Advertisement

Assessment of Thermodynamic Efficiency of Carbon Dioxide Separation in Capture Plants by Using Gas–Liquid Absorption

  • Wojciech M. Budzianowski
Chapter
Part of the Green Energy and Technology book series (GREEN)

Abstract

Typical carbon capture plants include CO2 separation and compression steps. CO2 separation from diluted flue gases may be achieved by using gas-liquid absorption. This process requires work input for e.g. separating CO2 from flue gases and regenerating the CO2 loaded solvent. Hence, CO2 capture plants involving gas-liquid absorption consume a remarkable part of power and thermal energy generated by power plants. By increasing the thermodynamic efficiency of capture plants one can increase the produced power and save fossil fuels. Therefore, this study provides a quantitative assessment of the thermodynamic efficiency of CO2 separation in capture plants. To this aim the minimum work required for CO2 separation and actual work input in realistic carbon capture plants are estimated. The results reveal that for the state-of-the-art MEA solvent the thermodynamic efficiency of the capture plant is about 16%, for state-of-the-art advanced solvent based capture process (ASBCP) is about 25%, while given the progress in developing ASBCPs in near future it may reach about 30%. Additional measures to reduce the energy requirement of the capture plant such as heat pumps are also discussed. This all means that CO2 separation by gas-liquid absorption is still a relatively inefficient process and remarkable potential for further improvements with step change innovations in gas-liquid absorption exist and may be beneficially used for optimising CO2 capture plants.

Keywords

Heat Pump Selective Catalytic Reduction Work Requirement Minimum Work Thermodynamic Efficiency 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Nomenclature

.

ASBCP

Advanced solvent based capture process

E

Energy, J

G

Gibbs free energy, J

MEA

Monoethanolamine

n

Molar flow rate, kmol/s

NGCC

Natural gas combined cycle

pi

Partial pressure of the i-th gas, Pa

p

Total pressure, Pa

PC

Pulverised coal

PCC

Postcombustion capture

Q

Heat, J

R

Ideal gas constant = 8.314 J/(mol K)

T

Absolute temperature, K

TREF

Reference temperature = 293.15 K

TSOURCE

Source temperature = 393.15 K

W

Work, J

Wact

Actual work, J

Wmin

Minimum work of separation, J

\(y_{i}^{{{\text{CO}}_{2} }}\)

Mole fraction of CO2 in the gas mixture i, –

\(y_{i}^{{{\text{i}} - {\text{CO}}_{2} }}\)

Mole fraction of non-CO2 remainder, −

η

Thermodynamic efficiency, –

ηturbine

Turbine efficiency = 90%

Subscripts and superscripts

A

Stream A

B

Stream B

C

Stream C

i

Index

sep

Separation

TOTAL

Total

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study has been supported by the members of the Renewable Energy and Sustainable Development (RESD) Group (Poland) under the project RESD-RDG03/2016 which is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. 1.
    Calbry-Muzyka S, Edwards CF (2014) Thermodynamic benchmarking of CO2 capture systems: exergy analysis methodology for adsorption processes. Energy Procedia 63:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rochedo PRR, Szklo A (2013) Designing learning curves for carbon capture based on chemical absorption according to the minimum work of separation. Appl Energy 108:383–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Budzianowski WM (2016) Explorative analysis of advanced solvent processes for energy efficient carbon dioxide capture by gas-liquid absorption. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 49:108–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Budzianowski WM (2015) Single solvents, solvent blends, and advanced solvent systems in CO2 capture by absorption: a review. Int J Glob Warming 7(2):184–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gaskell D. (1995) Introduction to the thermodynamics of materials. Taylor & Francis. Washington D.CGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    House KZ, Harvey CF, Aziz MJ, Schrag DP (2009) The energy penalty of post-combustion CO2 capture & storage and its implications for retrofitting the U.S. installed base. Energy Environ Sci 2:193–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Budzianowski WM (2012) Negative carbon intensity of renewable energy technologies involving biomass or carbon dioxide as inputs. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 16(9):6507–6521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Budzianowski WM (2012) Value-added carbon management technologies for low CO2 intensive carbon-based energy vectors. Energy 41(1):280–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Budzianowski WM (2012) Benefits of biogas upgrading to biomethane by high-pressure reactive solvent scrubbing. Biofuels, Bioprod Biorefin 6(1):12–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Svendsen HF, Hessen ET, Mejdell T (2011) Carbon dioxide capture by absorption, challenges and possibilities. Chem Eng J 171(3):718–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhang G, Yang Y, Xu G, Zhang K, Zhang D (2015) CO2 capture by chemical absorption in coal-fired power plants: energy-saving mechanism, proposed methods, and performance analysis. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 39:449–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yu J, Wang S (2015) Modeling analysis of energy requirement in aqueous ammonia based CO2 capture process. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 43:33–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Geuzebroek FH, Schneiders LHJM, Kraaijveld GJC, Feron PHM (2004) Exergy analysis of alkanolamine-based CO2 removal unit with AspenPlus. Energy 29(9–10):1241–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Skorek-Osikowska A, Kotowicz J, Janusz-Szymańska K (2012) Comparison of the energy intensity of the selected CO2-capture methods applied in the ultra-supercritical coal power plants. Energy Fuels 26(11):6509–6517Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Arias AM, Mores PL, Scenna NJ, Mussati SF (2016) Optimal design and sensitivity analysis of post-combustion CO2 capture process by chemical absorption with amines. J Clean Prod 115:315–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Budzianowski WM, Wylock CE, Marciniak PA (2017) Power requirements of biogas upgrading by water scrubbing and biomethane compression: comparative analysis of various plant configurations. Energy Convers Manag. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2016.03.018 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Razi N, Svendsen HF, Bolland O (2013) Cost and energy sensitivity analysis of absorber design in CO2 capture with MEA. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 19:331–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Avci A, Karagoz I (2009) A novel explicit equation for friction factor in smooth and rough pipes. ASME J Fluids Eng 131:061203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lin Y, Rochelle GT (2016) Approaching a reversible stripping process for CO2 capture. Chem Eng J 283:1033–1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kim H, Lee KS (2016) Design guidance for an energy-thrift absorption process for carbon capture: analysis of thermal energy consumption for a conventional process configuration. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 47:291–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Alhajaj A, Mac Dowell N, Shah N (2016) A techno-economic analysis of post-combustion CO2 capture and compression applied to a combined cycle gas turbine: Part I. A parametric study of the key technical performance indicators. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 44:26–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    House KZ, Baclig AC, Ranjan M, van Nierop EA, Wilcox J, Herzog HJ (2011) Economic and energetic analysis of capturing CO2 from ambient air. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108(51):20428–20433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wilcox J. Carbon capture. 2012. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wołowicz M, Milewski J, Futyma K, Bujalski W (2014) Boosting the efficiency of an 800 MW-class power plant through utilization of low temperature heat of flue gases. Appl Mech Mater 483:315–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Higgins SJ, Liu YA (2015) CO2 capture modeling, energy savings, and heat pump integration. Ind Eng Chem Res 54(9):2526–2553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wang M, Joel AS, Ramshaw C, Eimer D, Musa NM (2015) Process intensification for post-combustion CO2 capture with chemical absorption: a critical review. Appl Energy 158:275–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Consulting ServicesWrocławPoland
  2. 2.Renewable Energy and Sustainable Development (RESD) GroupWrocławPoland

Personalised recommendations