), HTF temperature rise is 100 °C in the solar system, the temperature
of HTF leaving solar collectors and the regeneration reboiler are 230 °C and 130 °C respectively. Therminol VP-1 synthetic
oil is a suitable candidate to be used as HTF because it has a good heat capacity, higher specific heat and higher density
and lower viscosity which gives them the ability to flow through the pipe with good heat transfer properties with mass
flow rate per loop 6 kg/s and the DNI is 875 W/m2. The solar collector and thermal receiver that were selected are Skey-
Fuel Sky and Schott PTR 80 respectively. These conditions are constant for the two design cases. Table 7 shows the solar
thermal configurations according to different PCC heat loads required. The SM calculated was 1.02 which gives the same
required thermal load. Based on the simulator results for the 185 MW plant with annual thermal energy of 401,855 MW
for reboiler duty and auxiliary power, the plant is capable of producing thermal power from 6 A.M to 7 P.M on average
(12 h per day) depending on the time of the year. The highest energy produced is during the months of June, July and
August. On the other hand, the lowest energy produced is in December approximately 80 M Wth. The hourly energy pro-
duction in each month is represented in Fig. 7; it also shows the variation of incident thermal energy affects the energy
production. The maximum heat generated for reboiler is recorded as 180 MWth and maximum incident power recorded
during July with 270 MWth.
13
Vol:.(1234567890)

5.2 Solar thermal plant with thermal energy storage
In this configuration, the same collectors and receiver types are used as in the previous design. The available land area
for installing the thermal was measured using the Google Maps tool, which is nearly 1.3 k m2. The suitable SM estimated
by SAM according to the available land area next to the power plant is 1.5. TES was introduced to decrease the intermit-
tency in the system when the sunlight is not available. The target energy receiver thermal power is higher than the actual
required thermal heat to able to store this surplus energy for the later use. The density of Therminol VP-1 oil is 934.245 kg/
m3. The system specifications after simulating thermal energy storage are represented in Table 8.
From the results, the power generation increased considerably from March to September as illustrated in Fig. 8.
The highest solar thermal produced from the system is 280 MWth while the heat sink power recorded at 180 MWth.
The amount of thermal energy storage charging and discharging thermal power during the day fluctuates according
to the availability of solar radiation. From the previous results, solar thermal plant with TES showed more efficient
performance than the normal system as it managed to provide more solar production with slightly lower cost. Apply-
ing EGR had decreased the LCOE of system by ($0.34/MWhth) in case of solar thermal system with no TES, while it was
decreased by ($1.17/MWhth) in case of TES system.
6 Plant cost model
One of the key objectives of this work is to determine the effect of implementing both PCC, PTC plants with compres-
sion and transportation on the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) from the 495 MW CCGT. In most academic studies
the cost calculation is done by two methods, net present value (NPV) or LCOE over the economic lifetime. The cal-
culation of LCOE includes data of rated capacity MW, capital cost $, operating and maintenance costs $, efficiency
%, fuel LHV and capacity factor %. Equipment costs are estimated most of the time from other studies and reveal a
wide variety of uncertainties. Equations below are used to calculate LCOE on 25 years of the total plant life. The cost
model was calculated using an excel spreadsheet at each EGR ratio. Based on the calculations, the capital cost of the
whole integrated system kept decreasing after implementing EGR, the lowest cost was at 35% ratio. Thus, the results
at 35% only are presented in this paper.
Three cases are considered; one where the CCGT alone, CCGT + PCC + Compression and CCGT + PCC + Compres-
sion + Solar thermal plant.
The LCOE for the all whole system is calculated as follows [31]:
( )
$ CAP × CRF
LCOE = + (O&MCosts) (13)
MWh CF × Netpower
Fig. 9 Cost of avoid-
ance for CCGT + PCC and
CCGT + PCC + Solar system
13
Vol.:(0123456789)

Table 9 Solar thermal plant Unit Asiri et al. [25] Bravo et al. [44] Current
different studies simulated study (35%
by SAM EGR)
Thermal Load MW 258 219.47 151

