Optimization of Post Combustion Carbon Capture Process-Solvent Selection

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/267404877
Optimization of post combustion carbon capture process- solvent selection
Article
CITATIONS READS
11 4,022
3 authors, including:
Udara Arachchige Muhammad Mohsin

University of Sri Jayewardenepura Muhammad Nawaz Shareef University of Agriculture
170 PUBLICATIONS 594 CITATIONS 3 PUBLICATIONS 29 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Plastic Recycling View project
Boiler Operation and Maintainance View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Udara Arachchige on 07 March 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF
ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
Volume 3, Issue 6, 2012 pp.861-870
Journal homepage: www.IJEE.IEEFoundation.org
Optimization of post combustion carbon capture process-

solvent selection
Udara S. P. R. Arachchige1, Muhammad Mohsin1, Morten C. Melaaen1,2

1
Telemark University College, Porsgrunn, Norway.
2
Tel-Tek, Porsgrunn, Norway.
Abstract
The reduction of the main energy requirements in the CO2 capture process that is re-boiler duty in
stripper section is important. Present study was focused on selection of better solvent concentration and
CO2 lean loading for CO2 capture process. Both coal and gas fired power plant flue gases were
considered to develop the capture plant with different efficiencies. Solvent concentration was varied from
25 to 40 (w/w %) and CO2 lean loading was varied from 0.15 to 0.30 (mol CO2/mol MEA) for 70-95
(mol %) CO2 removal efficiencies. The optimum specifications for coal and gas processes such as MEA
concentration, CO2 lean loading, and solvent inlet flow rate were obtained.
Copyright © 2012 International Energy and Environment Foundation - All rights reserved.
Keywords: Carbon dioxide capture; Coal and gas power plant; Lean loading; Solvent concentration.
1. Introduction
The atmospheric concentration of green house gases (GHG) has mainly increased due to human
activities. The emissions of different green house gases have been studied and measured all around the
world. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is considered as the most important GHG and annual percentage emission
from different sectors are seen in Figure 1 [1].
Fossil fuel (especially coal) still plays the most important role in the energy sector. On the other hand,
that is leading the percentage of CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. Therefore, carbon dioxide capture and
storage (CCS) technologies are important to continue fossil fuel fired power plants. However, CCS is
still having several challenges in large scale, which will significantly reduce the overall efficiency of a
power plant. The reduction of the main energy requirements in the CO2 capture process that is re-boiler
duty in stripper section is important to implement. The overall re-boiler energy requirement consists of
three major parts, which are the energy needed for liberating attached CO2 from amines, the heat required
to increase the solvent temperature, and energy use for water evaporation process. Post combustion
chemical absorption process is considered as preferred option. Main reason behind that is, it is easy to
apply in already available coal and gas power plants with small modifications. Post combustion chemical
absorption processes use a solvent to chemically react with CO2 from the flue gas and liberated that
absorbed CO2 in the stripper. There are several solvents available and selections of best solvent and
properties of the solvent stream are important to optimize. Present study was focused on selection of the
best solvent concentration and CO2 lean loading for CO2 capture process. Both coal and gas-fired power
plant flue gases are considered to develop the capture plant with different efficiencies. Number of
simulations was performed in Aspen Plus with different solvent conditions to check the lowest re-boiler
ISSN 2076-2895 (Print), ISSN 2076-2909 (Online) ©2012 International Energy & Environment Foundation. All rights reserved.
862 International Journal of Energy and Environment (IJEE), Volume 3, Issue 6, 2012, pp.861-870
duty and lowest solvent inlet flow rate. Finally, most suitable solvent concentration and lean loading are
selected for three different CO2 capture processes.
Figure 1. Percentage of CO2 emissions from different sources [1]
2. Model development
The Electrolyte Non Random Two Liquid (NRTL) property method in Aspen Plus is used to implement
the CO2 capture model. The 500 MW coal and gas fired power plant flue gas data are taken from the
literature [2, 3]. The composition of the flue gas inlet stream is tabulated in Table 1.
Table 1. Flue gas composition and parameters [2, 3]
Parameter Coal Fired Gas Fired

