Skip to main content Skip to secondary navigation
Journal Article

Assessment of advanced solvent-based post-combustion CO2 capture processes using a bi-objective optimization technique

Abstract

The optimized performance of two advanced CO2 capture processes is compared to that of a monoethanolamine (MEA) baseline for a gas-powered CO2 capture retrofit of an existing coal-fired facility. The advanced temperature-swing processes utilize piperazine and mixed-salt solvents. The mixed-salt treatment involves the use of ammonia for CO2 absorption and potassium carbonate primarily to control ammonia slip. The processes are represented in terms of energy duty requirements within a modular heat integration code developed for CO2 capture modeling and optimization. The model includes a baseload coal plant, a gas-fired subsystem containing gas turbines and a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG), and a CO2 capture facility. A formal bi-objective optimization procedure is applied to determine the design (e.g., detailed HRSG components and pressure levels, gas turbine capacity, CO2 capture capacity) and time-varying operations of the facility to simultaneously maximize net present value (NPV) and minimize total capital requirement (TCR), while meeting a maximum CO2 emission intensity constraint. For a realistic scenario constructed using historical data, optimization results indicate that both advanced processes outperform MEA in both objectives, and the mixed-salt process in turn outperforms the piperazine process. Specifically, for the scenario considered, the base case mixed-salt process achieves 16% greater NPV and 14% lower TCR than the MEA process, and 10% greater NPV and 5% lower TCR than the piperazine process. A five-case sensitivity study of the mixed-salt process indicates that it is competitive with the piperazine process and consistently outperforms the MEA process.

Author(s)
Charles A. Kang
Adam R. Brandt
Louis J. Durlofsky
Indira Jayaweera
Journal Name
Applied Energy
Publication Date
October 1, 2016
DOI
10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.07.062
Publisher
Elsevier