You are on page 1of 200

Techno-Economic Study of CO2 Capture Process for Cement Plants

by

S. M. Nazmul Hassan

A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Master of Applied Science in Chemical Engineering

Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2005 © S. M. Nazmul Hassan 2005

I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public.

ii

Abstract
Techno-Economic Study of CO2 Capture Process for Cement Plants
Carbon dioxide is considered to be the major source of GHG responsible for global warming; man-made CO2 contributes approximately 63.5% to all greenhouse gases. The cement industry is responsible for approximately 5% of global anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions emitting nearly 900 kg of CO2 for every 1000 kg of cement produced! Amine absorption processes in particular the monoethanolamine (MEA) based process, is considered to be a viable technology for capturing CO2 from low-pressure flue gas streams because of its fast reaction rate with CO2 and low cost of raw materials compared to other amines. However, MEA absorption process is associated with high capital and operating costs because a significant amount of energy is required for solvent regeneration and severe operating problems such as corrosion, solvent loss and solvent degradation. This research was motivated by the need to design size and cost analysis of CO2 capture process from cement industry. MEA based absorption process was used as a potential technique to model CO2 capture from cement plants. In this research four cases were considered all to reach a CO2 purity of 98% i) the plant operates at the highest capacity ii) the plant operates at average load iii) the plant operates at minimum operating capacity and iv) switching to a lower carbon content fuel at average plant load. A comparison among four cases were performed to determine the best operating conditions for capturing CO2 from cement plants. A sensitivity analysis of the economics to the lean loading and percent recovery were carried out as well as the different absorber and striper tray combinations.

Keywords: CO2 capture; MEA; Aspen Plus, Icarus; Cement Plant; Fuel switching; Cost

iii

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to acknowledge and thank his supervisors, Prof. Dr. Peter Douglas and Prof. Dr. Eric Croiset, for their guidance and support throughout this work. The author is deeply grateful to Prof. Dr. Peter Douglas who gave him the opportunity to work with him and gave untiring support throughout the research period. The author also indebted to Prof. Dr. Eric Croiset for his stimulating suggestions, encouragement, and took effort in reviewing his thesis and presentation materials meticulously and providing with valuable comments. The author also wishes to thank Mr. Caruso Hernane of St. Marys Cement Inc. for supplying the valuable process information in performing the work. During this work I have collaborated with many colleagues for whom I have great regard, and I wish to extend my warmest thanks to all other member of the CO2/green energy research group for their support and feedback over the course of my work. And finally I would like to give my special thanks to my beloved wife Juna, my loving daughter Fateema, and my mother for their continuous inspiration in pursuing the research work. Without their encouragement and understanding it would have been impossible for me to finish this work.

iv

Dedicated to my mother v .

......................5 Ozone (O3) .................3 Gases Involved in The Greenhouse Effect ............. xi Chemical Symbols and Formulae ...................................4 Halocarbons (HFCs................2 The Greenhouse Effect Process ..........1 Materials Preparation and Raw Milling...............................3 Nitrous oxide (N2O). xiii Chapter 1: Introduction .... 1 1.......................................................................................................3................4 Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming Potential (GWP) ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15 2................................................................................. iv Table of Contents.............................................................. 7 1............................................................................... 10 1...................................................................................3....................1 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change Context ..... 10 1................. iii Acknowledgements............... 13 Chapter 2: Theory and Literature Review ...........................................................................8 The Kyoto Protocol and Canada’s Kyoto Challenge.............................................. 8 1...................................... 12 1.................................................................. 9 1....... PFCs..........................................2 Methane (CH4) ............................ 3 1................................ x Nomenclature..................1 Raw Materials for Cement Production ..............................................................3............................. 16 vi ....................................................... 13 1..........................9 Motivation......... 5 1...................... 1 1.................................................................................................... and SF6) ...................10 Objectives .......... 12 1............................... 3 1.............................................................................................................. vi List of Tables .............2............................................................................................... 14 2........................................ 6 1.............................................. 1 1................................... 14 2.............................................................................................12 Expected Results..............................................................5 Canada’s GHGs Emissions Trend .. ix List of Figures ...................7 GHG Emissions from Canadian Cement Industries .................................................................11 Scope of Work ..............Table of Contents Abstract ...........................3................1 Carbon dioxide (CO2) ................................................3......................................................................................................2 Cement Making Process ......6 Cement Industry and Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................ 5 1......... 4 1.............................................

............................................................9 Types of CO2 Capture Technology.......... 29 2.................... 21 2..........10............................................2 Long-Term Utilization/Storage of CO2 .............................................................. 41 2.............................................................................12................... 37 2..................................................................................................... and Packaging .................2...... 47 2.....................................3 Preheaters and Precalciners... 23 2...................................10............3...................................... 39 2....... 44 2........ 25 2............................................................. 25 2...................11...........................................................3....10 CO2 Storage and Usage.... 19 2.................12 Economic Analysis of Capture Process ....................4 Fuel Consumption in the Canadian Cement Industry....... 50 2..................................................9...........2 Kiln Operation Systems .11........................3 Fuels Used in the Cement Industry...........................................................................................................................11 Overview of MEA-CO2 Capture Process ..........1 MEA-CO2 Absorption Reaction Mechanisms ................ 49 2............................................................7 The Case Study for This Thesis..... 45 2..... 43 2...................................... 32 2............. 28 2.........................5 Grinding and Finish Milling .......................................2..........................................2.9........................6 Other techniques ....................................................................... Shipping........................................... 36 2.............3......... 50 2............................................................................2 The Use of Liquid Fuels ...................................5 The Sources of Carbon Dioxide in Cement Industry.......2.....................3 Solvent Degradation in MEA-CO2 Capture Process ......................................................2.............. 35 2..............11...... 26 2................3 The Use of Gaseous Fuels.....6 Cement Storage................9.. 38 2..........................................................4 Clinker Coolers .................................... 40 2.................... 41 2.........8 How Can CO2 be captured? .................................................. 24 2...........................................9....................................2........................................4 Membranes....2 Estimation of Total Product Cost..1 Chemical solvent scrubbing.............................6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Canadian Cement Industry.................................12....... 29 2...............2 Corrosion in MEA-CO2 Capture Process ......... 33 2................................9..............5 Cryogenics ........................................................................................................................1 The Use of Solid Fuels................1 Industrial Usage of CO2 ............... 23 2......2 Physical solvent scrubbing..1 Capital Investment .........9.............. 41 2.........3 Adsorption........................................... 36 2......... 53 vii .....

.................................................... 98 3................................................................................... 106 4................................................3............................ 120 References.............. 103 4.....................................................................4 Comparison of CO2 Capture Cost with Other Studies.... 72 3................3 Development of An Aspen Process Flowsheet..................................................................................... 111 4.....2 Assumptions for The Simulation Process...........................................................................5 Simulation Results and Discussions ..............................................................................2 Cost Analysis ....................... 103 4.......... 71 3.............2 Stream Specifications...................................4 CO2 Capture Cost................................................. 179 Appendix D: Results of Switching to a Lower Carbon Content Fuel at Average Plant Load (Case II) ......................3 Sensitivity Analysis of CO2 Capture Cost to Lean Loading.................. 76 3..2.......2........ and Case III...........................7 Sources of Waste Heat in The Cement Industry for Steam Generation .............. 72 3.... 100 Chapter 4: Economic Evaluation ............................1 Flue Gas Analysis for Process Simulation......................................................2....................................... 90 3.........3......................2........3 The Operating Cost ......................................................3................................................ 128 Appendix B: Aspen Simulation Results For Case I..................... 71 3...........................................................................1 Block Specifications ........ 108 4..............................................6 Case IV: Switching to a Lower Carbon Content Fuel at Average Plant Load .....................................................................2... Case II.. 116 Chapter 5: Conclusions ....................... 161 Appendix C: Sensitivity Analysis of CO2 Capture Cost to Lean Loadings (Case III) ....................................................................3 Property Specifications ................. 183 viii ............................................................ 109 4............................... 121 Appendix A: Aspen Simulation Report ... 105 4.........................................................................13 Literature Review of CO2 Capture From Flue Gases .............2 Capital Cost.................... 55 Chapter 3: Process Simulation ...4 Aspen Simulation Parameters for MEA based CO2 Absorption Model.......................................... 77 3.................... 72 3.1 Assumptions for the MEA based CO2 Capture Cost Analysis .... 118 Chapter 6: Recommendations ......1 Sizing and Costing Using Icarus Process Evaluator (IPE) .................................................................................... 104 4........................................ 85 3.............................................

............... 1992 .................................................................. 80 Table 3-4: Stream input data for absorber and stripper integrated model ................ 82 Table 3-5: Block input data for absorber and stripper integrated model . Total and Unit CO2 Emissions..... Case II........................... 82 Table 3-6: Block Simulation sequence for Absorber and Stripper integrated model ......... Energy Intensity and Clinker Factor in Major World Regions for the Year 2000 [26] ...................... Fuel......... 7 Table 2-1: Fuel consumption in cement industry ... Case II and Case III .................................... 108 Table 4-5: CO2 Capture cost for Case I... Marys Cement for the year 2002 . 32 Table 2-6: Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Fuel Source in Canadian Cement Industry................................................................ TJ ....... Marys Cement Plant for Process Simulation ......................................................... 29 Table 2-4: Cement Demand. 114 ix ................ 107 Table 4-4: Summary of Operating Cost for Case I..................... and Case III ............................... 31 Table 2-5: Emission factors for different fuels used in cement industry...05 to 0............... 106 Table 4-3: Capital and Operating Cost factors for Reclaimer.......15 (Case II) 113 Table 4-8 (a)-(b): CO2 capture cost for lean loading from 0... 71 Table 3-2: Stream input data for stand alone absorber model (Case II) ......... 99 Table 4-1: Project Component Map Specifications for CO2 Capture Process... 84 Table 3-7: Aspen simulation results of MEA based CO2 absorption for Case II .. 109 Table 4-6 a ............ 28 Table 2-3: Fuel consumption in Canadian cement industry.................... Energy.................. 25 Table 2-2: Typical waste fuel burned in cement kilns.. Case II................................2000................................................ 89 Table 3-8: Natural gas composition and properties ..... 1992 to 2000. Baghouse and FGD and CO2 Drying unit ..05 to 0...........2004 ..............List of Tables Table 1-1: Summarizes past and present concentrations of the main GHGs.................................... 33 Table 2-7: Production data...... and Raw Material consumption report for St................. Thousand Metric Tons ...... and Case III ......... 104 Table 4-2: Summary of Capital Cost for Case I.............05 to 0........................b : Summary of capital cost for lean loading from 0...15 (Case II) ........................... 80 Table 3-3: Block input data for stand alone absorber model (Case II)................. 6 Table 1-2: The Global Warming Potentials (GWP) and Atmospheric Lifetimes..15 (Case II).... 111 Table 4-7 a-b: Summary of operating cost for lean loading from 0....... 34 Table 3-1: Flue Gas Analysis from St.....

