A comparative study of MEA and DEA for post-combustion CO2 capture with different process configurations
This paper presented a comparative study of monoethanolamine （MEA） and diethanolamine （DEA） for post- combustion CO2 capture （PCC） process with different process configurations to study the interaction effect between solvent and process. The steady state process model of the conventional MEA-based P...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | International journal of coal science & technology 2017-03, Vol.4 (1), p.15-24 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 24 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 15 |
| container_title | International journal of coal science & technology |
| container_volume | 4 |
| creator | Xue, Boyang Yu, Yanmei Chen, Jian Luo, Xiaobo Wang, Meihong |
| description | This paper presented a comparative study of monoethanolamine （MEA） and diethanolamine （DEA） for post- combustion CO2 capture （PCC） process with different process configurations to study the interaction effect between solvent and process. The steady state process model of the conventional MEA-based PCC process was developed in Pro/II and was validated with the experimental data. Then ten different process configurations were simulated for both MEA and DEA. Their performances in energy consumption were compared in terms of reboiler duty and total equivalent work. The results show that DEA generally has better thermal performances than MEA for all these ten process configurations. Seven process configurations provide 0.38%-4.61% total energy saving compared with the conventional PCC process for MEA, and other two configurations are not favourable. For DEA, except one configuration, other process configurations have 0.27%-4.50% total energy saving. This work also analyzed the sensitivities of three key parameters （amine concentration, stripper pressure and lean solvent loading） in conventional process and five process modifications to show optimization strategy. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s40789-016-0149-7 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2419940656</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cqvip_id>672017807</cqvip_id><sourcerecordid>2419940656</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3017-43e708cb49f70ce11633e796236855538c9f60c643b2bbe25364347d0288adde3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UMlOwzAQjRBIVKUfwM2Cs8FbvByrUhapqBc4W4ljt6lonNoOiL_HVSq4cRjNaPSWmVcU1xjdYYTEfWRISAUR5rmYguKsmBCsJBSS0PM8I1VCSRS9LGYx7hA6ogjDbFJs58D4fV-FKrWfFsQ0NN_AO_C6nIOqa8BD7s4H0PuYYEbWQ0yt78BiTYCp-jQEC77atAVN65wNtkugD97YGLNu59rNcFT2XbwqLlz1Ee3s1KfF--PybfEMV-unl8V8BQ1FWEBGrUDS1Ew5gYzFmNO8UZxQLsuypNIox5HhjNakri0paR6ZaBCRsmoaS6fF7aibzzgMNia980PosqXOHyvFEC95RuERZYKPMVin-9Duq_CtMdLHTPWYqc6Z6mNaWmQOGTkxY7uNDX_K_5FuTkZb320OmffrxAXJH0sk6A859YNy</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2419940656</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A comparative study of MEA and DEA for post-combustion CO2 capture with different process configurations</title><source>SpringerOpen</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><creator>Xue, Boyang ; Yu, Yanmei ; Chen, Jian ; Luo, Xiaobo ; Wang, Meihong</creator><creatorcontrib>Xue, Boyang ; Yu, Yanmei ; Chen, Jian ; Luo, Xiaobo ; Wang, Meihong</creatorcontrib><description>This paper presented a comparative study of monoethanolamine （MEA） and diethanolamine （DEA） for post- combustion CO2 capture （PCC） process with different process configurations to study the interaction effect between solvent and process. The steady state process model of the conventional MEA-based PCC process was developed in Pro/II and was validated with the experimental data. Then ten different process configurations were simulated for both MEA and DEA. Their performances in energy consumption were compared in terms of reboiler duty and total equivalent work. The results show that DEA generally has better thermal performances than MEA for all these ten process configurations. Seven process configurations provide 0.38%-4.61% total energy saving compared with the conventional PCC process for MEA, and other two configurations are not favourable. For DEA, except one configuration, other process configurations have 0.27%-4.50% total energy saving. This work also analyzed the sensitivities of three key parameters （amine concentration, stripper pressure and lean solvent loading） in conventional process and five process modifications to show optimization strategy.