Exergetic comparison of CO sub(2) capture techniques from solid fossil fuel power plants

There are several carbon capture and storage concepts for the reduction of CO sub(2) emissions of power plants that are promising and have been under development recently. In this study, three carbon capture technologies, the amine scrubbing, the calcium looping, and the oxyfuel combustion were eval...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of greenhouse gas control 2016-02, Vol.45, p.106-117
Hauptverfasser: Atsonios, K, Panopoulos, K, Grammelis, P, Kakaras, E
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:There are several carbon capture and storage concepts for the reduction of CO sub(2) emissions of power plants that are promising and have been under development recently. In this study, three carbon capture technologies, the amine scrubbing, the calcium looping, and the oxyfuel combustion were evaluated in terms of exergy losses when applied in fossil fuel power plants. Although both first two options are post combustion capture technologies, they affect the power plant differently: the amine system consumes steam for stripping (reboiler), whilst calcium sorbents regeneration process consumes fuel. On the other hand, oxyfuel technology suffers due to the power consumption penalties for the oxygen production in an Air Separation Unit. The exergy analysis revealed that in the amine scrubbing case, 7.7% of the total exergy input to the power plant is destroyed in the capture unit and 1.0% during CO sub(2) compression. Although a considerable amount of the total exergy input (22.3%) is dissipated in the calcium looping process, the overall scheme is the most efficient with the lowest exergy penalty of -9.0%, whereas in the amine and oxyfuel case this penalty amounts to -10.0% and -9.5% respectively. In the oxy-combustion case, the ASU is the main unit where most of the exergy losses for CO sub(2) capture are observed (5.1% of the total exergy input in the system). Abbreviations * ASU, Air Separation Unit * BMC, bed material cooler * COP, coefficient of performance * CRH, cold reheated steam * DCAC, direct contact air cooler * EC, evaporative cooler * EOR, enhanced oil recovery * Evap, evaporator * FG, flue gas * HP, high pressure * HPC, high pressure column * HRH, hot reheated steam * H-X, heat exchanger * IP, intermediate pressure * LHV, lower heating value * LP, low pressure * LPC, low pressure column * MEA, monoethanolamine * NRTL, non-random two liquid * PCU, Purification and Compression Unit * SPECCA, specific energy consumption for CO2 avoided * ST, steam turbine * TEG, triethylene-glycol * TRL, technology readiness level
ISSN:1750-5836
DOI:10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.12.022