https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2022.103597
“The PCC model of fresh solution was validated by mimicking the system configuration and operating conditions of the pilot plant campaign of Mangalapally and Hasse (2011) using the validation procedure of Zhang et al. (2017). In accordance with the pilot plant operations, an aqueous blend of AMP 28 wt% and PZ 17 wt% was used. The CO2 capture rate in the pilot plant operation was maintained at 90% by adjusting the reboiler duty in the stripper for systematically varied liquid-gas flow rate ratio (L/G). Representative process performance indices (i.e., lean and rich loading, regeneration energy, CO2 capture rate) in the simulation were compared with the pilot plant results as shown in Table 4. In Table 4, the relative error (ε) is calculated by Eq. (16) , where Ne is the value of experiment and Ns is the value of simulation. The largest relative error was ∼5%, indicating our model can accurately simulate amine-based PCC performance using AMP-PZ aqueous solution.
(16)ε(%)=|Ne−Ns|/Ne×100
Table 4. Comparisons of our simulation results with a pilot plant data of Mangapally and Hasse (2011).
| L/G kg/kg | Empty Cell | Empty Cell | Experiment | Simulation | Relative error |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.25 | Lean loading | mol-CO2/kg-solution | 0.3 | 0.30 | 0.93% |
| Rich loading | mol-CO2/kg-solution | 2.7 | 2.76 | 2.14% | |
| Mass flow rate of CO2 captured | kg/hr | 10.5 | 10.23 | 2.56% | |
| CO2 capture rate | % | 90 | 88.20 | 2.00% | |
| Regeneration energy | GJ/t-CO2 | 3.3 | 3.38 | 2.36% | |
| 1.9 | Lean loading | mol-CO2/kg-solution | 0.8 | 0.79 | 1.26% |
| Rich loading | mol-CO2/kg-solution | 2.4 | 2.39 | 0.52% | |
| Mass flow rate of CO2 captured | kg/hr | 10.5 | 10.61 | 1.05% | |
| CO2 capture rate | % | 90 | 91.47 | 1.63% | |
| Regeneration energy | GJ/t-CO2 | 3.5 | 3.46 | 1.12% | |
| 2.9 | Lean loading | mol-CO2/kg-solution | 1.1 | 1.07 | 2.53% |
| Rich loading | mol-CO2/kg-solution | 2.1 | 2.09 | 0.63% | |
| Mass flow rate of CO2 captured | kg/hr | 10.5 | 10.99 | 4.68% | |
| CO2 capture rate | % | 90 | 94.75 | 5.28% | |
| Regeneration energy | GJ/t-CO2 | 4 | 3.80 | 5.01% |
“