Solar Multiple – 1.54 1.3 1.5
Solar collector duty MWth 397.32 372.1 226.5
LCOE of solar system (thermal) $/MWhth 31.4 40.57 a 20.03
where, CAP is total system capital cost, CRF is capital recovery factor, CF capacity factor 80% [32].Capital cost of CCGT
(based on the official data from the plant), PCC, compression station and onshore pipeline are 80 M$, 136 M$ [38], 2 M$,
1 M$ respectively.
O&M in $/MWh costs based on Egyptian natural gas price 3.01 $/GJ [39] for CCGT which includes only natural gas
19.08 $/MWh and water costs 0.009 $/MWh [40]. In PCC plant, natural gas increased 26.37 $/MWh to provide the addi-
tional loads required by the capture plant, water demand increased as well 0.01246 $/MWh and MEA solvent makeup
is added to the cost 8.68 $/MWh [41]. The operating costs for compression and onshore pipeline are assumed to be 4%
of the capital cost [30].
The capital recovery factor is estimated as follows:
i(1 + i)n
CRF = (14)
(1 + i)n − 1
where, i is interest rate 11.3% [42], n is plant life in years.

The cost of solar collectors is calculated as follows [23]:
NC × C × Fsolarfield
Csolar = (15)
1 × 106
where, C is unit cost per collector 3000 $, F solar field is cost factor for solar field 1.5 [25]. The capital cost of the overall solar
field 75 $M this cost breakdown is solar collectors with TES tanks plus engineering cost and Egyptian customs which are
20% and 7.5% [43] of the total capital cost respectively. O&M cost is assumed to be 1.5% of the capital cost.
The cost of CO2 avoidance is estimated as follows [32]:
[LCOE]withCCS − [LCOE]withoutCCS
COA = [ ] [ ] (16)
CO2 emittedwithoutCCS − CO2 emittedwithCCS
Using the previous equations, the LCOE for CCGT as reference plant was estimated to be (34.31 $/MWh). Integrating
carbon capture plant, C O2 compression and transportation with CCGT made LCOE increased dramatically. However,
involving EGR at the mentioned ratios had a small reduction in LCOE from (47.98 $/MWh to 46.71 $/MWh). Implement-
ing solar thermal plant with energy storage that operates for 12 h to support carbon capture plant parasitic loads will
Table 10 CCGT power plant Unit Luo and Vaccarelli Adams and Mac Current study
surveyed with key metrics Wang [45] et al. [46] Dowell [32]
shown
CCGT load MW 453 383 420 495
Capture rate % 90 90 90 85
NG price $/GJ 8.05 6 5.27 3.01
MEA price $/tonne 1777 2630 2164 2880
LCOE of CCGT plant $/MWh 71.1 55 51 34.30
LCOE of CCGT with PCC $/MWh 119.6 75 69 46.71
LCOE after integrating $/MWh NA NA NA 56.81
solar thermal pant
13
Vol:.(1234567890)