...... 4 Figure 1-3: Sectoral Breakdown of Canada’s GHG Emissions...................... 116 Figure 4-4: Comparison of CO2 capture cost. 2002................. 88 Figure 3-6: The effect of number of trays in the absorber and stripper on the .... 2002 ................... 93 Figure 3-9: LEAN or RICH-MEA flow rate for various lean loading .............. 2 Figure 1-2: Trends in CO2 Concentrations for past 1000 years ............................................. 60 Figure 2-7: Kerr McGee/ABB Lummus Crest CO2 Recovery Technology Design................................................... 115 Figure 4-3: Break down of CO2 capture cost at various lean loading (Case II) ................................................. 91 Figure 3-7: LEAN-MEA flow rate for different absorber number of stages............................ 44 Figure 2-6: Kerr McGee/ABB Lummus Crest CO2 Recovery Technology Basic Flow ........................List of Figures Figure 1-1: The Greenhouse Effect Process .................. 73 Figure 3-2: Stand alone absorber model ................................................................................................................. 79 Figure 3-3: Absorber and Stripper integrated model ......................... 8 Figure 1-4: Canada’s GHG Emissions by Gas................................ 15 Figure 2-2: Schematic diagram of kiln operation system .................................................. 60 Figure 3-1: Aspen Plus™ Process flowsheet diagram for CO2 capture process.................. 84 Figure 3-5: Aspen simulation process parameters for MEA based CO2 capture process............ 95 Figure 3-12 (a)-(c): Reboiler duty per tonne of CO2 Captured at various lean loading ....................................... 9 Figure 1-5: Canada's Kyoto Challenge ... 42 Figure 2-5: Flowsheet for CO2 Capture process from flue gases using MEA solvent .............................................. 96 Figure 4-1: Breakdown of CO2 capture cost captured for Case I................... 19 Figure 2-3: Grate clinker cooler ........ 94 Figure 3-11: Reboiler duty at different lean loading for Case I............................................ 23 Figure 2-4: Annual US CO2 utilization in 1989.......................... Case II........................... Case II and Case III................ 117 x ............... 11 Figure 2-1: Process flow diagram of cement manufacturing process........... 81 Figure 3-4: Absorber and Stripper integrated model with Recycle stream ........ and Case III 110 Figure 4-2: CO2 capture cost at various lean loading (Case II) ..................................................................................................... 92 Figure 3-8: Reboiler duty for different CO2 recovery at various Lean loading..... 94 Figure 3-10: Rich loading (mol CO2/mol MEA) at different lean loading............

kilogram kilopascal Kansai packing Kansai solvent C CFC’s CKD DEA DGA DIPA DS ECBM EOR FGD GHGs GWP HETP HFC’s IEA IGCC IPCC IPE KEPCO kg kPa KP KS xi .Nomenclature ABB AMP ASME bar B:F o Asea Brown Boveri Ltd 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol American Society of Mechanical Engineers unit of pressure bottoms to feed ratio degree Celsius Chlorofluorocarbons cement kiln dust diethanolamine diglycolamine diisopropanolamine design specification enhanced coal bed methane enhanced oil recovery flue gas desulphurization greenhouse gas global warming potential Height equivalent to a theoretical plate hydrofluorocarbons International Energy Agency Integrated gasification combined cycle Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Icarus process evaluator Kansai Electric Power Company Inc.

LOI LP LTF MDEA MEA MHI MW N/A NGCC NRC OPG PCC ppb ppm PRB PSA RR SOFC TEA TSA USD VLE loss of ignition low pressure low temperature flash methyldiethanolamine monoethanolamine Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. megawatt not available/not applicable natural gas combined cycle National Research Council Ontario Power Generation pulverized coal combustion Parts per billion Parts per million Power River Basin pressure swing adsorption reflux ratio solid oxide fuel cell triethanolamine temperature swing adsorption US Dollar vapor-liquid equilibrium xii .

Chemical Symbols and Formulae Ar C CaCO3 CaO CH4 C2H6 CO CO2 H H2 H2O HCl HF N N2 N2O NaOH NO NO2 NOx O2 O3 S SF6 SO2 SOx argon carbon calcium carbonate calcium oxide methane ethane carbon monoxide carbon dioxide hydrogen molecular hydrogen water hydrogen chloride hydrogen fluoride nitrogen molecular nitrogen nitrous oxide sodium hydroxide nitrogen oxide nitrogen dioxide nitrogen oxides molecular oxygen ozone sulphur sulphur hexafluoride sulphur dioxide sulphur oxides xiii .

social and economical threats facing the world this century. 1. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its Third Assessment Report (published in 2001) projects that the global average surface temperatures will rise by about 1. The issue of climate change is not about air quality or smog but it is about global warming.2 The Greenhouse Effect Process The greenhouse effect is a naturally occurring process that aids in heating the earth's surface and atmosphere.4 to 5. Human activities have altered the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of significant quantities of greenhouse gases (GHGs). This change would be larger than any climate change experienced over the last 10 000 years [2].1 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change Context Climate change is one of the greatest and probably most challenging of environmental. The earth’s average surface temperature has already increased by about 0. which eventually will increase average the global precipitation. This global temperature increase is likely to trigger serious consequences for humanity and other life forms with significant regional variation. Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases are likely to accelerate the rate of climate change. Concerns are growing about how increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs) caused by human activities are contributing to the natural greenhouse effect and raising the earth's average temperature. It causes the atmosphere to trap more heat energy at the earth's surface and within the atmosphere by absorbing and re-emitting longwave energy as 1 . Soil moisture is likely to decline in many regions.8°C by the year 2100. which remain in the atmosphere for long periods of time and intensify the natural greenhouse effect.Chapter 1: Introduction Background 1. Evaporation will increase as the climate warms. Evidence is getting stronger that most of the global warming that has occurred over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities [1]. and intense rainstorms are likely to become more frequent.6°C during the 20th century.

It results from the fact that certain atmospheric gases. The heating of the ground by the longwave radiation causes the 2 . However. This emission of energy is generally directed to space. 4% is reflected from the surface back to space. nitrous oxide. and particles in the atmosphere absorb about 19% of the available energy. Over 90% of this emission of longwave energy is directed back to the Earth's surface where it once again is absorbed by the surface. This energy is then used in number of processes including: the heating of the ground surface. the melting of ice and snow and the evaporation of water and plant photosynthesis. The heating of the ground by sunlight causes the Earth's surface to become a radiator of energy in the longwave band called infrared radiation. Of the remaining 55% of the solar energy passing through the Earth's atmosphere. Absorption of this energy causes additional heat energy Figure 1-1: The Greenhouse Effect Process [4] to be added to the Earth's atmospheric system. methane. The majority of the outgoing infrared radiation is absorbed by a few naturally occurring atmospheric gases known as greenhouse gases. such as carbon dioxide.shown in Figure 1-1. gases (like ozone). Clouds. A portion of the energy (26% globally) is reflected back to space by clouds and particles. halocarbons and ozone are able to change the energy balance of the planet by being able to absorb long wave radiations from the Earth's surface. As energy from the sun passes through the atmosphere a number of phenomena take place. water vapor. only a small portion of this energy actually makes it back to space. The now warmer atmospheric greenhouse gas molecules begin radiating longwave energy in all directions. On average about 51% of the sun's radiation reaches the surface [3].

HFCs. and because of these higher concentrations. The amount of heat energy added to the atmosphere by the greenhouse effect is controlled by the concentration of greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere. they represent only a fraction (~2%) of total global emissions.D). Since the beginning of the industrial revolution (about 1700 A. repeating the cycle described above. again and again. On a worldwide basis. all of the major greenhouse gases have increased in concentration.ground surface to once again radiate. 1. The net result of the greenhouse effect is the addition of extra heat energy to the earth's atmosphere and ground surface [3].3 Gases Involved in The Greenhouse Effect We know that our atmosphere is a complex mixture of gases that trap the sun's heat near the earth's surface. It is the main contributor to climate change because of the quantities released.1 Carbon dioxide (CO2) Carbon dioxide is the most important of the greenhouse gases released by human activities. scientists predict that the greenhouse effect will be enhanced and the Earth's climate will become warmer. evidence suggests that they account for most of the observed accumulated CO2 in the 3 . A number of gases are involved in the greenhouse effect. Computer models suggest that a doubling of the concentration of the main greenhouse gas.3. CO2 emissions generated from anthropogenic activities are known to be relatively small and in comparison with the gross carbon fluxes from natural systems. until no more longwave is available for absorption. The main greenhouse gases are: • • • • • • Carbon dioxide (CO2) Water vapor (H2O) Methane (CH4) Nitrous oxide (N2O) Tropospheric ozone (O3) and Halocarbons (CFCs. However. similar to how the glass of a greenhouse traps the sun's warmth. carbon dioxide. may raise the average global temperature between 1 and 3 degrees Celsius [3].) 1. etc.

Figure 1-2: Trends in CO2 Concentrations for past 1000 years [8] Prior to 1700.atmosphere [5] [6]. transportation. When fossil fuels are burned. the average concentration of CO2 was about 290 parts per million as seen in Figure 1-2. or approximately 10% of total worldwide CH4 emissions [5]. in preindustrial times. This increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is primarily due to the societal changes brought about by the industrial revolution.4% per year [9]. CH4 4 . 1. The global consumption of fossil fuels is estimated to release 22 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year – and the amounts are still climbing [9]. space heating. electricity generation and cooking. the carbon content is oxidized and released as carbon dioxide.2 Methane (CH4) Global CH4 emissions resulting from anthropogenic activities are considered to have caused an increase of about 145% in atmospheric concentrations since the mid-1700s. every tonne of carbon burned produces 3.3.3-0.7 tonnes of carbon dioxide. woodland and forested ecosystems [7]. On the basis of global emissions information. The current annual rate of accumulation of CH4 is estimated to range between 40 and 60 Mt (~14–21 ppbv). vegetation changes in natural prairie. The concentration levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are now approaching 360 parts per million and continue to increase steadily at a rate of about 0. the primary sources of CO2 generated from anthropogenic activities are fossil fuel combustion from industry and industrial processes such as cement production.

landfills. Atmospheric concentrations of N2O have grown by about 17% since the mid-1700s [11]. natural gas delivery systems. are primarily the result of activities such as livestock and rice cultivation. domestic grazing animals. because they are strong absorbers of infrared radiation and have very long atmospheric lifetimes. However. biomass burning. with perfluoromethane estimated to last 50 000 years. while emitted in very small amounts. soil cultivation. and the combustion of fossil fuels. Current measurements in the atmosphere indicate that the concentration of these chemicals may soon begin declining because of reduced emissions [7]. resulting primarily from the application of nitrogen fertilizers. termites. The average concentration of nitrous oxide in the atmosphere is now increasing at a rate of 0. PFCs have atmospheric lifetimes greater than 2300 years.3 Nitrous oxide (N2O) Nitrous oxide occurs naturally in the environment but human activities are increasing the quantities. These gases.3. are having a lasting effect on atmospheric composition and. and coal mining and oil and gas extraction (EPA.3. it has been estimated that approximately one-third of global atmospheric N2O is of human origin. 1981) [10]. and SF6 are the strongest greenhouse gases per molecule.emissions generated from human activities. The other two-thirds of global atmospheric N2O come from soil and water denitrification under anaerobic conditions. PFCs. Methane is significant because it has 21 times the heat-trapping effect of carbon dioxide [7].3% per year [3]. low concentrations in the atmosphere reduce their overall importance in the enhancement of the greenhouse effect. 5 .4 Halocarbons (HFCs. amounting to ~360 Mt per year.5 Mt N2O expressed as nitrogen (N) [12]. the climate. biomass and wood. potentially. Anaerobic conditions associated with rice paddy flooding results in the formation of methane gas. At present.2-0. 1. land-use conversion. Total annual emissions from all sources are estimated to be within the range of 10–17. 1. PFCs. and SF6) Artificially created chlorofluorocarbons HFCs.

5 Ozone (O3) Ozone's role in the enhancement of the greenhouse effect has been difficult to determine. In recent years. Soils Soil cultivation Fertilizers Burning of fossil fuels.1. Ozone is also highly concentrated at the Earth's surface. Reuse landfills Forests Grasslands Oceans. Table 1-1: Summarizes past and present concentrations of the main GHGs Concentration 1750 Present Concentration Percent Change Natural and Anthropogenic Sources Organic decay Forest fires Burning fossil fuels Deforestation Land use change Wetlands Organic decay Natural gas and oil extraction Biomass burning Rice cultivation Cattle.70 ppm 1.3. Most of this ozone is created as a by-product of photochemical smog [3]. biomass Refrigerators Aerosol spray Propellants Cleaning solvents Greenhouse Gas Carbon Dioxide 280 ppm 360 ppm 29% Methane 0. The majority of the ozone (about 97%) found in the atmosphere is concentrated in the stratosphere at an altitude of 15 to 55 kilometers above the Earth's surface. Accurate measurements of past long-term (more than 25 years in the past) levels of this gas in the atmosphere are currently unavailable.70 ppm 143% Nitrous Oxide 280 ppb 310 ppb 11% Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) 0 900 ppt N/A 6 . Moreover. the concentration of the stratospheric ozone has been decreasing because of the build-up of chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere. Table 1-1 [3] summarizes the past and present concentrations of the main greenhouse gases. concentrations of ozone gas are found in two different regions of the Earth's atmosphere.