Flow rate [kg/s] 673.4 793.9
Temperature [K] 313 313
Pressure [bar] 1.1 1.1
Major Composition Mol% Mol%
H2O 8.18 8.00
N2 72.86 76.00
CO2 13.58 4.00
O2 3.54 12.00
H2S 0.05 0.00
The implemented process flow diagram for the carbon capture process is given in the Figure 2. The main
chemical reactions between MEA and CO2 are taken into consideration [4] with available
thermodynamic and kinetic data [5].
The calculation procedure in rate based electrolyte NRTL model in Aspen Plus consists of material and
energy balances, mass and heat transfer, phase equilibrium, and summation equations [6]. According to
the packing type, mass transfer correlations are varied. Many of the mass transfer correlations are also
provided the interfacial area value. However, interfacial area factor can be specified in the packing
section in Aspen Plus model. The required area for actual mass transfer uses in Aspen Plus is the
multiplication of area from the correlation with this interfacial area factor [7].Therefore, large number of
input data and parameters are important to provide to achieve these complicated calculations. The input
conditions and model specifications that have been used for model development in the absorber, and
stripper are shown in Table 2. Most of the specifications are recommended specifications for rate based
model of the CO2 capture process by Aspen Tech [7], and some of them are taken from literature [8].
International Journal of Energy and Environment (IJEE), Volume 3, Issue 6, 2012, pp.861-870 863
Figure 2. Process flow diagram
Table 2. Absorber and stripper column specifications
Coal fired flue gas Gas fired flue gas

Specification
Absorber Stripper Absorber Stripper
Number of stages 15 15 15 15
Operating pressure 1 bar 2 bar 1 bar 1.6 bar
Re-boiler None Kettle None Kettle
Condenser None Partial-vapour None Partial-vapour
Mellapak,Sulzer, Flexipac, Koch, Mellapak, Sulzer, Flexipac, Koch,
Packing type
Standard, 250Y metal,1Y Standard, 250 Y metal,1 Y
Packing height 20m 18m 24m 18m
Packing diameter 15m 12m 18m 12m
Mass transfer coefficient Bravo et al. Bravo et al. Bravo et al. Bravo et al.
method [9] (1985) [9] (1985) [9] (1985) [9] (1985) [9]
Interfacial area method Bravo et al. Bravo et al. Bravo et al. Bravo et al.
[9] (1985) [9] (1985) [9] (1985) [9] (1985) [9]
Interfacial area factor 1.5 2 1.2 1.5
Heat transfer coefficient Chilton and Chilton and Chilton and Chilton and
method Colburn Colburn Colburn Colburn
Holdup correlation [10] Billet and Billet and Billet and Billet and
Schultes (1993) Schultes (1993) Schultes (1993) Schultes (1993)
[10] [10] [10] [10]
Film resistance Discrxn for Discrxn for Discrxn for Discrxn for
liquid film and liquid film and liquid film and liquid film and
Film for vapour Film for vapour Film for vapour Film for vapour
film film film film
Flow model Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed
In both coal and gas fired capture simulation models, Mixed flow model is selected. There are four
different flow models are available in the Aspen Plus rate base model. Due to the high amount of CO2
composition in flue gas, Mixed flow model is recommended in literature [7].
3. Simulations
Solvent concentration and CO2 lean loading are considered for simulations with different efficiencies.
Solvent concentration is varied from 25 to 40 (w/w %) and lean loading is varied from 0.15 to 0.30 (mole
CO2/mole MEA) for 70-95 (mol %) CO2 removal efficiency. Exactly similar simulations are performed
to analyze both coal and gas fired flue gas removal processes.
3.1 Coal fired power plant flue gas simulations

