https://doi.org/10.3390/en15020425
”
The results obtained in the base case process simulations of this work are compared with those found in the literature in Table 5 and Table 6. The references in Table 5 and Table 6 are simulations of CO2 capture processes from an NGCC power plant and a cement plant’s flue gases, respectively. In addition, they are all 30% MEA solvent CO2 capture processes. The CO2 concentrations in the flue gases are provided.
Table 5. Comparison of NGCC power plant’s exhaust gas process simulation results with literature.
| CO2 Capture Rate | CO2 Concentration | ΔTmin | Lean Loading | Rich Loading | Absorber Packing Height | Reboiler Specific Heat | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unit | % | mol% | °C | m | GJ/tCO2 | ||
| This work (NGCC) | 90 | 3.75 | 10 | 0.26 | 0.50 | 17 | 3.73 |
| Amrollahi et al. [28] | 90 | 3.80 | 8.5 | n.a. | 0.47 | 13 | 3.74 |
| Ali et al. [56] | 90 | 4.16 | n.a. | n.a. | 0.48 | n.a. | 3.93 |
| Sipöcz et al. [30] | 90 | 4.20 | 10 | n.a. | 0.47 | 26.9 * | 3.93 |
* Not defined if it is packing height or shell tangent-tangent height. n.a. = not available.
Table 6. Comparison of the cement plant’s flue gas process simulation results with literature.
| CO2 Capture Rate | CO2 Concentration | ΔTmin | Lean Loading | Rich Loading | Absorber Packing Height | Reboiler Specific Heat | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unit | % | mol% | °C | m | GJ/tCO2 | ||
| This work (cement) | 90 | 18 | n.a. | 0.26 | 0.48 | 17.4 (29 stages) | 3.89 |
| Voldsund et al. [57] | 90 | 22 | n.a. | 0.22 | 0.50 | n.a. | 3.76 |
| Voldsund et al. [57] | 90 | 18 | n.a. | 0.22 | 0.50 | n.a. | 3.80 |
| Nwaoha et al. [14] | 90 | 11.5 vol% | 10 | 0.32 | 0.50 | 22 (36 stages) | 3.86 |
n.a.= not available.
In the NGCC power plant’s case, the rich loading in this work is only about 0.02–0.03 more than the references [28,30,56]. The lean loading of the references is not available to ascertain their cyclic capacity. The reboiler specific heat consumption calculated in this work is 4.8% less than the results published in [30,56]. The absorber packing heights have great influence on the reboiler heat requirement, and they vary from one study to another, as can be seen in Table 5. The result calculated in this work is almost the same as the simulation result of [28]. The ΔTmin are, however, different; reference [28] used 8.5 °C, while 10 °C was specified in this work. Reboiler specific heat requirements of 3.66 GJ/tCO2 and 3.70 GJ/tCO2 were calculated for ΔTmin of 8 °C and 9 °C, respectively, in this work. The agreement of the results of this work with the references is good.
In the cement plant flue gas CO2 capture process, the specific reboiler heat consumption calculated is 0.7% to 3.4% higher than the references [14,57]. The agreement in the cement process is also good.
“