Molecule for molecule. The GWP for the main greenhouse gases is shown in Table 1-2 [7] [13] [14] [15]. Methane. CO2 is the least effective of the major greenhouse gases. absorbs and reradiates about 21 times as much heat energy [13]. the overall contribution of each greenhouse gas depends on several other factors as well. a GWP is the time-integrated change in radiative forcing due to the instantaneous release of 1 kg of the gas expressed relative to the radiative forcing from the release of 1 kg of CO2 [7]. a GWP is a relative measure of the warming effect that the emission of a radiative gas might have on the surface troposphere [7]. However. Table 1-2: The Global Warming Potentials (GWP) and Atmospheric Lifetimes GHG Carbon dioxide Methane Nitrous Oxide Sulphur Hexafluride Hydrofluorocarbons Formula CO2 CH4 NO2 SF6 HFCs Atmospheric Lifetime (Years) Variable 12 + 3 120 3200 1 to 200+ GWP 1 21 310 23900 140 to 11700 7 . The concept of Global Warming Potential (GWP) has been developed to allow scientists and policy-makers to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. The GWP of a GHG takes into account both the instantaneous radiative forcing due to an incremental concentration increase and the lifetime of the gas.4 Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming Potential (GWP) The Global Warming Potential (GWP) is a means of comparing the relative climate effects of the various greenhouse gases with that of an equivalent emission of CO2 [13]. In other words. by comparison. including: • • • The amount of the gas released into the atmosphere each year The atmospheric lifetime of each gas The indirect effect that emissions of each gas will have on atmospheric chemistry. By definition. The indicated GWP values are calculated by integrating the effect of emissions on the climate over the next 100 years [13].1.

1.5 Canada’s GHGs Emissions Trend
Canadians contributed to about 731 megatonnes of CO2 equivalent (Mt CO2 eq.) of GHGs to the atmosphere in 2002, an increase of 2.1% over the 716 Mt recorded in the year 2001. The total emissions of all GHGs in 2002 were 20.1% above the 1990 level of 609 Mt. The average annual growth of emissions over the 1990–2002 periods was 1.7%. Emissions are now slightly above the year 2000 emissions of 725 Mt, an increase of about 1%. Approximately 74% of total GHG emissions in 2002 resulted from the combustion of fossil fuels. Another 8% were from fugitive sources, with the result that over 81% of emissions were from the Energy Sector [7]. A sectoral breakdown of Canada’s total emissions for 2002 is shown in Figure 1-3.

Energy 81.0% Industrial Process 6.8% Waste 3.2% Solvent and Other Product use 0.1%

Land Use Change and Forestry 0.8%

Agriculture 8.0%

Figure 1-3: Sectoral Breakdown of Canada’s GHG Emissions, 2002 On an individual GHG basis, CO2 had the largest share of 2002 emissions, at 78.8% (about 576 Mt), while CH4 accounted for 12.9% (94 Mt). N2O accounted for 7.2% of the emissions (53 Mt), PFCs contributed 0.7% (5 Mt), and SF6 and HFCs constituted the remainder, as shown in Figure 1-4 [7].

8

PFCs 0.70%

HFCs 0.10%

SF6 0.40%

CH4 12.9%

N2O 7.2% CO2 78.8%

Figure 1-4: Canada’s GHG Emissions by Gas, 2002

1.6 Cement Industry and Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The cement industry is responsible for approximately 5% of the global anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions [16][17][18]. The cement industry emits nearly 900 kg of CO2 per metric ton of cement produced. Because of the significant emissions per unit of cement produced, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases cannot be stabilized without addressing this important emissions source. The cement industry is faced with the prospect of sharp increases in global demand over the coming decades, as well as the prospect of climate change policies that could simultaneously call for reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases. The global cement demand is projected to increase by 60% to 105% over current levels by 2020. By 2050 the cement demand will increase approximately by 225% from current levels [19]. Most of the increase in demand is in developing regions of the world, where the industry’s current capital stock is relatively old and inefficient. Cement-related greenhouse gas emissions come from fossil fuel combustion at cement manufacturing operations (about 40% of the industry’s emissions); transport of raw materials (about 5%); and combustion of fossil fuel required to produce the electricity consumed by the cement manufacturing operations (about 5%). The remaining cementrelated emissions (about 50%) originate from the process that converts limestone (CaCO3) to calcium oxide (CaO), the primary precursor to cement [19]. It is chemically impossible to convert limestone (CaCO3) to CaO and then cement clinker without 9

generating CO2, which is currently emitted to the atmosphere. Based on worldwide cement production and associated CO2 emissions, the average gross unit-based emissions for the industry is approximately 0.87 kg CO2 per kg of cement [19]. Regionally, however, unit-based emissions vary from 0.73 kg CO2 per kg of cement (in Japan) to 0.99 kg CO2 per kg of cement (in the United States).

1.7 GHG Emissions from Canadian Cement Industries
GHG emissions from cement production contributed an estimated 10.2 Mt (or 1.4%) to Canada’s national GHG emission total in 2002. Over the 1990–2002 periods, the cement industry experienced a 14% increase in GHG emissions. Process CO2 emissions from the production of clinker have increased by 21%, while emissions from stationary combustion increased by 3%. Over the same time frame, clinker production increased by 21% [21]. Between 2001 and 2002, GDP for the cement industry showed an increase of 2% [20] and GHG emissions increased by 3.5%. This overall increase is the result of a 4% increase in emissions from stationary combustion and a 3% increase in process emissions [7].

1.8 The Kyoto Protocol and Canada’s Kyoto Challenge
The United Nations Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement aimed at addressing the issue of climate change. The protocol was agreed to in 1997. It commits developed countries to collectively reduce GHG emissions to 5.2% below 1990 levels by the period 2008-2012. Canada’s share is a 6% reduction below 1990 levels. The Kyoto protocol also introduces three market mechanisms that involve transferring emissions credits to help developed countries meet their targets for reducing GHG emissions: Canada accounts for about 2% of the world's man-made greenhouse gas emissions [7]. Canada ratified the Kyoto Protocol on December 17, 2002 and under the terms of the Kyoto Protocol, Canada is be obliged to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2010 to 2012, or earn credits through Kyoto's market mechanisms to lower the volume of emissions that it would have to reduce. Canadians face some daunting challenges in meeting Kyoto target.

10

The 1990–2002 data on Canada’s GHG emissions demonstrate progress in reducing emissions in many areas of the economy, but also indicate areas where further efforts are needed. The average annual growth of emissions over the 1990–2002 periods was 1.7%. Total emissions of all GHGs (about 731 megatonnes of equivalent) in 2002 were 20.1% above the 1990 level of 609 Mt. In 2002, Canada’s emissions increased by 15 Mt, up from the 2001 level of 716 Mt. The energy sector was responsible for most of this change, with emissions increasing over 10.4 Mt. GHG emissions associated with manufacturing in 2002 were up by 0.1 Mt over 2001, an increase of 2.2%. Between 2001 and 2002, transportation sector emissions increased in almost all modes of transportation [7].

Figure 1-5: Canada's Kyoto Challenge [9] The Canadian government estimates that total emissions of all GHGs in Canada were 20.1% higher in 2002 than in 1990. On a business-as-usual (BAU) basis, assuming that current trends in population growth, economic development, and energy consumption continue, Canada’s GHG emissions will be 40% (about 240 Megatonnes) higher than our Kyoto target by 2010 as shown in Figure 1-5. To meet Canada’s Kyoto target, Canadians would have to reduce GHG emissions by almost 4.5% per year between 2002 and 2010. In other words, Canada’s emissions reductions would have to average out at about 1 tonne of carbon per Canadian per year beginning in 2002.

11

This research study is motivated by a desire to capture large quantities of CO2 emissions from cement industry which contributes to global warming and climate change. To overcome the carbon dioxide emission problem capturing carbon dioxide is introduced and used in industries. as well as the prospect of climate change policies that could simultaneously call for reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases. 12 . thus helping to accomplish the goals set out by the Kyoto Protocol and meets Canada’s Kyoto Challenge within the stipulated period 2010 to 2012. This significant emission per unit of cement produced is believed to have adverse effects on the atmosphere. model. cost and optimize CO2 capture processes for the cement industry Aspen Plus™ and Icarus Process Evaluator will be used.10 Objectives Carbon dioxide capture from cement plant flue gas using amine-based CO2 capture technology requires huge amounts of energy mostly in the form of heat.e. The overall objective of this thesis is to evaluate the feasibility of obtaining the heat required for amine absorption for a particular recovery of carbon dioxide for a given a set of equipment specifications and operating conditions from cement plants and to develop a model that simulates the removal of CO2 using MEA absorption from cement plant flue gas and design a process that will minimize the cost of CO2 capture for the cement industry.1.. To design. i. 1. nearly 900 kg of CO2 per tonne of cement produced and the industry is faced with the prospect of sharp increases in global demand over the coming decades.9 Motivation The cement industry emits enormous amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

12 Expected Results The expected results are: • • • • a flow sheet for designing a CO2 capture process for a cement plant based on the MEA process a complete heat and material balance of the CO2 capture process a capital and operating cost estimate for the cement plant an estimate for the cost of CO2 capture 13 .1. The scope of work includes the followings: • • • • Focus on MEA based carbon dioxide capture process Design the MEA capture process using Aspen Plus™ Size and evaluate the cost of MEA capture process using Icarus Process Evaluator Study the effect of the operating conditions on the cost using Aspen Plus™ and Icarus Process Evaluator 1.11 Scope of Work The research includes design and costing of CO2 capture from cement plant flue gas.

silica ratio. it is in the range of 2% to 5%. The color of limestone reflects the level and nature of associated minerals and impurities. The porosity of the limestones varies from almost 0% to 30% and for predominantly occurring compact limestones. The proper dissociation to release reactive lime from limestone in a kiln system is the most important technological requirement in cement production.015% to 0.e. The bulk density largely depends on the apparent density of limestones. and particle shape. their particle size distribution. High purity calcite limestones are white in color and carbonaceous and ferruginous materials essentially cause other shades in the less pure varieties. In general.5% MgO. molecular ratio) [22]. While it may be negligible in dense varieties.6% R2O.1 Raw Materials for Cement Production Dispersed and homogenized raw mixes for the manufacture of cement clinker consists basically of two generically different natural raw materials – calcium carbonate (or limestone) and aluminosilicates (or argillaceous substances). A limestone with a minimum of 44% to 45% CaO and maximum 3. the reported range of variation of bulk density of limestones is 1400 to 2700 kg/m3.. are used to compensate the specific chemical shortfalls in the raw mix composition.0% to 3.05% Cl is regarded as a cement grade limestone. Certain additives such as bauxite. although typical values fall in the range of 1400 to 1600 kg/m3 [22]. The Moh’s hardness of most limestones lies in the range of 2 to 4. Al2O3. and 0. In addition to the above basic physical properties. The water absorption in limestones follows the pattern of pores and level of porosity. iron ore or blue dust. lime ratio. laterite. i.Chapter 2: Theory and Literature Review 2. 14 . 0. provided its SiO2. and Fe2O3 contents satisfy the ultimate modulii values of raw mixes (ratios used in calculating the chemical composition of the raw mix. 0.8% SO3. sand or sandstone. The apparent density of limestones on drying at 110°C ranges from 1500 to 2600 kg/m3. it may go up to 20% in porous chalky varieties. a few characteristics like crushability and grindability as well as the physical behaviour of crushed and screened limestones are important for the process of cement manufacture.6% to 0. etc.

