Part 1: Design, modeling and simulation of post-combustion CO₂ capture systems using reactive solvents

Figures & data

Figure 1.  Typical absorption-based CO₂ capture unit.

Figure 2.  Design procedure of CO₂ absorber.

(A) Emphirical design method, (B) Theoretical design method, (C) Laboratory method and (D) Pilot plant technique method.

Modified with permission from [20].

Figure 3.  Solubility plot and operating line.

Figure 4.  Small cell used for laboratory method.

C_B: Concentration; G: Gas; L: Liquid; P_A: Partial pressure.

Modified with permission from [20].

Figure 5.  String-of-sphere column [45].

γ: Unit volume of liquid; a_v: Interfacial area; C_B: Concentration; G: Gas; K_G; Overall gas mass transfer coeffiecient; K_L; Overall liquid mass transfer coeffiecient; L: Liquid; P_A: Partial pressure; Z: Height.

Figure 6.  Pilot plant technique.

Modified from with permission from [20].

C_B: Concentration; G: Gas; L: Liquid; P_A: Partial pressure; Z_m: Height.

Figure 7.  Pilot plant schematic process flow diagram for (A) ITC, Esbjerg CASTOR and ITT (B) SINTEF/NTNU.

HEX: Heat exchanger; L: Liquid; P: Pump; V: Vapour.

Reproduced with permission from [15].

Figure 8.  Experiment and simulation results for (A) CO₂ concentration and (B) temperature profiles in the absorber at 8% CO₂ content and 90% CO₂ capture performance from ITC pilot plant.

Figure 9.  Experiment and simulation results for (A) CO₂ concentration and (B) temperature profiles in the absorber at 8% CO₂ content and 80% CO₂ capture performance from ITC pilot plant.

Figure 10.  Experiment and simulation results for (A) CO₂ concentration and (B) temperature profiles in the absorber at 4% CO₂ content and 90% CO₂ capture performance from ITC pilot plant.

Figure 11.  Experiment and simulation results for (A) CO₂ concentration and (B) temperature profiles in the absorber at 4% CO₂ content and 80% CO₂ capture performance from ITC pilot plant.

Figure 12.  Parity plots of (A) CO₂ concentration (B) temperature profile (C) CO₂ mass balance and (D) reboiler heat duty from ITC pilot plant.

Figure 13.  Experiment and simulation results for (A) CO₂ concentration and (B) temperature profiles in the absorber at 11.8% CO₂ content and 90% CO₂ capture performance from Esbjerg CASTOR pilot plant.

Figure 14.  Parity plots of (A) CO₂ concentration (B) tempearature profile (C) CO₂ mass balance and (D) reboiler heat duty from Esbjerg CASTOR pilot plant.

Figure 15.  Experiment and simulation results for (A) CO₂ concentration and (B) temperature profiles in the absorber at 13.2% CO₂ content and 44% CO₂ capture performance from ITT Stuttgart pilot plant.

Figure 16.  Parity plots of (A) CO₂ concentration (B) tempearature profile (C) CO₂ mass balance and (D) reboiler heat duty from ITT Stuttgart pilot plant.

Figure 17.  Experiment and simulation results for temperature profile in the absorber at (A) 2.5% CO₂ content and 78.5% CO₂ capture performance, (B) 2.6% CO₂ content and 58.3% CO₂ capture performance, (C) 5.3% CO₂ content and 58.1% CO₂ capture performance and (D) 9.48% CO₂ content and 49.1% CO₂ capture performance from SINTEF/NTNU pilot plant.

Figure 18.  Parity plots of (A) tempearature profile (B) CO₂ mass balance and (C) reboiler heat duty from SINTEF/NTNU pilot plant.

Figure 19.  Parity plots of (A) CO₂ concentration (B) tempearature profile (C) CO₂ mass balance and (D) reboiler heat duty from ITC, Esbjerg CASTOR, ITT and SINTEF/NTNU pilot plants.

Figure 20a.  (A) An integration of CO₂ capture into pulverized coal-fired power plant.

G: Generator; HX: Heat exchanger; PM: Particulate matter; RH: Reheater; SH: Superheater.

Modified with permission from [16].

Figure 20b.  (B) An integration of CO₂ capture into combined cycle gas turbine power plant.

Comp: Compressor; G: Generator; GT: Gar turbine; HP: High-pressure turbine; HX: Heat exchanger; IP: Intermediate-pressure turbine; LP: Low-pressure turbine.

Bolded numbers 1–4 indicate a connection of each stream line.

Modified with permission from [50].

Figure 21.  Intermediate pressure/low pressure crossover pipe.

G: Generator; IP: Intermediate-pressure turbine; LP: Low-pressure turbine.

Figure 22.  Steam extraction from low pressure turbine.

G: Generator; IP: Intermediate-pressure turbine; LP: Low-pressure turbine.

Table 1.  Brief description of process parameters in four different pilot plants.

Packing type	ITC, Regina	CASTOR, Dong	ITT, Stuttgart	SINTEF/NTNU
Wash water section	Flexipac700Y	Mellapak252Y	Mellapak250Y
Absorber section	Flexipac700Y	IMTP50	Mellapak250Y	Mellapak250Y
Stripper section	Flexipac700Y	IMTP50	Mellapak250Y	Mellapak250Y
Wash water diameter/height (m)	0.33/2.93	1.1/3	0.125/0.42
Absorber diameter/height (m)	0.33/7.05	1.1/17	0.125/4.2	0.15/4.36
Stripper diameter/height (m)	0.33/9.97	1.1/10	0.125/2.52	0.1/3.89

Data from [15].

Tontiwachwuthikul P. New pilot plant technique for sizing gas absorbers with chemical reactions. PhD. Thesis. University of British Columbia, Canada (1991).

 Google Scholar

Alper E, Danckwerts PV. Laboratory scale-model of a complete column absorber. Chem. Eng. Sci.31(7),599–608 (1976).

 Google Scholar

Luo X, Knudsen JN, deMontigny D et al. Comparison and validation of simulation codes against sixteen sets of data from four different pilot plants. Energy Procedia.1(1),1249–1256 (2009).

 Google Scholar

Sanpasertparnich T, Idem R, Bolea I, deMontigny D, Tontiwachwuthikul T. Integration of post-combustion capture and storage into a pulverized coal-fired power plant. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control.4(3),499–510 (2010).

 Google Scholar

Sanpasertparnich T. Monte Carlo simulation of pulverized coal-fired power plants: efficiency improvement and CO2 capture options. MSc thesis. University of Regina, Canada (2007).

 Google Scholar