provide the thermal heat instead of the extra fuel injected to produce this thermal load. This saved fuel flow is considered
to be revenue for the plant, as this solar boiler has no CO2 emissions and, in return, would save carbon taxes ($/tCO2).
However, solar thermal plant increased LCOE by 20.71% (from $46.71/MWh to $57.61/MWh). EGR slightly reduced LCOE
from ($57.61/MWh to $56.81/MWh).The cost of avoidance (COA) is calculated for the reference plant integrated with
carbon capture unit it showed ($46.07/tCO2) but it decreased after the applying EGR to be ($40.80/tCO2). The cost also
escalated after integration of solar plant to reach ($74.56/tCO2). EGR had a remarkable decreased in COA from ($74.56/
tCO2 to $70.04/MWh) as shown in Fig. 9.
6.1 Comparison between LCOE of different studies simulated parabolic trough solar thermal plant by SAM
Software
There are some academic papers which used SAM to simulate parabolic trough solar plant that used to compensate
reboiler heat duty after integrating carbon capture plant. This comparison is used to show the variation of LCOE of only
PTC solar thermal plant as shown in Table 9.
6.2 Differences between various studies of combined cycle gas turbine power plant integrated with carbon
capture unit
A survey was undertaken to demonstrate the difference in LCOE between the previous studies and the current work.
These studies are related to combined cycle gas turbine with nearly similar load. It is not easy to judge how practical the
financial results are due to the differences of natural gas prices, capturing rate, local electricity prices and post combus-
tion carbon capture prices. However, technical and economic data were extracted from different studies and listed in
Table 10. This survey was undertaken just to expand the total reach of the same goal for carbon capture from exhaust
from the combined cycle power plant.
7 Conclusion
In the current study, a simulation model of CCGT was built using Aspen Hysys software. The natural gas combined power
plant with two gas turbines and two pressure levels steam turbines (HP & LP) has a total power capacity of 495 MW.
CO2 increased (from 3.2% mole to 5.1% mole) at 35% ratio EGR. The carbon capture plant was simulated by the same
software, PCC power input which is considered as a parasitic load were reduced by increasing EGR ratio by 20% (from
65.27 MW to 51.80 MW). The solar thermal plant is simulated to fully provide 100% of capture plant thermal load and
auxiliaries during daytime. SAM software was utilized at different EGR ratios. For 185 MWth, solar plant maximum and
minimum thermal power were 180 MWth and 90 MWth respectively. Adding TES system improved the thermal power
needed for the reboiler in the months that had low productivity in the other model while the months which had the
maximum production kept constant for a longer period of time along the day. LCOE was decreased when applying the
thermal storage system and further reduction in cost was seen after applying EGR. The cost is calculated at the different
EGR ratios, it showed a reduction ($47.92/MWh to $46.71/MWh) of LCOE when integrating PCC with the power plant at
the 35% ratio. Implementing the solar thermal plant has added an extra expense ($47.92/MWh to $57.61/MWh). Apply-
ing EGR had reduced the cost ($57.61/MWh to 56.81/MWh) at 35% ratio. The cost of CO2 avoidance was also estimated
and also decreased remarkably at 35% ratio ($74.56/tCO2 to $70.04/tCO2). Based on current findings, relative to normal
combustion conditions, 35% of EGR was found to be the optimal and less expensive choice.
Acknowledgements I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my primary supervisor, Ayman Abbas who guided me through-
out the project and provided me with most of the technical data. I would also like to thank my friends and family who supported me deep
insight into the study.
Authors’ contributions All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were
performed by AAA and AA. The first draft of the manuscript was written by [AAA] and all authors commented on previous versions of the
manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding Not applicable.
13
Vol.:(0123456789)