The process flow diagram of the cement manufacturing process is shown in Figure 2-1 [27]. instrumentation.2 Cement Making Process Cement manufacturing process has witnessed several prominent changes during the last few decades.2. These changes have occurred in almost every operation of cement manufacturing. and safety issues [22]. environment. Figure 2-1: Process flow diagram of cement manufacturing process 15 . energy conservation. The basic cement manufacturing steps are discussed briefly to understand the cement manufacturing process. The major developments have been in the areas of material processing.

16 . also in combination with roll crushers or gyratory crushers are used to deal with hard and abrasive materials. impact. The reduction ratio required for most raw materials is consequently 1000-2000:0. shear. Generally. or impact crushers.2. it should also be borne in mind that in order to ensure continuity of the manufacturing process. and storage of fine material Quality control in raw meal preparation 2. good homogeneity has to be achieved for the raw mix.or three-stage) Pre-homogenization and storage of crushed materials Grinding (diverse milling systems) Proportioning.2 [22]. up to 150 to 200 mm). Crushing is affected by compression. In order to convert these raw materials into clinker and cement.1 Materials Preparation and Raw Milling Limestone and other naturally occurring raw materials are usually received in the plant from the quarry in maximum sizes of 1 to 2 m.1. two. stocks must be built up at various points. homogenization. as this is essential for product quality and plant efficiency. following the stage of reduction. Such a degree of reduction cannot be achieved through a single machine or a onestage operation. and fine (up to 5 to 25 mm). and attrition – singly or in combination. intermediate (up to 40 to 70 mm). In the cement industry.2 mm.1 Crushing Crushing is the primary size-reduction process carried out under the action of external mechanical forces in the cement plant. it is necessary to produce a raw mix with a top size of about 0. In parallel with this.or twin-rotor hammer crushers. three levels of crushing are recognized: coarse (top product size.2. The process route for raw materials preparation is multi-stage and complex and generally the following steps are: • • • • • Crushing (one-. Further. the raw materials undergo primary reduction in single.2. Jaw crushers.

due to the statistical inaccuracies inherent in the representative sampling and analyses of lumpy materials.2 Pre-homogenization and Storage of Crushed Materials In cement production. it is often necessary to pre-homogenize the raw materials after secondary crushing. The pre-homogenizing systems are also known as “blending beds”. is generally determined as the ratio between the standard deviation Sin of one significant chemical parameter of the input to a given stockpile and the standard deviation of the same parameter Sout of the output from the same stockpile.2. H. 2. This unit operation is utilized primarily for the main raw materials. H = Sin S out In this context.1. the limestone and the aluminosilicate component. viz.. Dry grinding of raw materials is practiced most extensively due to escalating energy costs and progressive obsolescence of the wet process of manufacturing. Efficiency and output of the ball mills primarily depend on the optimum utilization of ball charge energy for coarse and fine grinding [22]. the blending efficiency of the pre-homogenization systems lies within this range [22]. and grinding takes place by the impact of and attrition from the grinding balls tumbling inside the cylinder. particularly when their chemical/mineralogical composition varies over a wide range. 17 .2. The material to be ground passes through the rotating cylinders that are full of steel balls. The majority of grinding in the world is performed with the help of ball mills. as follows: Blending Effect.2. however. it is important to note that normally it is not possible in practice to measure homogenizing effects greater that 1:10. In practice.3 Grinding The crushed and preblended raw materials are further processed into a fine raw mix by dry or wet grinding.1. The blending effect.

2.2.1.4 Homogenization of Raw Meal
The homogenization of raw meal prior to the calcination process has always been a very important step in the production of clinker. It is widely known that there are four methods of raw meal homogenization utilized in the cement industry. The first and the traditional one is the slurry mixing practiced in the wet-process plants; other methods are adopted in dry process plants and include mechanical systems, pneumatic systems, and gravity systems [22]. In slurry homogenization, the mill slurry is transported to a slurry silo, the average composition of which is tracked with the help of chemical analysis of spot samples. When the silo is about two thirds full, the slurry is homogenized with compressed air. The slurry from the silos is sent to a basin and further homogenized with the help of mechanical, pneumatic, or pneumomechanical arrangements before entering the kiln. Experience shows that a slurry basin works as the ideal blender. The mechanical system consists of multiple storage silos, each of which is provided with regulated withdrawal facilities. Blending is achieved by an orderly withdrawal of material at variable rates from all silos. While this type of mixing consumes lower power, the system requires a great deal of material handling that increases power consumption. In addition, the required of number of silos is obviously more than in other systems. As a result of these shortcomings, this kind of homogenization system is not in wide use in the cement industry [22]. The most common homogenization system used over the past several decades is the pneumatic unit based on the air fluidization method. Air introduced through a permeable medium in the silo bottom causes the raw meal to behave almost like a fluid. This agitational method is known to provide high blending efficiency for dry material. But at the same time this method is the highest consumer of power [22]. The gravity approach to homogenization has been conceived only in the expectation of achieving reduced power consumption.

18

2.2.1.5 Quality Control in Raw Meal Preparation
All the above unit operations are obviously controlled with onsite and offsite equipment. Hence a control laboratory with appropriate hardware and software becomes an integral part of the raw materials preparation facility [22]. The preparation of a correct and uniform kiln feed is an insurance for the quality of the finished product and entails the monitoring of the quality of the incoming raw materials, composition of the preblending stockpile, variation of the raw mill output in terms of chemical composition and particle size distribution, and finally the efficacy of the homogenization system and the consistency of its output forming the kiln feed. The monitoring and consequential control functions are carried out with the help of sampling arrangements, use of specialized analytical instruments, and application of appropriate computerized software.

2.2.2 Kiln Operation Systems
Once raw materials have been selected and blended, and ground and homogenized into a fine and uniform kiln feed, they must then be subjected to enough heat to allow the clinkering reactions to proceed. This is the pyro-processing stage of cement manufacture, beginning with the kiln feed material extracted from storage and weighed and transported to the kiln, and finishing with the clinker from the cooler going to clinker storage. A schematic diagram pyro-processing stage is shown in Figure 2-2.

Figure 2-2: Schematic diagram of kiln operation system [22]

19

The main chemical reactions to produce the calcium silicates that later give cement its bonding strength occur in the kiln system. It’s the heart of the cement-making process – a horizontally sloped steel cylinder, lined with firebrick, turning from about 1 to 3 rpm. Kilns are frequently as much as 3.7 m in diameter! The finely ground raw material or the slurry is fed into the kiln at the upper end. At the lower end is a roaring blast of flame, produced by precisely controlled burning of powdered coal, oil or gas under forced draft. From the upper end of the kiln the raw material slides and tumbles down the kiln through progressively hotter zones toward the flame. At the lower end of the kiln, fuels such as powdered coal and natural gas feed a flame that reaches 1870oC. In the hottest part of the kiln, the raw materials reach about 1480oC and become partially molten. This intense heat triggers chemical and physical changes inside the raw materials. Expressed at its simplest, the series of chemical reactions converts the calcium and silicon oxides into calcium silicates, cement’s primary constituent. At the lower end of the kiln, the raw materials emerge as a new substance: red-hot particles called clinker. The heated air from the coolers is returned to the kilns, a process that saves fuel and increases burning efficiency. There is a combination of endothermic and exothermic reactions occurring in an extremely complicated chemical reaction sequence. The raw material composition, mineralogical composition and the time and temperature profile of these materials in the kiln determine the ultimate composition and mineralogy of the clinker, which in turn determines the performance of the cement produced [22]. The pyro-processing stage is generally regarded as the heart of the cement-making process. It is the stage in which most of the operating costs of cement manufacture appear, and is also therefore the stage where most of the opportunities for process improvement exist. The pyro-processing stage is also the main source of CO2 emissions in a cement plant.

2.2.2.1 Wet Process Kilns
The long wet process kiln, with a length to diameter ratio (L/D) of up to 40, was the main clinker producing plant for most of the 20th century. It is a relatively simple process, with the main advantage of slurry preparation being the eases of milling, handling, blending, storage, pumping, and metering. It is also less prone to low level dust emission.

20

In wet process systems, the material preheating system is comprised of metal chains hanging in the cold end of the kiln, which absorb heat from gases and heat the material that flows over them. The chains actually provide a greater surface area for contact between hot gases and the material clinging to the chains [22]. The main problem with long wet kilns is their poor fuel efficiency, because of the water to be evaporated from the slurry. This became a severe problem only when the cost of fuel escalated during the 1970s, and only a few wet kilns have been built since that time. Another disadvantage of a wet process kiln is that it is limited in production rate because of mechanical limitations on kiln size. A 1500 tpd wet kiln is a large kiln, with 2000 tpd being an upper economic limit without encountering severe maintenance problems. On the other hand dry kiln processes with capacity of 3000 tpd are common [22].

2.2.2.2 Long Dry Kilns
Dimensionally, long dry kilns are similar to long wet kilns. These kilns became popular particularly in North America. Their main advantage over wet kilns is the improved fuel consumption because the kiln feed is dry. However, without any enhanced heat transfer fittings in the preheating zone, kiln exit temperatures of 700°C or more meant that water spray cooling was required, and, overall, very little advantage was realized over the wet process. However, kiln internals included kiln chains (similar to wet kilns), kiln metallic crosses, and ceramic heat exchangers. The crosses and ceramic heat exchangers basically split the kiln into 3 or 4 cross-sectional areas over a distance of about 15 to 20 m, splitting both the feed and gas flow, and providing improved heat transfer [22]. With these enhancements, the kiln gas exit temperatures were reduced to 350°C – 400°C, specific fuel consumption improved some 30% and output increased by 35% to 40% compared to wet kilns. Kiln production rates for long dry kilns are marginally higher than long wet kilns [22].

2.2.3 Preheaters and Precalciners
2.2.3.1 Preheaters
Ideally, the temperature differential between the fresh feedstock entering the kiln and the gas stream leaving the kiln is to be as low as is practically possible. Preheaters consist of 21

the material temperature increases in each stage by 150°C-250°C. the temperatures of gas and solid equalize almost instantly. calcination rate. Efficient and successful operation of a precalciner depends on a number of design aspects. Precalciner is beneficial for the fuel combustion. operates as an ideal parallelflow heat exchanger. where the particles are evenly distributed across the duct. which is in essence a function of the kiln diameter. the production rate and fuel consumption. In kilns with single-point firing. The precalciner performance may be characterized by the combustion efficiency. with a corresponding drop of the gas temperature [22]. and the material enters the stage from the stage above. unlike in the mixing of liquids.3. vulnerability to build-ups and blockage. Gas leaves the cyclone through the vertical pipe (thimble) and enters the stage above. Each stage consists of a mostly vertical duct and a cyclone. The precalciner. and ultimately. The pulverized state of the kiln feed offers an immense heat exchange surface.2. and the solid material falls into the stage below.several (up to six) stages arranged vertically in such a way that the kiln gas enters each stage from the stage below. therefore. being effectively the second firing zone. this input is limited by the amount of fuel that can be burned safely and efficiently in the burning zone. greatly expands the system’s capability [22]. The solid/gas suspension then enters the cyclone where it is separated. Each stage.2 Precalciners The suspension preheater could eventually have become the basis for practically successful precalciners. The duct provides the space where heat exchange takes place between the gas and solid. It is important to remember that the kiln production rate is proportional to the input of heat energy. the very small size of the solid particles minimizes the limiting effect of thermal conductivity and guarantees temperature uniformity across the particle cross section. making it much more intensive than the diffusion flame in the firing zone. In practice. 22 . At the same time. but all stages are arranged in a counter flow pattern. In a properly built system. 2.

