Process simulation and techno-economic analysis of CESAR-1 solvent in post combustion carbon capture, and benchmarking with MEA solvent
Author
Mertdag, Yasemin
Term
4. term
Education
Publication year
2023
Submitted on
2023-06-01
Pages
122
Abstract
Monoethanolamine (MEA) is widely used for carbon capture, but it has drawbacks: regenerating the solvent requires a lot of energy, and capital costs are high. As an alternative, we studied CESAR 1, a water-based blend of 2-amino-2-methylpropanol (AMP) and piperazine (PZ) from the CESAR project. We assessed CESAR 1 in a post-combustion carbon capture plant from both technical and economic perspectives, using MEA as the benchmark. The process was modeled in ProMax V6 and assessed with pilot-plant experiments and larger-scale studies using real flue gas data. We ran a sensitivity analysis on six operating parameters. The largest reductions in reboiler duty (the energy needed to release CO2 and regenerate the solvent) came from adjusting the liquid-to-gas (L/G) ratio, the minimum temperature approach (the smallest temperature difference allowed in heat exchange), and the stripper pressure (the pressure in the regeneration column). Under the best conditions for these, the lowest reboiler duties were 2.8, 2.77, and 2.73 GJ/t CO2 for CESAR 1, compared with 3.5, 3.45, and 3.43 GJ/t CO2 for MEA. Costs were most sensitive to the L/G ratio and the minimum temperature difference. At the best L/G ratio, the total cost was €460 million for CESAR 1 and €544 million for MEA. At the best minimum temperature difference, the total cost was €419 million for CESAR 1 and €502 million for MEA. In every sensitivity case, CESAR 1 outperformed MEA, and under almost all conditions the CESAR 1 design was less costly.
Monoethanolamin (MEA) bruges bredt til CO2-fangst, men har ulemper: regenerering af opløsningen kræver meget energi, og anlægsomkostningerne er høje. Som alternativ undersøgte vi CESAR 1, en vandig blanding af 2-amino-2-methylpropanol (AMP) og piperazin (PZ) fra CESAR-projektet. Vi vurderede CESAR 1 i et efterforbrændings-CO2-fangstanlæg teknisk og økonomisk i forhold til MEA. Processen blev modelleret i ProMax V6, og resultaterne blev understøttet af pilottests samt studier i større skala med data fra virkelig røggas. Vi udførte følsomhedsanalyser af seks driftsparametre. De største reduktioner i genkogerens energiforbrug (reboiler duty) kom fra justering af L/G-forholdet (forholdet mellem væske- og gasstrøm), den minimale temperaturtilnærmning (mindste temperaturforskel i varmeveksling) og strippertrykket (trykket i regenereringskolonnen). Under de bedste betingelser gav dette laveste energiforbrug på 2,8, 2,77 og 2,73 GJ/t CO2 for CESAR 1 mod 3,5, 3,45 og 3,43 GJ/t CO2 for MEA. Omkostningerne var mest følsomme over for L/G-forholdet og den minimale temperaturforskel. Ved det bedste L/G-forhold var den samlede omkostning 460 mio. € for CESAR 1 og 544 mio. € for MEA. Ved den bedste minimale temperaturforskel var den samlede omkostning 419 mio. € for CESAR 1 og 502 mio. € for MEA. I alle følsomhedstilfælde præsterede CESAR 1 bedre end MEA, og under næsten alle betingelser var CESAR 1-designet billigere.
[This apstract has been rewritten with the help of AI based on the project's original abstract]
Keywords
Carbon capture ; CO2 capture ; post-combustion carbon capture (PCC) ; MEA ; CESAR ; techno-economic analysis ; CAPEX ; amines ; flue gas ; ProMax ; OPEX ; modelling ; pilot plant ; simulation