Data availability The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on
reasonable request.
Code availability Not applicable.
Ethics approval and consent to participate Not applicable.
Competing interests The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest related to this study.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creati vecom
mons. org/licens es/by/4.0/.
References
1. Luo X, Wang M, Chen J. Heat integration of natural gas combined cycle power plant integrated with post-combustion CO2 capture and
compression. Fuel. 2015;151:110–7.
2. Freeman J, Hellgardt K, Markides CN. An assessment of solar-powered organic Rankine cycle systems for combined heating and power
in UK domestic applications. Appl Energy. 2015;138:605–20.
3. Esquivel-Patiño G, Serna-González M, Nápoles-Rivera F. Thermal integration of natural gas combined cycle power plants with CO 2 capture
systems and organic Rankine cycles. Energy Conver Manag. 2017;151:334–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.09.003.
4. Hu Y, Xu G, Xu C, Yang Y. Thermodynamic analysis and techno-economic evaluation of an integrated natural gas combined cycle (NGCC)
power plant with post- combustion CO2 capture. Appl Therm Eng. 2017;111:308–16.
5. Osman AI, Hefny M, Abdel Maksoud MIA, et al. Recent advances in carbon capture storage and utilisation technologies: a review. Environ
Chem Lett. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-020-01133-3.
6. Salvi BL, Jindal S. Recent developments and challenges ahead in carbon capture and sequestration technologies. SN Appl Sci. 2019;1:885.
7. Rasel M, Masud KM, Mohammad R, Malcolm L. Post combustion carbon capture and storage in existing coal power plant: importance
and recent development. 2011.
8. Zhai R, Liu H, Wu H, Yu H, Yang Y. Analysis of Integration of MEA-Based CO2 capture and solar energy system for coal-based power plants
based on thermo-economic structuraltheory. Energies. 2018;11:1284.
9. Jiang L, Gonzalez-Diaz A, Ling-Chin J, Roskilly AP, Smallbone AJ. Post-combustion CO2 capture from a natural gas combined cycle power
plant using activated carbon adsorption. Appl Energy. 2019;245:1–15.
10. Kárászová M, Zach B, Petrusová Z, Červenka V, Bobák M, Šyc M, Izák P. Post-combustion carbon capture by membrane separation. Rev
Separ Purif Technol. 2020;238:116448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2019.116448.
11. Lillia D, Bonalumi C, Grande GM. A comprehensive modeling of the hybrid temperature electric swing adsorption process for CO2 capture.
Int J Greenhouse Gas Control. 2018;74:155–73.
12. Mohamed K, René G, Philippe J, Jose V, Jean-Marc A, Chakib B. Pre-combustion, post-combustion and oxy-combustion in thermal power
plant for CO2 capture. Appl Thermal Eng. 2010;30:53–62.
13. IEA. Energy Technology Perspectives 2017, IEA, Paris; 2017. https://www.iea.org/repor ts/energy-technology-perspectives-2017
14. Herraiz L, Fernández ES, Palfi E, Lucquiaud M. Selective exhaust gas recirculation in combined cycle gas turbine power plants with post-
combustion CO2 capture. Int J Greenh Gas Control. 2018;71:303–21.
15. Mokhtar M, Ali M, Khalilpour R, Abbas A, Shah N, Hajaj A, et al. Solar-assisted post-combustion carbon capture feasibility study. Appl
Energy. 2012;92:668–76.
16. Feron P. Absorption-based post-combustion capture of carbon dioxide. UK impring of Elsevier: Duxford; 2016. p. 779–92.
17. Aboudheir A, ElMoudir W. Performance of formulated solvent in handling of enriched CO2 flue gas stream. Energy Procedia.
2009;1(1):195–204.
18. Pérez Sánchez J, Aguillón Martínez J, Mazur Czerwiec Z, Zavala Guzmán A. Theoretical assessment of integration of CCS in the Mexican
electrical sector. Energy. 2019;167:828–40.
19. Bao J, Zhang L, Song C, Zhang N, Guo M, Zhang X. Reduction of efficiency penalty for a natural gas combined cycle power plant with
post-combustion CO2 capture: Integration of liquid natural gas cold energy. Energy Conver Manag. 2019;198:111852.
20. Alcaráz-Calderon A, González-Díaz M, Mendez Á, González-Santaló J, González-Díaz A. Natural gas combined cycle with exhaust gas
recirculation and CO2 capture at part-load operation. J Energy Inst. 2019;92(2):370–81.
21. Sharma A, Sharma C, Mullick S, Kandpal T. Solar industrial process heating: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2017;78:124–37.
22. Wang J, Zhao J, Wang Y, Deng S, Sun T, Li K. Application potential of solar-assisted post-combustion carbon capture and storage (CCS) in
China: A life cycle approach. J Cleaner Prod. 2017;154:541–52.
23. Wang F, Zhao J, Li H, Deng S, Yan J. Preliminary experimental study of post-combustion carbon capture integrated with solar thermal
collectors. Appl Energy. 2017;185:1471–80.
24. Lambert T, Hoadley A, Hooper B. Process integration of solar thermal energy with natural gas combined cycle carbon capture. Energy.
2014;74:248–53.
13
Vol:.(1234567890)