2. Figure 2-3: Grate clinker cooler [22] 2.5 Grinding and Finish Milling The finish mill system in cement manufacturing is used for reducing the size of the clinker from as large as several centimetres in diameter to a size that is a maximum of 23 . thereby making it cool enough to handle. At the discharge end of the kiln. and at the same time maximizes the recovery of heat to secondary air.4 Clinker Coolers In cement manufacturing. It is equally important that the heat exchange between clinker and air is efficient to ensure proper cooling. The purpose of the clinker cooling is to recoup some of the heat in the clinker. It is critical that cooling of the clinker is rapid to secure a phase composition and the rate of cooling can be critical to the clinker quality and performance of cement. the clinker is a red hot substance and is also to some extent still reacting chemically toward creating various clinker minerals. The other objective is to stop the chemical reactions in the clinker at the point most favourable to the cement quality [22]. The clinker is preferably in the form of 10 mm to 25 mm size nodules that exit from the front end of the kiln into the cooler. and the related process requirement [22]. tertiary air.2.2. formation of clinker nodules occurs at the entrance to the hottest part of the kiln with a material temperature of around 1280°C. The most commonly used clinker cooler used in cement industry is grate clinker cooler as shown in Figure 2-3.

6. which may include dependent upon the configuration of storage system. One of the major causes of hard grinding is the amount of C2S (belite) in the clinker.2.2. belts. and 4) separator. roller mills. A significant portion of cement is later shipped in bulk to terminals for onward distribution to the ultimate customers. elevators and air slides into a final discharge silo for loading into various bulk containers or packaging processes [22]. although the clinker is somewhat more forgiving [22]. One of the reasons for the formation of belite clusters in clinker is either the use or the inclusion of coarse silica such as quartz. Both of these large crystals are hard to grind. 1) feeders. in the raw mix.1 Storage of Cement At the cement plant. The cement will be discharged from the storage into a conveying system. The handling considerations for clinker are different from the handling considerations required for the finished cement. Long retention times in the kiln result in large C3S (alite) and/or large C2S (belite) crystals. Clinker may be harder or easier to grind depending on how it is burned. In cement manufacturing plant. cement is stored in silos. screws. build large clinker capacity storage or large finish cement capacity storage. 2) mill.100 micrometers across. roll presses. packaging and shipping of cement and clinker are the need to keep the products protected from moisture and to guard against impacting the environment in any negative manner. 3) elevator. and how it is cooled. or some combination of these processes. This process is accomplished by grinding (milling) with the use of ball mill.6 Cement Storage. When plants are designed. 24 . Shipping. the finish milling system is comprised of four basic components namely. in addition to causing a dusty clinker with higher than desirable amounts of fines [22]. 2. Clinker is relatively more tolerant of adverse weather conditions than cement. there are two options available for the manufacturer. and Packaging Primary concerns in the handling. It is undesirable to expose either clinker or cement to moist conditions as the hydration of the product results in degradation. its chemical composition. 2.

Advances in the two-ply construction in cement bags have gained popularity with cement manufacturers [22].6. which in global terms is the most widely used fuel by the cement industry. Bag sizes for use on construction sites vary significantly.3 Fuels Used in the Cement Industry The appropriate selection and use of a fuel has always been and still is a matter of great concern for the cement industry when used in the kiln for clinkering. The exterior coating of the bag must allow easy cleaning. sub- 25 . 2. Depending on the level of metamorphism coal can be classified as lignite.1 The Use of Solid Fuels Solid pulverized fuels are most frequently used by the cement industry.2. yet be able to de-aerate quickly to be palletized. Table 2-1 shows the percentage of fuel consumption in different unit of cement plants based on process types. The bag must be able to fill quickly to the desired weight. The current fierce competition in the cement market and the high impact of the item “fuel cost” in the final price of the product is making companies look at the most economic mix to fire in their kilns.2. The cement transferred in this way is aerated so that it flows easily.3. Two fuels actually meet the needs of cement plants: Coal. Bagging is usually carried out with the help of rotating packing machines.2 Packaging of Cement Cement is routinely bagged for convenience at the construction site and for small jobs. Table 2-1: Fuel consumption in cement industry Item of Consumption Kiln operation Raw matter drying Solid fuel drying Other heating systems Process Types Dry-Process 80% to 100% 0% to 15% 0% to 4% 0% to 2% Wet-Process 95% to 100% 0% to 5% 0% to 2% 2.

Delayed petcoke.5%. shiny solid presented as small granules or “needles.bituminous. cardboard. The cement industry burns a large number of used tires as waste fuels. naphthalenic. flexicoke are three different type of petcoke used in cement industry. density. the acquisition cost of tire chopping equipment. flexicoke has the lowest content of volatile materials – between 2. olefinic. textiles. The use of waste fuel by cement plants is a common practice called co-processing. Cement plants helped promote petcoke in the last decade from a waste fuel to a classical fuel because of the cost per unit of released energy during firing is cheaper compared to coal and fuel oil. fluidcoke. increasing in popularity because it provides reduction of cement production costs as the price for each unit of energy released while firing a waste is far below the price of a classical fuel. wood chips. 2. and plastic. such as nickel and vanadium. Bituminous coal ranks first in preference.3. Petcoke’s share in the cement production energy matrix grew significantly in the last 10 years. Solid Fuels Other than Coal and or Petcoke The use of residual solids by cement plants has increased noticeably.2 The Use of Liquid Fuels Fuel oil is widely used in the cement industry because it is very easy to fire in its liquid phase. Petcoke is a black. plastic shavings (provided the plastic is chlorine-free) and a mix of paper. and the consumption of electric power in the tire chopping procedure. based on viscosity. followed by sub-bituminous coal and lignite. In the composition of petcoke we find mainly carbon. Among the three types of petcoke. The solid residues that show better results when injected through the main burner include: saw dust. Fuel oil was classified initially into six categories and later reduced to only four. and 26 .5% and 3.” It is an oil refinery byproduct that results from the thermal decomposition of heavy oils. bituminous. although it can also show high levels of sulphur and heavy metals. The major technical difficulties that prevent a wider use of firing tires in cement kilns is mainly associated with the capacity of equipment to chop tires. and aromatic hydrocarbons. and anthracite. It originates from fossils because it is an oil byproduct essentially formed by paraffinic.

it needs to be heated. That is the reason why it is used in industrial applications. It is a light-yellow liquid that does not need preheating and can be nebulized for firing purposes by mechanic means. In the last few years the share of liquid wastes such as solvents. 27 . #2 Fuel oil is also a product from the distillation of oil. which concentrates the residues.the firing requirements of heating and nebulization (transformation of the liquid into a cloud of droplets through its injection at a high speed into a gaseous atmosphere): Four types of fuel oil are #1. subproducts of the petrochemical industry. paint sludge. i. and fired. a residual liquid fuel from oil distillation. #6 Fuel Oil [22]. #4.e. #2. The Use of Liquid Waste Fuels Fuel oils are among the liquid fuels most frequently used by cement plants. Moreover. #6 Fuel oil contains the highest amount of ash compared to the other four types of fuel oil because it is the heaviest fraction in the oil distillation. #1 Fuel oil is the lightest and least viscous of all fuel oils. Nevertheless... It is the heaviest and most viscous fuel oils. #6 Fuel oil is also known as bunker C oil. Efficient firing can be accomplished only after it has been conveniently nebulized through either high pressure or the use of an auxiliary fluid. handled. etc. #4 Fuel oil is typically a mix of distilled fractions and liquid residues from oil distillation. It needs no preheating and is easily nebulized for firing purposes. under pressure injection through an appropriate nozzle. used lubricant oils. separated under higher temperatures than those deployed for #1 fuel oil. It is difficult to fire and requires some special care during nebulization. has grown considerably in cement plants energetic matrix. because it is very viscous. such as steam or compressed air. the price per unit of energy released in firing fuel oil #6 is the lowest of all fuel oils. it can be fired without preheating. It is a light coloured product obtained from fractional distillation of oil. particularly in cement plants. On the other hand.

carbon dioxide (CO2). and even heavier hydrocarbons appear depending upon the origin. butane (C4H10). oxygen (O2). nitrogen (N2). whereas propane (C3H8). peanut husk.6%.2. hydrogen (H2).3.3 The Use of Gaseous Fuels The share of natural gas in the cement plant energy matrix has grown slightly in the past few years. etc. in smaller amounts. Table 2-2: Typical waste fuel burned in cement kilns Gaseous waste Landfill gas Cleansing solvents Paint sludges Solvent contaminated waters Liquid Waste “Slope” – residual washing liquid from oil waste and oil products storage tanks Used cutting and machining oils Waste solvents from chemical industry Farming residues (rice husk.) Municipal waste Plastic shavings Residual sludge from pulp and paper production Rubber shavings Solid or Pasty Waste Sawdust and wood chips Sewage treatment plant sludge Tannery waste Tars and bitumens Used catalyst Used tires 28 . Natural gas is a mixture of hydrocarbons with a broad predominance of methane (CH4) in volumetric contents varies between 70% and 99. Table 2-2 gives a list of typical gaseous waste fuel burned in cement plant. Ethane (C2H6) is the second most frequent component in natural gas.

Still. Since 1993 there has been a 20% increase in total fuel consumption in the cement industry. Similarly. 1992 to 2000. Carbon dioxide is released in a large amount in the cement industry because combustion is the heart of this industry and the reaction itself in the kiln also produce huge amount of carbon dioxide. with natural gas a distant second. Also worth noting is the increase in consumption of wood waste and waste fuels.4 Fuel Consumption in the Canadian Cement Industry Table 2-3 shows fuel consumption in the Canadian cement industry between 1992 and 2000. from 53. Coal is the dominant fuel used by the cement industry. Wood waste increased from zero TJ in 1993 to 35 TJ in 2000.2. consumption of waste fuels has increased by 46% between 1993 and 2000.5 The Sources of Carbon Dioxide in Cement Industry The cement industry is responsible for approximately 5% of the global anthropogenic CO2 emissions (based on data from [17] [18] [24] [25]). Table 2-3: Fuel consumption in Canadian cement industry. with the highest percentage – nearly nine percent of the total – in 1999 [23].215 TJ in 1993 to 64. In cement manufacturing operations about 40% of the industry’s emissions come from fossil fuel 29 . waste fuels make up a small percentage of total energy use in the industry.043 TJ in 2000. Coke produced from coal has also increased over the time period. TJ Consumption 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 (TJ) 21244 21480 23017 23730 23071 26250 25041 28224 30192 Coal Coke Petroleum coke 158 7584 5778 80 2341 23 0 1167 294 8931 5850 64 1702 23 0 2185 272 7178 6244 234 1484 37 0 4422 464 9621 6518 79 2014 0 142 3764 445 9850 6441 110 2069 0 103 3767 288 7095 6749 123 1841 0 94 1895 186 8727 6881 81 2389 0 93 5932 441 9683 7219 86 2999 1 71 6003 916 8263 7305 62 2156 1 35 3197 Natural Gas Electricity Middle dist Heavy Fuel Oil 13106 12676 12423 14673 12141 13411 14422 12286 11916 LPG/Propane Wood Waste Waste Fuels Total Energy 51485 53215 55311 61005 58997 57746 63752 67013 64043 2.

energy intensity.135 units of CaCO3 are required to produce 1 unit of cement or 1.73 to 0. cement contains the equivalent of about 64. The carbon dioxide in the flue gas from cement production normally ranges from 22 to 28% on a molar basis. 30 . Cement manufacturing is energy intensive involving high temperatures and a large amount of heat combustion and carbon dioxide emissions involved in cement making process. Unit-based emissions vary globally from 0. There is similar variation in energy intensity and clinker factor. and clinker factor (kg of clinker per kg of cement) in 2000 for the global cement industry.4 percent CaO. the primary precursor to cement [26]. Consequently about 1. Typically. Table 2-4 shows data from [17] [18] [24] [25]. The remaining cement-related emissions (about 50%) originate from the process that converts limestone (CaCO3) to calcium oxide (CaO). The calcination normally takes place at 800-900˚C. The gross unit-based emissions for the industry were approximately 0. Large amount of carbon dioxide is emitted from calcining the limestone or other calcareous materials according to the following reaction (R 1): CaCO 3 ∆ ⎯ ⎯→ CaO + CO 2 (R 1) It is seen from reaction R1 that it is chemically impossible to convert limestone (CaCO3) to CaO and then cement clinker without generating CO2.combustion. cement demand. Roughly the industry emits nearly 900 kg of CO2 for every 1000 kg of cement produced. which is currently emitted into the atmosphere. This reaction thermally decomposes CaCO3 into CaO and CO2. representing the total estimated emissions. Lowering the clinker factor directly reduces both the process emissions and the associated fuel-related emissions.6 tonnes of raw materials is needed for 1 tonne of clinker production.87 kg CO2 per kg of cement as shown in the Table 2-4. Lowering the energy intensity lowers the fossil fuel combustion during production. unit emissions. Two of the important factors that drive unit-based CO2 emissions are the energy intensity and clinker factor. Approximately 50 percent by weight of CaCO3 is lost as carbon dioxide during the production. and about 5% emissions comes from combustion of fossil fuel required to produce the electricity consumed by cement manufacturing operations.99 kg CO2 per kg of cement. about 5% from transport of raw materials.

