Techno-Economic Analysis of Postcombustion Processes for the Capture of Carbon Dioxide from Power Plant Flue Gas

Abstract

Capture and sequestration of CO2 from power plant flue gas have become an important issue in the discussion about global warming. Different concepts of capture are being pursued. The advantage of postcombustion processes, such as processes based on absorption and stripping, is the possibility of retrofitting a state-of-the-art power plant with a capture plant under reasonable effort. Capturing CO2 by using an absorption/stripping process requires energy in the form of electricity and steam both supplied by the power plant. The capture process thereby reduces the overall efficiency of the power plant by up to 13%pts (percentage points). Apart from the development of new solvents, alternative and novel configurations of the process can lower the energy requirements. Three alternative configurations are economically and technically evaluated and compared to a baseline process represented by a standard absorption/stripping process using monoethanolamine (MEA) as a solvent. Savings in cost of CO2-avoided of 2−5% were attained. Regarding the total power required, savings of 4−7% were obtained. The results showed that not the process with the highest energy savings has the lowest cost of CO2-avoided, but that the influence of rising investment costs of more complex configurations cannot be ignored. For a comprehensive analysis of different configurations it is essential to perform both an economic evaluation and a technical study.

Post-combustion carbon capture technologies: Energetic analysis and life cycle assessment

“…CO2 capture and storage (CCS) has been regarded as one of the most promising options to utilize fossil fuels continuously without the significant influence to the climate change. Till now, a large number of studies have focused on the assessment of energy consumption, capture cost and environmental impacts in CCS, while most of them analysed MEA-based capture systems which have been proven in chemical production industries, for example, process analysis and techno-economic assessment (Abu-Zahra et al, 2007;Huang et al, 2010;Husebye et al, 2011;IEA, 2006;Sanpasertparnich et al, 2010;Schach et al, 2010;Sipocz and Tobiesen, 2012) and environmental impact assessment (Nie et al, 2013) ( Koornneef et al, 2011;Koornneef et al, 2012;Korre et al, 2010;Pehnt and Henkel, 2009;Schreiber et al, 2009;Singh et al, 2011a;Singh et al, 2011b). Research on some emerging capture technologies such as membranes, ionic liquids and metal organic frameworks (MOFs) is in progress with the aim of reducing capture energy consumption and capital investment (Favre, 2011;Figueroa et al, 2008;MacDowell et al, 2010;Zhang et al, 2012b), and shows a promising application in CO2 capture.…”

Benchmarking of CO 2 transport technologies: Part II – Offshore pipeline and shipping to an offshore site

“…However in the cash flow profile, the investment costs are reported as an overnight cost assuming an equally-shared investment over the construction time. For instance, process plants, ships and offshore pipeline are assumed to be built over three years (Schach et al, 2010).…”

Benchmarking of CO2 transport technologies: Part I—Onshore pipeline and shipping between two onshore areas

“…However in the cash flow profile, the investment costs are reported as an overnight cost assuming an equally-shared investment over the construction time. For instance, process plants and ships are assumed to be built over three years (Schach et al, 2010), while onshore pipelines are assumed to have a laying time of five years.…”