5. Asiri J, Asiri JM, Oztekin A, Romero CE. Design a Solar Thermal System for a Carbon Capture Pilot-Scale Plant. 2020.
2
26. Liu Z, Karimi I. Simulation of a combined cycle gas turbine power plant in Aspen HYSYS. Energy Procedia. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
egypro.2019.01.901.
27. Birkelund ES. CO2 absorption and desorption simulation with Aspen HYSYS. Tromsø: University of Tromsø; 2013. p. 33–6.
28. Peletiri S, Rahmanian N, Mujtaba I. CO2 Pipeline Design: A Review. Energies. 2018;11(9):2184. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11092184.
29. Chandel M, Pratson L, Williams E. Potential economies of scale in CO2 transport through use of a trunk pipeline. Energy Conversion
Management. 2010;51(12):2825–34.
30. Kang K, Seo Y, Chang D, Kang S, Huh C. Estimation of CO2 Transport Costs in South Korea Using a Techno-Economic Model. Energies.
2015;8(3):2176–96. https://doi.org/10.3390/en8032176.
31. Pan M, Aziz F, Li B, Perry S, Zhang N, Bulatov I, Smith R. Application of optimal design methodologies in retrofitting natural gas combined
cycle power plants with CO2 capture. Appl Energy. 2016;161:695–706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.03.035.
32. Adams T, Mac Dowell N. Off-design point modelling of a 420 MW CCGT power plant integrated with an amine-based post-combustion
CO2 capture and compression process. Appl Energy. 2016;178:681–702.
33. Solargis, Damietta city. https://globalsolaratlas.info/map?c=31.417823%2C31.792717%2C11
34. Average Weather in Damietta, Egypt, Year-Round - Weather Spark. https://weatherspark.com/y/96952/Average-Weather-in-Damietta-
Egypt-Year-Round
35. Liaqat K, Anss M, Ali A, Mengal A. Modeling and simulation of a 100 MW concentrated solar thermal power plant using parabolic trough
collectors in Pakistan. IOP Conf Series. 2018;414:012032. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899x/414/1/012032.
36. Kurup P, Zhu G, Turchi C. Solar Process Heat Potential in California, USA. Proc Eurosun. 2016. https: //doi.org/10.18086/ eurosu
n.2016.02.07.
37. Bishoyi D, Sudhakar K. Modeling and performance simulation of 100 MW PTC based solar thermal power plant in Udaipur India. Case
Stud Thermal Eng. 2017;10:216–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2017.05.005.
38. Intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC). Special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press; 2005. p. 431.
39. Mondal M, Ringler C, Al-Riffai P, Eldidi H, Breisinger C, Wiebelt M. Long-term optimization of Egypt’s power sector: Policy implications.
Energy. 2019;166:1063–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.10.158.
40. Egyptian Holding company for water and waste water.
41. Jones D. Technoeconomic Evaluation of MEA versus Mixed Amines and a Catalyst System for CO2 Removal at Near-Commercial Scale
at Duke Energy Gibson 3 Pulverized Coal Plant and Duke Energy Buck Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC). Plant. 2019. https://doi.
org/10.2172/1499969.
42. Central Bank of Egypt.
43. Abou-Ghattas NAA, El-Ghetany A, H. H. . Modelling of an Energy Saving Solar Water Heating system for industrial low temperature appli-
cations. IRJET. 2019;12:4774–84.
44. Bravo J, Charles J, Neti S, Caram H, Oztekin A, Romero C. Integration of solar thermal energy to improve NGCC with CO2 capture plant
performance. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control. 2020;100:103111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2020.103111.
45. Luo X, Wang M. Optimal Operation of MEA-Based Post-Combustion Carbon Capture Process for Natural Gas Combined Cycle Power Plants.
Exergy Better Environ Improved Sustain. 2018;1:1377–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62572-0_88.
46. Vaccarelli M, Carapellucci R, Giordano L. Energy and economic analysis of the CO2 capture from flue gas of combined cycle power plants.
Energy Procedia. 2014;45:1165–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.01.122.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13
Vol.:(0123456789)

Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com

A Simulation Study of The Effect of Post-Combustio

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Simulation Study of The Effect of Post-Combustio

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Simulation Study of The Effect of Post-Combustio

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Discover Sustainability

A simulation study of the effect of post‑combustion amine‑based

Received: 28 January 2021 / Accepted: 15 February 2021

Discover Sustainability (2021) 2:9 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-021-00018-x

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

2.1 Combined cycle gas turbine power plant description

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Fig. 2 Schematic diagram of CCGT power plant

2.2 Post‑combustion carbon capture plant description

2.3 Solar industrial process heating

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Fig. 3 Schematic diagram of PCC unit

2.3.1 Solar thermal plant with thermal energy storage

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

2.3.2 System design description

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1) CCGT is simulated in the steady state model.

3.1.1 Energy balance of the combined cycle gas turbine power plant

Table 1 Air and fuel Parameters Air Fuel

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Table 2 Model parameters of Description Unit Values

Table 3 Comparison between Parameter Unit Actual Data Simulation

Table 4 Comparison of PCC Parameter Benchmark work [26] Simulation

Table 5 PCC unit design Preliminary design Unit Values

3.1.2 Efficiency of the power plant

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

The efficiency of CCGT power plant is as follows [26]:

3.1.3 Verification of power plant model

3.1.4 Verification of carbon capture process

3.2 Compression train and pipeline transportation

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Fig. 5 The effect of EGR ratio

Table 6 Process parameters Case Unit CCGT​ CCGT + PCC CCGT + PCC + EGR

Dopt = 0.363 × Q0.45

where f is friction factor 0.0128, L is pipeline length 15 km.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

where, t is wall thickness 9.46 mm, ρsteel 7850 kg/m3.

Fig. 6 Hourly DNI for parabolic trough collector at Damietta City

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

4.2 Solar thermal plant integration

4.2.1 Site description and solar energy available

4.2.3 Mathematical model of solar field with thermal energy storage

For the heat gained by the collector is as follows [25]:

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

where, To loop outlet temperature.

where, td is the total sun hours 10 h for Damietta city.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

NTL = NLs + NL (23)

5.1 Solar thermal plant without thermal energy storage

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

5.2 Solar thermal plant with thermal energy storage

6 Plant cost model

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Thermal Load MW 258 219.47 151

where, i is interest rate 11.3% [42], n is plant life in years.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

2.1 Combined cycle gas turbine power plant description

Fig. 2 Schematic diagram of CCGT power plant

2.2 Post‑combustion carbon capture plant description

2.3 Solar industrial process heating

Fig. 3 Schematic diagram of PCC unit

2.3.1 Solar thermal plant with thermal energy storage

2.3.2 System design description

3.1.1 Energy balance of the combined cycle gas turbine power plant

Table 1 Air and fuel Parameters Air Fuel

Table 2 Model parameters of Description Unit Values

Table 3 Comparison between Parameter Unit Actual Data Simulation

Table 4 Comparison of PCC Parameter Benchmark work [26] Simulation

Table 5 PCC unit design Preliminary design Unit Values

3.1.2 Efficiency of the power plant

3.1.3 Verification of power plant model

3.1.4 Verification of carbon capture process

3.2 Compression train and pipeline transportation

Fig. 5 The effect of EGR ratio

Table 6 Process parameters Case Unit CCGT CCGT + PCC CCGT + PCC + EGR

Fig. 6 Hourly DNI for parabolic trough collector at Damietta City

4.2 Solar thermal plant integration

4.2.1 Site description and solar energy available

4.2.3 Mathematical model of solar field with thermal energy storage

5.1 Solar thermal plant without thermal energy storage

5.2 Solar thermal plant with thermal energy storage

6 Plant cost model