FSU 11.82 0.10 4. The amount of carbon dioxide released during the calcination step is based on the lime content of the clinker or cement.20 4.89 0. Energy-related emission factors were calculated from the Environment Canada publication “Canada’s GHG Inventory 1997 Emissions and Removal Trends”. Total and Unit CO2 Emissions.92 Clinker Factor (kg/kg) 0.91 0.80 0.83 0. Africa 14.89 - Region 1. Canada 3. Asia 8. Other E.04 3. USA 2.88 0.83 0.71 4.90 0. For emissions from calcination.81 0.79 0. India 10.84 0. Energy Intensity and Clinker Factor in Major World Regions for the Year 2000 [26] Total Unit Cement Emissions Demand (Mt CO2/ (Mt/year) Mt Cement) 90 0. the method provided in the U. America 13.85 0.73 0. China 7.48 4.81 0.50 5.89 0.87 Total CO2 Emissions (Mt/year) 90 8 186 60 6 449 112 40 64 71 33 109 74 68 1371 Energy Intensity (MJ/kg Cement) 5.91 0.90 0. W.92 0. Japan 5. SE. Rep of Korea 9.Table 2-4: Cement Demand. 31 .84 0.84 0.99 9 220 82 8 500 123 44 69 88 37 134 87 80 1571 0. Europe 12.05 4.52 5.S&L.83 0.85 0.08 4.96 0.S.75 4. Middle East Total To calculate the total carbon dioxide emission.20 4. Aus & NZ 6.88 0.87 0.65 4.71 5. different emission factors are used as shown in Table 2-5 related to the cement production [27]. Climate Wise Program was applied and it is consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Guidelines. Europe 4.93 0.

085 per terajoule .88 kg CO2 / m3 of fuel 2. In fact. the cement industries contributed 7. Overall.48 kg CO2 / kg of fuel 1.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Canadian Cement Industry Table 2-6 shows greenhouse gas emissions associated with the cement industry in Canada [23]. process-related greenhouse gases are roughly equivalent to combustion related greenhouse gases. The largest increases are the result of emissions from coal and coke. Coke from coal. coal and petroleum coke have relatively high greenhouse gas emissions factors – all in the range of 0.73 kg CO2 eq / L of fuel 2. as well as that attributable to the cement making process itself (calcination). the cement industry realized a 21% increase in greenhouse gas emissions. waste fuels.52 .36 kg CO2 eq / L of fuel 1. Table 2-6 shows both greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the burning of fuels. which means that actual greenhouse gas emissions could vary according to the exact make-up and quality of the fuels used. and the figures below indicate that between 1993 and 2000.83 kg CO2 eq / L of fuel 2. 32 .05. In Canada.3 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and mining industries in Canada.54 kg CO2 eq / kg of clinker 2.Table 2-5: Emission factors for different fuels used in cement industry Fuel or Process Coal Coke Natural Gas Distillate Oil Diesel Gasoline Propane Calcination Emission Factor 2.0.52 kg CO2 / kg of fuel 2.while natural gas has an emissions factor of roughly 0.53 kg CO2 eq / L of fuel 0. the cement industry experienced a 20% increase in fuel consumption between 1993 and 2000. It is important to note that the estimates of greenhouse gas emissions are calculated by emissions factors.

K2O% 0. Marys cement plant was chosen as the case study in this research.051. The plant produces an average of 2.478.2000. 33 . energy consumption.383.539. St Marys Cement Plant was founded in 1912 and the plant is located in Ontario.400 tons of clinker per day and with a name plate capacity of 680.Table 2-6: Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Fuel Source in Canadian Cement Industry. Fe2O3% 0. Marys. 1992 .094.882. The rock composition used in St.7 The Case Study for This Thesis The St. Marys cement plant for the year 2002 to 2004. and raw material consumption from the St. Canada.000 tons of cement per year. It is the largest employer in the town of St. Ontario and one of the Canada’s leading cement manufacturers.500-acre site. Thousand Metric Tons FUEL Coal Coke Petroleum Coke 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2260 37 779 608 6 218 0 6 515 4429 2000 2423 78 665 591 4 157 0 3 274 4195 1714 1732 1861 1919 13 636 652 5 173 1 0 100 25 749 629 4 126 1 0 187 23 602 608 17 110 2 0 381 39 807 727 5 149 0 12 323 1865 2123 2005 38 826 601 8 153 0 8 323 24 595 663 9 136 0 8 162 16 701 713 5 174 0 8 509 Natural Gas Middle Dist. CaO% 51. SiO2% 1. Al2O3% 0. Table 2-7 shows the data for cement production. Heavy Fuel Oil LPG/Propane Wood Waste Waste Fuels GHG Emissions (Combustion) GHG Emissions (Process CO2) Total GHG Emissions 3294 3453 3604 3981 3822 3720 4131 4440 4525 5332 6035 5722 6156 6198 6474 6679 7734 7978 8936 10016 9544 9876 10329 10903 10874 2.53.796. MgO% 2. Na2O% 0.146.041. P2O5% 0. Marys plant contained the material as Loss of Ignition (LOI)% 42. fuel consumption. SO3% 0. It employs 157 people on 1.

The flue gas flow rate and composition from St. S% 5.563 MJ/kg and the composition is C% 87.08.034 16.559 6.8.074. The coal fines and coal are used 1: 3 ratio as fuel in kiln burner.964 855.967 MJ/kg and the composition is C% 50.6. The clinker composition is SiO2% 21.9.7. Marys Cement for the year 2002 . Al2O3% 4. coal.3.600 914 2003 567.22. CaO% 65.092 2004 636. The research was performed on the basis of four cases below: • • • • Case I: the plant operates at the highest capacity Case II: the plant operates at average load Case III: the plant operates at minimum operating capacity Case IV: Switching to a lower carbon content fuel at average plant load Table 2-7: Production data.194 648 34 .110 604.746 646. MgO% 3. volatiles% (including moisture) 3.070 6.811 889.843 62. and Raw Material consumption report for St.964 94. N% 1. Fuel. K2O% 0. and Mn2O3% 0.926 613. The heating value for petcoke is 32. Mary cement plant is shown in Table 3-1. Marys cement used diesel.46.366 750. and TiO2% 0.07.788 2. H% 1. Fe2O3% 3.75.14.98.574 20.839 609. Energy.401 19.488 1.41.839.23.419 1.255 1.373.754 28. TiO2% 0.655 6.672 1. coal fines.026.636 75.905 1. and petcoke for fuels. P2O5% 0.844 1.760 37.2004 2002 Production Report Clinker (Tonnes) Total Cement Produced (Tonnes) Fuel Consumption Diesel in Quarry (Litres) Coal (Tonnes) Petcoke (Tonnes) Energy Consumption MJ millions BTU Total kWh Runtime Hours – Kiln Raw Material Consumption Rock Alumina Silica Flour Silica Fume 591. SO3% 1.35 on a wet basis.Mn2O3% 0. St. S% 2.213.668 1.956.57.721 303.11.971 40.034.795 1.713 525 80.2. The heating value for coal is 26. Na2O% 0.747.645. and ash% 0.

to give CO2 and more hydrogen. using MEA as the solvent. and in some cases steam. Among the options.2. This can be achieved by pre-combustion capture. If the CO2 concentration and pressure could be increased. Pre-combustion capture: The low concentration of CO2 in flue gas means that a large volume of gas has to be handled. The amine from the scrubber is heated by steam to release high purity CO2 and the CO2 free amine is then reused in the scrubber. which results in large equipment sizes and high capital costs. The CO2 is separated and the hydrogen is used as fuel. and necessitates high capital and operating costs. Three main techniques for CO2 capture are: • • • Post-combustion capture Pre-combustion capture Oxy-fuel combustion Post combustion capture: A variety of techniques can be used to capture CO2 from the flue gases for post combustion capture process. the CO2 capture equipment would be much smaller and different physical solvents could be used. The carbon monoxide is reacted with steam in a catalytic reactor. The fuel is reacted with oxygen or air. Several alternative strategies have been proposed to reduce CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and these strategies include switching of fuels from higher carbon content to low carbon content fuels with lower CO2 emission. the major shortcoming for the application of the MEA CO2 capture process is energy intensive for solvent regeneration. A further disadvantage of the low CO2 concentration is that powerful chemical solvents have to be used to capture CO2 and regeneration of the solvents to release the CO2 requires a large amount of energy. fuel balancing.8 How Can CO2 be captured? Developing economically feasible technology to reduce CO2 emission from fossil fuel burning process is becoming more and more essential. The most commonly thought method to capture CO2 from a coal burnt flue gas is amine scrubbing. to give mainly carbon monoxide and hydrogen. greater reduction of CO2 from flue gas is expected to be technically possible using CO2 capture and sequestration. However. called a shift converter. with lower energy penalties for regeneration. and improving plant efficiencies through utilization of advanced fossil fuel technologies and CO2 capture and sequestration. 35 .

diisopropanol amine. If fuel is burnt in pure oxygen. The flue gas is then contacted counter-currently with the chemical solvent in an absorption vessel equipped with packings or plates where much of the CO2 is absorbed 36 . so only simple CO2 purification is required. both in terms of capital cost and energy consumption. which would reduce the net cost of CO2 capture. The flue gas is cooled down and particulates and other impurities are removed as much as possible before CO2 removal. sodium carbonate. the flame temperature is excessively high.Oxyfuel combustion: The concentration of CO2 in flue gas can be increased greatly by using concentrated oxygen instead of air for combustion. 2. sodium hydroxide. Chemical solvent scrubbing involves the reaction between CO2 and the absorbents. It may be possible to omit some of the flue gas cleaning equipment such as flue gas desulphurisation. so some CO2 rich flue gas would be recycled to the combustor to make the flame temperature similar to that in a normal air-blown combustor. compared to 4-14% for air blown combustion.1 Chemical solvent scrubbing Chemical solvent scrubbing is currently the most favoured method to capture CO2 from low-pressure flue gases. The chemical absorbents used are aqueous solutions of mono. The disadvantage of oxyfuel combustion is that a large quantity of oxygen is required. They are: • • • • • Chemical solvent scrubbing Physical solvent scrubbing Adsorption Membranes Cryogenics 2. The most common solvent used for CO2 removal from lowpressure flue gas is monothanolamine (MEA). The advantage of oxygen-blown combustion is that the flue gas has a CO2 concentration of around or above 80%. The oxygen would be produced by cryogenic air separation. di or tri ethanol amines. which is expensive.9. and potassium carbonate [28].9 Types of CO2 Capture Technology Several technologies have been developed to capture carbon dioxide from flue gases.

