Comparative Investigation of Different CO2 Capture Technologies for Coal to Ethylene Glycol Process

Abstract

The coal to ethylene glycol (CTEG) process has drawn much attention due to the serious conflict between supply and demand of ethylene glycol in China. However, it is inevitably accompanied by the problem of high CO2 emissions. Carbon capture is one of the most promising potential effective ways to address this issue. However, the CTEG process, integrated with carbon capture technology, will lead to energy and economic penalties. Thus, a comprehensive evaluation of CTEG process with different CO2 capture technologies is urgently needed. This study analyzed the technoeconomic performance of four CO2 capture alternatives for the CTEG process: Rectisol, mono-ethanol amine (MEA), chilled ammonia process (CAP) and dimethyl carbonate (DMC) technologies. Results show the energy consumption of CO2 capture of the Rectisol process is the lowest, 1.88 GJ/tCO2, followed by the DMC process, 2.10 GJ/tCO2, the CAP process, 3.64 GJ/tCO2, and the MEA process, 5.20 GJ/tCO2. The CO2 capture cost of the Rectisol process is lowest, CNY 169.5/tCO2, followed by the DMC process, CNY 193.2/tCO2, the CAP process CNY 232.6/tCO2, and the MEA process CNY 250.5/tCO2. As the Rectisol technology has the best comprehensive performance, it is the best option for CTEG industry in comparison with the MEA, CAP, and DMC technologies.

Viable Alternative Prospective Option for Liquid Methanol Industry’s Long-Term and Cost-Effective Development: CO2 to Methanol Conversion and Ethylene Glycol Coproduction

“…Here, the total production costs (TPC) of different CO 2 synthesis methanol technologies were evaluated to compare the economic performances of different methanol synthesis processes. The formulas are shown as follows: − T P C = ∑ k T C R k + prefix∑ k C O M k − prefix∑ k C k m MeOH T C R k = T C I k × C R F C R F = r 1 − false( 1 + r false) − n where TCR k is the total investment required for unit k ; COM k is the annual operation and maintenance cost of unit k ; C k is the salvage value of unit k (4%); m MeOH is the methanol flow rate; CRF is the capital recovery factor; and r and n are, respectively, the depreciation rate (12%) and the life time of the plant (15%). Raw material costs (CR), utility costs (CU), and operation and maintenance costs ( CM ) were calculated based on data in the Supporting Information.…”

Technoeconomic Feasibility of Hydrogen Production from Waste Tires with the Control of CO2 Emissions

“…Although it requires intensive regeneration energy and high operating cost, it offers high CO 2 removal, and it has a high capacity at low pressure . To efficiently capture the CO 2 from the produced syngas, the methanol absorption method is a superb technology as an acid gas removal (AGR) unit …”

“… 25 To efficiently capture the CO 2 from the produced syngas, the methanol absorption method is a superb technology as an acid gas removal (AGR) unit. 26 …”

Advances in Energy System Synthesis and the Energy–Water Nexus in Industry

“…It is found that the particle-based Archimedes number has a linear relationship with the solid holdup at all operating conditions. Ma et al [6] compare different CO 2 capture technologies for the coal to ethylene glycol process. These include Rectisol, mono-ethanol amine (MEA), chilled ammonia process (CAP) and dimethyl carbonate (DMC) technologies.…”