2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.cherd.2011.03.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Capital costs and energy considerations of different alternative stripper configurations for post combustion CO2 capture

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
99
2

Year Published

2014
2014
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 144 publications
(104 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
3
99
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The Kent-Eisenberg model gave slightly higher heat consumption. The standard process gives a lower value than in most references [7,9,13,17], and as mentioned earlier, this can be explained by a high number of stages, a low temperature difference and a low removal grade.…”
Section: Energy Comparisons Of the Alternativesmentioning
confidence: 82%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The Kent-Eisenberg model gave slightly higher heat consumption. The standard process gives a lower value than in most references [7,9,13,17], and as mentioned earlier, this can be explained by a high number of stages, a low temperature difference and a low removal grade.…”
Section: Energy Comparisons Of the Alternativesmentioning
confidence: 82%
“…The vapour recompression case has been calculated by Karimi et al [9] who calculated a reboiler duty of 2.6 MJ/kg CO 2 using the program Unisim compared to a base case using 3.5 MJ/kg CO 2 captured from a coal based power plant. The values in this work are close to Karimi's values.…”
Section: Energy Comparisons Of the Alternativesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In this context, the post-combustion CO2 capture process by chemical absorption appears to be one of the CO2 capture technology that is close to an industrial deployment. Nevertheless, there is still a need for new solvents that can replace the conventional ones, such as for example the aqueous solution of monoethanolamine (MEA), especially to reduce the operating costs of the process, the main part of these costs being linked to the heating energy needed for the solvent regeneration at the stripper (around 3.5 GJ/tCO2 [1][2][3] for the benchmark MEA 30%)…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…32,33,35,37,48 In this process concept, illustrated in Figure 2, the lean stream that leaves the stripper column is flashed adiabatically in a separate vessel. As a consequence of the pressure reduction, the solvent is partially evaporated.…”
Section: Lean Vapor Compression (Lvc)mentioning
confidence: 99%