The CO2-free solvent is recycled to the absorption vessel and the process runs continuously. but MEA is the most commonly used for flue gas applications [30] [31] [32] [33]. The disadvantages of this process are the limited CO2 loadings and significant energy requirements as well as corrosion in presence of O2 and high solvent degradation rates in the presence of SO2 and NO2. for removal of hydrogen sulphide and CO2 from gas streams. The technology development needs for physical solvents are similar in principle to those for chemical solvents. The bonds are broken with the application of heat thus regenerating the original solvent and producing a carbon dioxide stream.by chemically reacting with the chemical solvent and forms a loosely bound intermediate compound. The process also requires extensive equipment for circulating large volumes of liquid absorbents.2 Physical solvent scrubbing Physical absorption is usually used when the flue gas contains very high partial pressures of CO2. which reduces significantly the efficiency of absorption because the solubility of CO2 is directly proportional to its partial pressure. high degradation resistance and low corrosiveness and energy use for regeneration are needed to reduce equipment sizes and capital operating cost. faster CO2 absorption rates. CO2 recovery of 98% with product purity in excess of 99% can be achieved using the amine scrubbing technology [29]. DEA (diethanolamine) has also been used in addition to other chemicals such as potassium carbonate. Amine scrubbing technology has been established for over 60 years in the chemical and oil industries. The CO2-rich solvent is then passed into a stripper column where with the addition of heat the reverse reaction takes place. high solvent consumption and heat exchange and large energy losses. CO2 released in the stripper is compressed for transport and storage. typical for systems operating much above atmospheric pressure.9. New or improved solvents with higher CO2 absorption capacities. The low concentration of CO2 results in a lower partial pressure. The CO2-bearing gas is typically contacted countercurrently with the absorbent in a packed or plate tower and the advantage of such solvents is that the regeneration is performed by pressure reduction resulting in much 37 . 2.

38 . propylene carbonate (Fluor process) and sulfolane. These adsorbents are normally arranged as packed beds of spherical particles. partial pressures.9. The physical solvents have relatively low affinity for NOx and O2. Some solid materials with high surface areas. the feed gas is switched to another clean adsorption bed and the completely saturated bed is regenerated to remove the CO2. 2. When the bed becomes completely saturated with CO2. The physical absorption process for oxy fuel combustion scheme can be a very efficient approach for capturing CO2 because the CO2 concentration in the flue gas varies from 80% to 95% on a dry basis. The process operates with the basic adsorption and regeneration steps on a repeated cycle. SO2 levels must be reduced to 1 ppm before a physical solvent is used to minimize the amount of make-up solvent. IGCC power plants operate at a high pressure and the partial pressure of CO2 is much higher than the conventional power plants. such as activated carbon and molecular sieves (zeolites) can be used to separate CO2 from gas mixtures by adsorption. N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone.3 Adsorption Adsorption is due to the significant intermolecular forces between gases and the surfaces of certain solid materials. The use of Selexol has been reported for IGCC power plants. Therefore. however.lower energy consumption that causes the absorbed CO2 to flash into the vapour phase. Gas is fed into a bed of solids in the adsorption step that adsorbs CO2 and allows other gases to pass through the bed. CO2 capture literature for physical solvent scrubbing has been reported only for Selexol process. surface forces and adsorbent pore sizes [28]. The main physical solvents that could be used for CO2 capture are typically cold methanol (Rectisol process). In IGCC power plant the flue gas CO2 concentration is about 35-40% and the total pressure is at least 20 bar. A high concentration of CO2 produces a very high partial pressure of CO2 that makes physical solvent scrubbing a suitable option [34] [35] [36]. polyethylene glycol dimethylether (Selexol process). SO2 is 100 times more soluble than CO2 and thus the pre-removal of SO2 is still required. Adsorption of a single gas or multiple layers of gases can be carried out depending on the temperature.

When expanded to use with large-scale plants. ESA is not yet commercially available but it is said to offer the prospect of lower energy consumption than the other processes. PSA and TSA are used commercially for gas separation and are used to some extent in hydrogen production and in the removal of CO2 from natural gas. including porous inorganic membranes. hot inert gas or external heat is used to regenerate adsorbents by raising their temperature. This leads to increased complexity. It has been found that PSA is superior to TSA in all cases due to the high-energy requirements and low speed of regeneration in TSA. Several membranes with different characteristics may be required to separate high-purity CO2. Multiple stages and/or recycle of one of the streams are necessary to achieve high degrees of separation with the membrane process. Once regenerated. However. Gas separation membranes and gas absorption membranes are two types of membrane processes. In temperature swing adsorption (TSA). the gas mixture flows through the beds at elevated pressures and low temperatures until the adsorption of the desired constituent approaches equilibrium conditions at the bed exit and the adsorbent is regenerated by reducing pressure.9. the porous structure of the solid membrane permits the preferential permeation of the mixture constituents. the cost will likely be more expensive compared to other capture techniques. adsorption may be successful when combined with another capture technology [37]. The gas mixture containing CO2 is introduced into the membrane separator at elevated pressure and CO2 passes preferentially through the membranes and is recovered on the shell side of the 39 .4 Membranes The differences in physical or chemical interactions between gases and membrane material cause one component to pass through the membrane faster than another component. the beds are ready for another adsorption cycle. Various types of membranes are currently available. In gas separation membranes. polymeric membranes and zeolites.In pressure swing adsorption (PSA). 2. In electric swing adsorption (ESA) regeneration takes place by passing a low-voltage electric current through the adsorbent. palladium membranes. Adsorption is not yet a highly attractive approach for the large-scale industrial separation of from flue gases because the capacity and CO2-selectivity of available adsorbents is low. energy consumption and costs.

Membranes for CO2 separation from flue gases have not been widely explored because of the low pressure of the flue gases. which could be easily transported and shipped to the storage. It is not normally used for more dilute CO2 streams. Gas permeability and membrane selectivity are the main parameters considered for designing and operating a separation process. it is the absorption liquid. the costs are almost double than those of conventional amine capture process because of the compression energy. Cryogenic separation is widely used commercially for purification of CO2 from streams that already have high CO2 concentrations (typically >90%).9. Cryogenic separation of gas mixture involves compressing and cooling down the CO2 bearing gas mixture in several stages to induce phase changes in CO2 and invariably other mixture components in the case of flue gases. 40 . 2. gas absorption membranes are microporous solids that are used as contacting devices between a gas and a liquid. Cryogenic separation has the advantage that it enables direct production of liquid CO2. The CO2 diffuses through the membrane and is removed by an absorption liquid such as amine. Another disadvantage is the possible plugging of solid CO2 clusters and ice that comes from the water vapour freezing in the CO2 feed mixture.separator at reduced pressure. which selectively removes certain components. On the other hand. The atmospheric flue gas needs to be pressurized to achieve the desired separation. The most promising applications for cryogenics are expected to be for separation of CO2 from high-pressure gases.5 Cryogenics Cryogenics is a low-temperature separation technique. It is more compact than conventional membrane separators. A major disadvantage of cryogenic separation of CO2 is its inherent energy intensiveness to provide the refrigeration necessary for the process. particularly for dilute gas streams. not the membrane that gives the process its selectivity. although it has recently been claimed that CO2 can be captured (by freezing it as a solid) from atmospheric pressure flue gases. such as in pre-combustion capture processes. or oxyfuel combustion in which the input gas contains a high concentration of CO2 [37]. In contrast to gas separation membranes.

6 Other techniques Chemical looping combustion. The major development issue associated with chemical looping combustion is development of a metal oxide material that is able to withstand long-term chemical cycling and is resistant to physical and chemical degradation from impurities generated from fuel combustion [37].9. direct contact between the fuel and the combustion air is avoided by using a metal oxide to transfer oxygen to the fuel in a twostage process [38]. organic and inorganic carbonates and as a solvent direct biofixation through growth of biomass/algae for fuel On a scale of interest for CO2 capture from cement plant. It is then transported to a second reactor. where it is re-oxidised by reacting with O2 in the air.1 Industrial Usage of CO2 Captured CO2 can either be utilized or stored.2. the fuel is oxidised by reacting with a metal oxide. methanol. In the reduction reactor. the oxidation reactor.10. in which. CO2 can be used in CO2 enhanced oil recovery (CO2 EOR) and enhanced coal bed methane recovery (ECBM). Carbon dioxide captured from process streams are used for many purposed including: • • • food processing and carbonation synthesis of chemicals such as urea. 41 .10 CO2 Storage and Usage 2. which it converted to a lower oxidation state. 2. Figure 2-4 gives the breakdown of CO2 utilization in the USA in 1989.

Moreover. methanol and other chemical manufacturing consumed around 6. carbon dioxide can be injected into suitable coal beds where it would be adsorbed on the coal. it preferentially displaces methane that exists along with the coal and this methane could be sold as fuel [37]. 42 . Most of this carbon dioxide is extracted from natural CO2 reservoirs.7 Mt/year of CO2.S and around 28 Mt/year of CO2 was consumed in 1998 in the USA for CO2 EOR. There are 74 enhanced oil recovery projects operating in the U. But CO2 comes from anthropogenic sources. meat products.7 Mt/year. with soft drinks and beer production consuming the largest quantity. etc. More recent estimates report that global consumption for chemical synthesis is 89 Mt/year [40]. and frozen foods. consumed around 0. CO2 is used as a miscible solvent. locking it up permanently provided the coal is never mined. In CO2 enhanced oil recovery (CO2 EOR). a total of the 4. The use of carbon dioxide for EOR and ECBM is more attractive. was the main user for both solid and liquid CO2. CO2 based alkylene polycarbonate. In ECBM. In the food processing industry. especially ice cream. metal processing. approximately 0.5 Mt/year of CO2 [39]. The cooling of food. Other uses such as the production of dimethyl carbonate (DMC).9 Mt/year of CO2 is used for beverage carbonation in the USA. Urea.6% 2% 16% Food Processing Beverage Carbonation Chemicals (Urea and Methanol) Others 74% CO2 EOR 2% Figure 2-4: Annual US CO2 utilization in 1989 In 1989.7 Mt was consumed in the form of liquid/solid CO2 in the USA of which the food processing industry consumed around 2.

1 CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery The use of CO2 EOR can increase the oil recovery in a reservoir by 10-15% [40]. The mineral carbonation process first may require processing of the minerals to reduce the particle size. Mineral carbonation involves the reaction of carbon dioxide with minerals such as fosterite and serpentine. However. and heat treatment to speed up the reaction rate to acceptable levels.2 Long-Term Utilization/Storage of CO2 2. The Weyburn CO2 EOR project in Saskatchewan. Mineral carbonation is advantageous because it provides a means for permanent disposal with no requirements for monitoring. 2. These methods include storage in saline aquifer and mineral carbonation. is an example of a scheme where all of the CO2 is supplied from a North Dakota (USA) coal gasification plant located approximately 300 km away from the injection site. Mineral ores containing magnesium or calcium can be chemically combined with CO2 to form chemically more stable carbonates.2.2.10. CO2 is already used in more than 74 EOR projects in the USA and elsewhere and about 30 Mt CO2/year is consumed.2. Canada. removal of trace metals. The current source of CO2 used in CO2 EOR projects is mainly from natural underground reservoirs of CO2. or worries for re-emission. The overall reactions are shown below. 43 .2 CO2 Storage – Mineral Carbonation Many methods of CO2 storage are currently being researched.10. CO2 is injected into the oil reservoir and comes up with the produced oil and is usually separated from the oil and re-injected back into the reservoir to minimize operating costs. it is possible to use CO2 captured from fossil fired power plants if the cost of the product delivered on site is competitive with CO2 recovered from natural reservoirs. EOR projects have the potential to sequester 120 Gt of CO2 [37]. Mg 2 SiO4 + 2CO2 → 2 MgCO3 + SiO2 (Fosterite) Mg 3 Si2 O5 (OH )4 + 3CO2 → 3MgCO3 + 2SiO2 + 2 H 2 O (Serpentine) (R 2) (R 3) Both reactions are exothermic and thermodynamically favourable at low temperatures.10. Worldwide.