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2095-8293</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2198-7823</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s40789-016-0149-7</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Beijing: China Coal Society</publisher><subject>Carbon dioxide ; Carbon sequestration ; CO2 ; Combustion ; DEA ; Energy ; Energy conservation ; Fossil Fuels (incl. Carbon Capture) ; Geotechnical Engineering & Applied Earth Sciences ; MEA ; Mineral Resources ; Optimization ; PCC ; Research Article ; Solvents ; 二乙醇胺 ; 工艺配置 ; 捕获 ; 燃烧</subject><ispartof>International journal of coal science & technology, 2017-03, Vol.4 (1), p.15-24</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2016</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2016. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3017-43e708cb49f70ce11633e796236855538c9f60c643b2bbe25364347d0288adde3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3017-43e708cb49f70ce11633e796236855538c9f60c643b2bbe25364347d0288adde3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-1695-7790</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Uhttp://image.cqvip.com/vip1000/qk/84499A/84499A.jpg</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s40789-016-0149-7$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s40789-016-0149-7$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,864,27924,27925,41120,42189,51576</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Xue, Boyang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yu, Yanmei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Jian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Luo, Xiaobo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Meihong</creatorcontrib><title>A comparative study of MEA and DEA for post-combustion CO2 capture with different process configurations</title><title>International journal of coal science & technology</title><addtitle>Int J Coal Sci Technol</addtitle><addtitle>International Journal of Coal Science ＆ Technology</addtitle><description>This paper presented a comparative study of monoethanolamine （MEA） and diethanolamine （DEA） for post- combustion CO2 capture （PCC） process with different process configurations to study the interaction effect between solvent and process. The steady state process model of the conventional MEA-based PCC process was developed in Pro/II and was validated with the experimental data. Then ten different process configurations were simulated for both MEA and DEA. Their performances in energy consumption were compared in terms of reboiler duty and total equivalent work. The results show that DEA generally has better thermal performances than MEA for all these ten process configurations. Seven process configurations provide 0.38%-4.61% total energy saving compared with the conventional PCC process for MEA, and other two configurations are not favourable. For DEA, except one configuration, other process configurations have 0.27%-4.50% total energy saving. This work also analyzed the sensitivities of three key parameters （amine concentration, stripper pressure and lean solvent loading） in conventional process and five process modifications to show optimization strategy.</description><subject>Carbon dioxide</subject><subject>Carbon sequestration</subject><subject>CO2</subject><subject>Combustion</subject><subject>DEA</subject><subject>Energy</subject><subject>Energy conservation</subject><subject>Fossil Fuels (incl. Carbon Capture)</subject><subject>Geotechnical Engineering & Applied Earth Sciences</subject><subject>MEA</subject><subject>Mineral Resources</subject><subject>Optimization</subject><subject>PCC</subject><subject>Research Article</subject><subject>Solvents</subject><subject>二乙醇胺</subject><subject>工艺配置</subject><subject>捕获</subject><subject>燃烧</subject><issn>2095-8293</issn><issn>2198-7823</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNp9UMlOwzAQjRBIVKUfwM2Cs8FbvByrUhapqBc4W4ljt6lonNoOiL_HVSq4cRjNaPSWmVcU1xjdYYTEfWRISAUR5rmYguKsmBCsJBSS0PM8I1VCSRS9LGYx7hA6ogjDbFJs58D4fV-FKrWfFsQ0NN_AO_C6nIOqa8BD7s4H0PuYYEbWQ0yt78BiTYCp-jQEC77atAVN65wNtkugD97YGLNu59rNcFT2XbwqLlz1Ee3s1KfF--PybfEMV-unl8V8BQ1FWEBGrUDS1Ew5gYzFmNO8UZxQLsuypNIox5HhjNakri0paR6ZaBCRsmoaS6fF7aibzzgMNia980PosqXOHyvFEC95RuERZYKPMVin-9Duq_CtMdLHTPWYqc6Z6mNaWmQOGTkxY7uNDX_K_5FuTkZb320OmffrxAXJH0sk6A859YNy</recordid><startdate>20170301</startdate><enddate>20170301</enddate><creator>Xue, Boyang</creator><creator>Yu, Yanmei</creator><creator>Chen, Jian</creator><creator>Luo, Xiaobo</creator><creator>Wang, Meihong</creator><general>China Coal Society</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>2RA</scope><scope>92L</scope><scope>CQIGP</scope><scope>W92</scope><scope>~WA</scope><scope>C6C</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1695-7790</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20170301</creationdate><title>A comparative study of MEA and DEA for post-combustion CO2 capture with different process configurations</title><author>Xue, Boyang ; Yu, Yanmei ; Chen, Jian ; Luo, Xiaobo ; Wang, Meihong</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3017-43e708cb49f70ce11633e796236855538c9f60c643b2bbe25364347d0288adde3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Carbon dioxide</topic><topic>Carbon sequestration</topic><topic>CO2</topic><topic>Combustion</topic><topic>DEA</topic><topic>Energy</topic><topic>Energy conservation</topic><topic>Fossil Fuels (incl. Carbon Capture)</topic><topic>Geotechnical Engineering & Applied Earth Sciences</topic><topic>MEA</topic><topic>Mineral Resources</topic><topic>Optimization</topic><topic>PCC</topic><topic>Research Article</topic><topic>Solvents</topic><topic>二乙醇胺</topic><topic>工艺配置</topic><topic>捕获</topic><topic>燃烧</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Xue, Boyang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yu, Yanmei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Jian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Luo, Xiaobo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Meihong</creatorcontrib><collection>维普_期刊</collection><collection>中文科技期刊数据库-CALIS站点</collection><collection>维普中文期刊数据库</collection><collection>中文科技期刊数据库-工程技术</collection><collection>中文科技期刊数据库- 镜像站点</collection><collection>SpringerOpen</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><jtitle>International journal of coal science & technology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Xue, Boyang</au><au>Yu, Yanmei</au><au>Chen, Jian</au><au>Luo, Xiaobo</au><au>Wang, Meihong</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A comparative study of MEA and DEA for post-combustion CO2 capture with different process configurations</atitle><jtitle>International journal of coal science & technology</jtitle><stitle>Int J Coal Sci Technol</stitle><addtitle>International Journal of Coal Science ＆ Technology</addtitle><date>2017-03-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>4</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>15</spage><epage>24</epage><pages>15-24</pages><issn>2095-8293</issn><eissn>2198-7823</eissn><abstract>This paper presented a comparative study of monoethanolamine （MEA） and diethanolamine （DEA） for post- combustion CO2 capture （PCC） process with different process configurations to study the interaction effect between solvent and process. The steady state process model of the conventional MEA-based PCC process was developed in Pro/II and was validated with the experimental data. Then ten different process configurations were simulated for both MEA and DEA. Their performances in energy consumption were compared in terms of reboiler duty and total equivalent work. The results show that DEA generally has better thermal performances than MEA for all these ten process configurations. Seven process configurations provide 0.38%-4.61% total energy saving compared with the conventional PCC process for MEA, and other two configurations are not favourable. For DEA, except one configuration, other process configurations have 0.27%-4.50% total energy saving. This work also analyzed the sensitivities of three key parameters （amine concentration, stripper pressure and lean solvent loading） in conventional process and five process modifications to show optimization strategy.</abstract><cop>Beijing</cop><pub>China Coal Society</pub><doi>10.1007/s40789-016-0149-7</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1695-7790</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 2095-8293 |
| ispartof | International journal of coal science & technology, 2017-03, Vol.4 (1), p.15-24 |
| issn | 2095-8293 2198-7823 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2419940656 |
| source | SpringerOpen; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; EZB Electronic Journals Library |
| subjects | Carbon dioxide Carbon sequestration CO2 Combustion DEA Energy Energy conservation Fossil Fuels (incl. Carbon Capture) Geotechnical Engineering & Applied Earth Sciences MEA Mineral Resources Optimization PCC Research Article Solvents 二乙醇胺 工艺配置 捕获 燃烧 |
| title | A comparative study of MEA and DEA for post-combustion CO2 capture with different process configurations |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-03T19%3A26%3A05IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20comparative%20study%20of%20MEA%20and%20DEA%20for%20post-combustion%20CO2%20capture%20with%20different%20process%20configurations&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20coal%20science%20&%20technology&rft.au=Xue,%20Boyang&rft.date=2017-03-01&rft.volume=4&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=15&rft.epage=24&rft.pages=15-24&rft.issn=2095-8293&rft.eissn=2198-7823&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s40789-016-0149-7&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2419940656%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2419940656&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cqvip_id=672017807&rfr_iscdi=true |