The simulation results for coal fired system are considered under this section. Figure 3 indicate re-boiler
duty variation with CO2 lean loading when MEA concentration is fixed at 25, 30, 35, and 40 (w/w %)
respectively.
5800 6000
ReͲboilerduty[kJ/kgCO 2 ]
5400 5500
5000 5000
4600 4500
4200 4000
3800 3500
0.15 0.18 0.21 0.24 0.27 0.15 0.18 0.21 0.24 0.27
CO 2 leanloading[moleCO 2/moleMEA] CO 2 leanloading[moleCO 2 /moleMEA]
(a) (b)
6400 6700
6200
ReͲboilerduty[kJ/kgCO2 ]
5900
5700
5400
5200
4900
4700
4400 4200
3900 3700
3200
3400
0.15 0.18 0.21 0.24 0.27
0.15 0.18 0.21 0.24 0.27
CO 2 leanloading[moleCO 2 /moleMEA] CO2 lanloading[moleCO 2/moleMEA]
(c) (d)
Figure 3. Re-boiler duty variation with CO2 lean loading with different MEA concentrations, (a)
25w/w%, (b) 30w/w%, (c) 35w/w% and (d) 40w/w%, in coal fired flue gas, symbols refer to efficiencies:
Ƈ, 70%; o, 75%; Ÿ, 80%; Ƒ, 85%; ×, 90%; Ɣ, 95%
From Figure 3 it is clear that the re-boiler energy requirement decreases with the increase of lean solvent
loading until the minimum is obtained. However, after a certain limit of the lean loading value, re-boiler
duty again started to increase. The point which gives lowest re-boiler energy is defined as the optimum
lean solvent loading. At the same time, inlet solvent flow rate is changed to achieve the specified CO2
removal efficiency. In all four cases (MEA concentration from 25% to 40%), lowest re-boiler duty is
shown at 70% efficiency. When CO2 removal efficiency is increased, re-boiler duty is increased.
According to the figures, lowest re-boiler duty is shown in Figure 3(d), which has 40% MEA
concentration. The required lowest energy demand in the re-boiler for most important efficiency values
have been analyzed separately and given in Figure 4. The efficiencies 85%, 90% and 95% are considered
as most considerable and good values for the removal process.
7000 7000
6000 6000
5000 5000
4000 4000
3000 3000
0.15 0.18 0.21 0.24 0.27 0.15 0.18 0.21 0.24 0.27
CO 2 leanloading[moleCO 2 /moleMEA] CO 2 leanloading[moleCO 2 /moleMEA]
(a) (b)
7000
6000
5000
4000
0.15 0.18 0.21 0.24 0.27
CO 2 leanloading[moleCO2 /moleMEA]
(c)
Figure 4. Re-boiler duty variation with CO2 lean loading when removal efficiency is (a) 85%, (b) 90%,
(c) 95% in coal fired flue gas, symbols refers to MEA concentrations: Ƈ, 25% MEA; Ŷ, 30% MEA; Ÿ,
35% MEA; ×, 40% MEA.
For 85% CO2 removal efficiency, lowest re-boiler duty is given at 40% MEA concentration and 0.27
CO2 lean loading (Figure 4(a)). Similarly from Figure 4(b) and (c), it can be seen that lowest re-boiler
duty is given at 40% MEA concentration and 0.27 lean loading for 90% removal efficiency process and
0.25 lean loading for 95% removal efficiency. It is not just re-boiler duty requirement, but also solvent
flow rate minimization is important to optimize the process. The solvent flow rate requirement for 0.27
(mole CO2/mole MEA) CO2 lean loading model is given in Figure 5.
It can be seen from Figure 5, that the required solvent inlet flow rate is decreasing with the increased of
MEA concentration. When the removal efficiency is gradually increased, required solvent flow rate is
increasing. For all removal efficiency models, lowest solvent requirement is given for 40% MEA
concentration. However, increasing the amine concentration is believed to have corrosive effects in all
sections in capture plant. This can be minimized by adding a small amount of corrosive inhibitors to the
inlet solvent stream. The presence of these inhibitors is supposed to have negligible effect on the CO2
removal process.
15000
14000
Solventflowrate[tonne/hr]
13000
12000
11000
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
25 30 35 40
MEAconcentration[w/w%]
Figure 5. Solvent flow rate variation with MEA concentration when CO2 lean loading 0.27(mole
CO2/mole MEA) in coal fired flue gas, symbols refer to efficiencies: Ƈ, 70%; o, 75%; Ÿ, 80%; Ƒ, 85%;
×, 90%; Ɣ, 95%.
3.2 Gas fired power plant flue gas simulations

