https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2017.08.024
“In order to check the performance of the pilots, Fig. 7 shows the experimental specific reboiler duty in all the campaigns as a function of rich loading. As expected, a linear trend was observed between the net reboiler duty and the CO2 loading of the rich amine flux from 0.3 to 0.5. This similar trend between the four pilot campaigns strengthened the reliability of the experimental data. However, there were three runs from the campaign of Notz et al. [25], with rich loading approximately 0.3, 0.42 and 0.44, that were above this trend. These runs did not converge in the simulations and thus they are not shown in other figures. Additionally, three runs, one from Pinto et al. [42] (at loading 0.44 mol CO2/mol MEA) and two from Notz et al. [25] at high loading (0.51 and 0.53 mol CO2/mol MEA), were also out of the trend. The runs with rich loadings 0.51 and 0.53 mol CO2/mol MEA from Notz et al. [25] showed the highest error in the loading on the lean amine (see Fig. 3). At low rich loading, 0.25-0.26 mol CO2/mol MEA, the runs had a large scatter.
Fig. 7. Evolution of Net Reboiler Duty (MJ/kg stripped CO2) with the CO2 Loading in the Rich flux (mol CO2/mol MEA) from [41] (▲); [42] (*); [15] (●); and [25] (▪). Line represent the case in which simulated and experimental values of CO2 stripped are equal.
“