Figure 6 indicate re-boiler duty variation with CO2 lean loading when MEA concentration is fixed at 25,
30, 35 and 40% respectively. All simulations were performed exactly similar to coal fired flue gas
simulations.
6500 7000
6500
6000
6000
5500 5500
5000 5000
4500
4500
4000
4000 3500
0.15 0.18 0.21 0.24 0.27 0.3 0.15 0.18 0.21 0.24 0.27 0.3
CO 2 leanloading[moleCO 2 /moleMEA] CO 2 leanloading[moleCO 2 /moleMEA]
(a) (b)
7500 8000
7000 7500
7000
6500
6500
6000
6000
5500
5500
5000 5000
4500 4500
4000 4000
3500 3500
0.15 0.18 0.21 0.24 0.27 0.3 0.15 0.18 0.21 0.24 0.27 0.3
CO 2 leanloading[moleCO 2 /moleMEA] CO2 leanloading[moleCO2 /moleMEA]
(c) (d)
Figure 6. Re-boiler duty variation with CO2 lean loading when MEA concentration, (a) 25w/w%, (b)
30w/w%, (c) 35w/w% (d) 40w/w%, in gas fired flue gas, symbols refer to efficiencies: Ƈ, 70%; o, 75%;
Ÿ, 80%; Ƒ, 85%; ×, 90%; Ɣ, 95%.
Similar to coal fired system, Figure 6, re-boiler duty is decreasing as lean loading increase. However,
after a certain lean loading value, re-boiler duty again starts to increase. In all four cases (MEA
concentration from 25% to 40%), lowest re-boiler duty is shown for 70% efficiency simulation plot. The
trends of the figures are obtained almost similar to the coal fired cases. The required lowest energy
demand in the re-boiler for efficiency values 85%, 90% and 95% have been analyzed separately and
given in Figure 7.
7500 7500
6500 6500
5500 5500
4500 4500
3500 3500
0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
CO 2leanloading[moleCO 2 /moleMEA] CO2 leanloading[moleCO2 /moleMEA]
(a) (b)
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
CO 2 leanloading[moleCO 2 /moleMEA]
(c)
Figure 7. Re-boiler duty variations with CO2 lean loading when removal efficiency is (a) 85%, (b) 90%,
(c) 95% in gas fired flue gas, symbols refer to MEA concentrations: Ƈ, 25% MEA; Ŷ, 30% MEA; Ÿ,
35% MEA; ×, 40% MEA
For 85% CO2 removal efficiency, lowest re-boiler duty is given at 40% MEA concentration and 0.30
CO2 lean loading (Figure 7(a)). Similar to that from Figure 7(b) and (c), it can be seen that lowest re-
boiler duty is given at 35% MEA concentration and 0.25 lean loading for 90% removal efficiency, and
30% MEA concentration and 0.25 lean loading for 95% removal efficiency. Figure 8 is showing the
solvent flow rate variation with MEA concentration at 0.25 and 0.30 CO2 loading, respectively.
As MEA concentration is increased, required solvent flow rate is decreased. For 85% and 90%
efficiency, lowest solvent flow rate is given when the lean loading is 0.25 and 40% MEA concentration
and for 95% efficiency, lowest solvent flow rate gives when lean loading 0.25 and 35% MEA
concentration. When the lean loading is increased to 0.30, once again lowest solvent flow rate is given
for 40% MEA concentration.
5000 6500
4500
5500
4000
3500 4500
3000
3500
2500
2500
2000
25 30 35 40
25 30 35 40
MEAconcentration[w/w%] MEAconcentration[w/w%]
(a) (b)
Figure 8. Solvent flow rate variation with MEA concentration when CO2 lean loading is (a) 0.25 and (b)
0.30 (mole CO2/mole MEA) in gas fired flue gas, symbols refer to efficiencies: Ƈ, 70%; o, 75%; Ÿ, 80%;
×, 85%; Ɣ, 90%
4. Conclusion
The most important factor for process optimization in the capture process is the thermal energy
requirement in the regeneration process, as it is responsible for overall thermal efficiency. At the same
time, inlet solvent flow rate is also considered. The lowest re-boiler duty with minimum solvent flow rate
will give optimal energy requirement and lowest operating cost. The lowest re-boiler duties are
calculated as 3634.2, 3736.4, and 4185.5 kJ/kg CO2 for the 85, 90, and 95% CO2 removal process for
coal fired power plant and 3781, 4050, and 4240 kJ/kg CO2 for 85%, 90%, and 95% for gas fired power
plant. The optimum specifications for the coal and gas processes such as MEA concentration, CO2 lean
loading, and solvent inlet flow rates are summarized in Table 3 for different efficiency values. The re-
boiler energy demand is decreasing with increasing amine concentration in the solvent inlet flow stream.
Table 3. Optimum solvent conditions for both coal and gas fired power plant flue gas capture process
Specification 85% Removal 90% Removal 95% Removal

Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency
Coal fired power plant CO2 capture
MEA concentration [w/w%] 40 40 40
CO2 lean loading [mole CO2/mole MEA ] 0.27 0.27 0.25
Solvent flow rate [tonne/hr] 7965 8719 8940
Gas fired power plant CO2 capture
MEA concentration [w/w%] 40 35 30
CO2 lean loading [mole CO2/mole MEA ] 0.30 0.25 0.25
Solvent flow rate [tonne/hr] 3775 3224 4240
References
[1] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report.
IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 2007, 104.
[2] Alie C.F. CO2 Capture with MEA: Intergrating the Absorption Process and Steam Cycle of an
Existing Coal-Fired Power Plant. Master Thesis, University of Waterloo, Canada, 2004.
[3] Fluor for IEA GHG Program. Improvement in Power Generation with Post-Combustion Capture
of CO2. Final Report. November 2004, Report Number PH4/33.
[4] Michael A.D. A model of vapour-liquid equilibria for acid gas-alkanolamine-water systems. Ph.D
Thesis, University of Texas, USA, 1989.
[5] Freguia S. Modeling of CO2 removal from Flue Gas with Mono-ethanolamine. Master Thesis,
University of Texas, USA, 2002.
[6] Aspen Plus. Aspen Physical Property Methods. Aspen Technology Inc, Cambridge, MA, USA,
2006, 61-63.
[7] Aspen Plus. Rate Based model of the CO2 capture process by MEA using Aspen Plus. Aspen
Technology Inc, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2008.
[8] Mohammad A. Carbon dioxide capture from flue gas. Ph.D Thesis, University of Delft,
Netherland, 2009.
[9] Bravo J.L., Rocha J.A. and Fair J.R.. Mass Transfer in Gauze Packings. Hydrocarbon Processing,
1985 (January), 91–95.
[10] Billet R., Schultes M. Predicting Mass Transfer in Packed Columns. Chem. Eng. Technology,
1993,Vol. 16, 1-9.
Udara S.P.R. Arachchige received his B.Sc Degree (2007) in Chemical and Process Engineering from
University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka and M.Sc degree (2010) in Energy and Environmental Engineering
from Telemark University College, Porsgrunn, Norway. He is presently pursuing his Ph.D in Carbon
dioxide capture from power plants- modeling and simulation studies from Telemark University College,
Porsgrunn, Norway. He has presented and published five paper in International Conferences. Mr. Udara
is a member of American Chemical Society.
E-mail address: udara.s.p.arachchige@hit.no
Muhammad Mohsin received his B.Sc Degree (2011) in Electrical Engineering and Automation
from Shenyang University of Chemical Technology, Shenyang, China. He is presently pursuing his
Master degree in System and Control Engineering in Telemark University College, Porsgrunn, Norway.
He also working as a research Assistant in Technology department in same university college. Mr.
Mohsin has research interest on carbon capture, modeling and simulation, control systems in process
industries.
E-mail address: mohsin.m.ansari@gmail.com
Morten Chr. Melaaen is Professor in process technology at Telemark University College, Porsgrunn,
Norway. He is also the Dean of Faculty of Technology, Telemark University College and has a part
time position at the local research institute Tel-Tek. Earlier, he has worked as a research engineer in
Division of Applied Thermodynamics, SINTEF, Norway and as an Associate professor at Norwegian
University of Science and Technology (NTNU). He has worked on research projects as a Senior
research scientist in Norsk Hydro Research Centre Porsgrunn, Norway. He started to work as a
professor at Telemark University College in 1994 and became Head of Department, Department of
Process, Energy and Environmental Technology in 2002. He received his MSc in Mechanical Engineer
in 1986 and his Ph.D in 1990, both from the NTNU. His research interests are CO2 capture, Modeling
and simulation, Fluid mechanics and Heat and Mass Transfer. Professor Morten has more than 90
scientific papers published in the above mentioned related fields in international journals and
conferences.
E-mail address: Morten.C.Melaaen@hit.no
View publication stats

Optimization of Post Combustion Carbon Capture Process-Solvent Selection

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Optimization of Post Combustion Carbon Capture Process-Solvent Selection

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

Optimization of Post Combustion Carbon Capture Process-Solvent Selection

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Optimization of post combustion carbon capture process- solvent selection

Udara Arachchige Muhammad Mohsin

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Plastic Recycling View project

Boiler Operation and Maintainance View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Optimization of post combustion carbon capture process-

Udara S. P. R. Arachchige1, Muhammad Mohsin1, Morten C. Melaaen1,2

Figure 1. Percentage of CO2 emissions from different sources [1]

Table 1. Flue gas composition and parameters [2, 3]

Parameter Coal Fired Gas Fired

Figure 2. Process flow diagram

Table 2. Absorber and stripper column specifications

Coal fired flue gas Gas fired flue gas

3.1 Coal fired power plant flue gas simulations

3.2 Gas fired power plant flue gas simulations

Specification 85% Removal 90% Removal 95% Removal

View publication stats

You might also like