Fluor Daniel Inc.g. not with concern about the greenhouse effect. KerrMcGee Chemical Corp.5 mole of CO2 per mole MEA) and its low molecular weight. produces the carbamate ion when it reacts with CO2. Typically. about 75-90% of the CO2 is captured using this technology with a purity of product CO2 stream greater than 99%. The process was then adapted to treat flue gas streams for CO2 capture. CO2) from natural gas streams. H2S. forming chemical compounds that separate CO2 from the gas mixtures at a higher rate than the natural CO2 absorption in pure water.11 Overview of MEA-CO2 Capture Process The idea of separating CO2 from flue gas streams started in the 1970s. but as a potentially economic source of CO2. The limit of 30% by wt of MEA in water was set to avoid corrosion.. which are the absorption and stripping columns as illustrated in Figure 2-5 [67]. and ABB Lummus Crest Inc... which is a primary amine. It was developed over 60 years ago as a general. Carbon dioxide capture processes using monoethanolamine (MEA) based solvent is an organic chemical absorption process. Amines in the water solution react with CO2 in the absorption column. were some of the initial developers of the MEA-based technology for CO2 capture.. The main advantages in using MEA/water solutions are its high CO2 reactivity. Dow Chemical Co. mainly for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) operations [67]. nonselective solvent to remove acidic gas impurities (e. Figure 2-5: Flowsheet for CO2 Capture process from flue gases using MEA solvent The amine process has two main elements.2. Its main 44 . its high limit load (0. The monoethanolamine (MEA).

The rich solvent solution enters the top of the regenerator where it flows down through the vessel countercurrently to the stripping steam generated in the reboiler. The rich solvent is preheated in the lean/rich exchanger by the hot lean solution returning from the stripper on its way back to the absorber. Acid gases such as SO2 and NO2 react with MEA to form heat-stable salts that reduce the CO2 absorption capacity of the solvent and raise the MEA make-up to cover additional losses.drawback is the stability of the carbamate ion that makes the regeneration more heatdemanding to regenerate the solvent. Aqueous solutions of amines absorb CO2 primarily by chemical reaction. NOx is less of a problem because most of the NOx is nitric oxide (NO).2500 ppm for coal-fired plants. The problem is especially acute for SO2 because its concentration in flue gases is typically 700. The carbon dioxide in the flue gas reacts chemically with the solvent while the purified gas is vented to the atmosphere. 2. The solvent leaves the lean/rich heat exchanger after giving up heat to the rich solution and then enters a cooler. countercurrently to the aqueous solution. However. when carbon dioxide 45 is absorbed into aqueous MEA . Steam and solvent vapours move up the regenerator column and condenses as CO2 is liberated.1 MEA-CO2 Absorption Reaction Mechanisms Carbon dioxide capture with MEA solution involves exposing a gas stream to an aqueous amine solution which reacts with carbon dioixide in the gas to form a soluble carbonate salt by an acid-base neutralization reaction. and the solvent enriched by CO2 is pumped from the absorption tower to a heat exchanger. very low concentrations of these gases (typically 10 ppm) are desirable to avoid excessive loss of solvent. the reactions between the amines and CO2 are quite complex. The flue gas entering the absorption column flows up through the vessel. Uncondensed steam and carbon dioxide leave the top of the regenerator and then enter the reflux condenser. Thus. where its temperature is further lowered before being returned to the absorber. The condensate is returned to the system while the carbon dioxide is removed. The lean solvent solution is pumped from the bottom of the regenerator directly to the lean/rich heat exchanger.11. whereas only NO2 (typically about 5% of total NOx) is reactive.

(monoethanolamine) solutions. The forward reaction of (R 4). Therefore. and is rate controlling. first order with respect to both carbon dioxide and MEA. represents the regeneration step. The major advantage of this technique is that. 46 . the following two overall reactions should be considered [41] [42]. The equilibrium of reaction (R 4) lies to the right under high pressure and low temperature (typically < 40oC) conditions and it shifts to the left under low pressure and high temperature conditions. which is favoured under low pressure and high temperature. whereas the first-step reaction (R 6) is second order. the amine is not consumed and is continuously recycled back during the process. At very short exposure times of the liquid to the gas encountered in industrial absorbers. the effect of reaction (R 5) can be neglected.5 mole of CO2 per mole of amine. CO2 can be absorbed under high pressure and low temperature conditions and the CO2 loaded solvent can be regenerated under low pressure and high temperature conditions in a stripping column [52]. The capacity of the solution for CO2 for reaction (R 6) is limited to approximately 0. even at relatively high partial pressures of CO2 because of the high stability of the carbamate and its low rate of hydrolysis to bicarbamate. Reaction (R 4) takes place in two steps: CO2 + RNH 2 ⇔ H + + RNHCOO − H + + RNH 2 ⇔ RNH 3 + (R 6) (R 7) The equilibrium constants of reactions (R 6) and (R 7) are in the order of 10-5 and 1010 l/g-mole. that is. Carbon dioixide can be separated by heating in a separate stripping column. which is favoured under high pressure and low temperature. respectively [42]. represents the absorption step and the reverse reaction. CO2 + 2 RNH 2 ⇔ RNH 3 + RNHCOO − CO2 + RNHCOO − + 2 H 2 O ⇔ RNH 3 + 2 HCO3 + − + (R 4) (R 5) Where. in the ideal case. The second step reaction (R 7) is ionic and virtually instantaneous. and only reaction (R 4) affects the absorption rate of carbon dioxide [43]. R refers to HOCH2CH2.

Several mechanisms have been used to postulate the corrosion phenomena. Corrosion mechanism in an aqueous amine-CO2 system is not well-understood. amine concentration 47 . bicarbonate ion (HCO3-) in the solution functions as an oxidizing agent in the reduction in reaction (R 9). in most cases. the reaction is governed by undissociated carbonic acid (H2CO3) reaction (R 10). However. the dissolution reaction involves a reduction of hydrogen ion (H+) as shown is reaction (R 8). which has a great impact on the plant’s economy as it can result in unplanned downtime. Second. First. It is observed that the level of corrosion in amine treating plants is influenced by a number of factors including [46]: • • • the type of amine used the presence of contaminants in the solution CO2 loading. and reduced equipment life as well as limiting the operational ranges of process parameters.2. Three different types of iron dissolution reactions have been suggested.2 Corrosion in MEA-CO2 Capture Process Carbon dioxide (CO2) capture unit using reactive amine solvents is constantly subject to excessive corrosion problem. production losses. In MEA absorption process the main operational problem results from corrosion.11. The evolved CO2 then reacts directly with carbon steel to form iron carbonate (FeCO3). Riesenfeld and Blohm [44] suggested that the corrosion is associated with an evolution of CO2 from the rich amine solution. a mechanistic corrosion model was established to identify the oxidizing agents responsible for corrosion reactions in an aqueous amine-CO2 system [45]. mechanisms of iron dissolution in a CO2water system are used to represent the corrosion mechanism in the aqueous amine-CO2 system. Third. Fe + 2 H + → Fe 2+ + H 2 Fe + 2 HCO3− → FeCO3 + CO3 2− (R 8) + H2 (R 9) (R 10) Fe + H 2 CO3 → FeCO3 + H 2 Recently.

The corrosion reaction occurred from oxygen are shown in Equation (R 11) and (R 12). Aqueous amine solutions can be degraded in the presence of carbon dioxide and oxygen. the reaction rate of each reaction would increase including corrosion reaction in order to maintain the equilibrium of the system. The rich amine solution is generally more corrosive than the lean amine.• • • operating pressure and temperature solution velocity oxygen content in the system.40 mol/mol for MEA. To limit the plant corrosion within acceptable and manageable levels. Oxygen exists in the flue gas and reacts with other substances in the system. the primary amine (MEA) is found to be more corrosive than the secondary amine (DEA) and tertiary amine (MDEA). because at high amine solution concentration the reaction rate would be high. The carbon dioxide loading in the solvent strongly affects the corrosion rate and an increase CO2 loading intensifies the system’s aggressiveness with the corrosion process.25-0. most amine plants are operated in compliance with the recommended maximum amine concentrations of 20 to 30 % by weight. Temperature has a significant impact on corrosion. Solvent degradation leads to corrosion in MEA plants. and degradation products Generally. 2 Fe + 2 H 2 O + O2 → 2 Fe(OH ) 2 (R 11) 1 2 Fe(OH ) 2 + 2 H 2 O + O2 → 2 Fe(OH ) 3 2 (R 12) 48 . If the amine solution temperature is too high. The source of oxygen in the flue gas is from the excess air in the combustion step. Solution velocity can cause severe erosion and corrosion because the protective film developed by inhibitors can be removed or damaged by the shear force of a high velocity fluid stream. The recommended maximum CO2 loadings in the rich amine solution are in the range of 0. An increase in amine concentration also causes a higher corrosion rate.

The exact mechanism for the degradation is still unclear. pitting. uniform. The major heat-stable salt consists of sulphate and oxalate. stress corrosion cracking and inter-granular. flash drum. In addition. thiosulfuric acid may be formed which combines with the amine to form a heatstable salt that cannot be recovered for gas absorption by heating. thioureas and other decomposition products. These products cannot be reconverted to the free amine by application of heat. One of these is the reaction of H2S (captured from the flue gas) with O2 to form free sulphur. There are several reaction mechanisms possible in the degradation of alkanolamines. Flue gases contain some gases such as sulphur dioxide. nitrous oxide. reacts with the amine and forms dithiocarbamates. the amine is subject to oxidative degradation. The corrosion detected in these areas occurs in many forms. regenerator and reboiler.The most susceptible areas include the bottom portion of the absorber. acetate. 2. richlean heat exchanger. the use of corrosion inhibitors is considered to be the most economical technique for corrosion control. which 49 . i. and oxygen which can react with the solvent to form heat-stable salt which cause the solvent degradation and reduce the efficiency of the absorption process. but several studies have shown that the degradation products are oxidized fragments of the amine including NH3.11.e. which upon heating. formate. erosion. and peroxides [47]. Corrosion can be reduced by a number of approaches including [46]: • • • • • • • using of proper equipment design using of corrosion resistant materials instead of carbon steel maintaining low temperatures of the solution and the steam in the reboiler removing suspended solids and amine degradation products continuously adding caustic to the circulating amine solution maintaining the lowest possible pressure on stripping columns and reboilers using of corrosion inhibitors Of these alternatives. These compounds react with amines and cannot be regenerated. galvanic.3 Solvent Degradation in MEA-CO2 Capture Process If the loaded amine solution contacts with oxygen-containing gas.

structural supports.1.subsequently increase MEA use to cover additional losses. and methods of estimating auxiliary process equipment are therefore essential to the estimator in making reliable cost estimates. 2. spare parts and non-installed equipment spares. 2. and equipment allowance. surplus equipment. The flue gas should be cooled down before entering to the MEA absorption system. taxes.12. Another way to reduce the degradation problem is to remove these contaminate gases responsible for solvent degradation before being entered into the absorption system. There are many factors that affect the solvent degradation. supplies. Sources of equipment prices.12.12 Economic Analysis of Capture Process The economic analysis for MEA-CO2 absorption process consists of two parts. The details of each part are described below [48]. 2.1 Capital Investment Capital invesment can be divided into two categories namely direct and indirect costs. insurance. This includes all equipment listed on a complete flowsheet. capital investments. inflation cost allowance. paint and other factors. duties. and total product cost.1 Direct Costs Direct costs include the following costs: Purchased equipment The cost of purchased equipment is the basis of estimating capital investment. construction expenses. Flue gas desulphurization (FGD) is used to remove sulphur content gas in the flue gas. directly related to the erection of purchased equipment. Purchased-equipment installation The installation of equipment involves costs for labour. methods of adjusting equipment prices for capacity. The flue gas temperature affects the degradation rate. Hot flue gas can increase the degradation rate and reduce the absorption efficiency. Depending upon the complexity of the equipment 50 . foundations. freight charges. Around 110% of the total solvent circulation rate would be treated in the reclaimer. platforms. allowance for modification during startup. insulation. Reclaimers are used in MEA absorption processes for the removal of solvent degradation.

calibration. materials. namely. labour. supports. Instrumentation and controls This cost includes the costs for instrument costs.and type of the plant in which the equipment is installed. pipe hangers. lighting. transformation and services. power wiring. insulation for piping and other items involved in the complete erection of all piping used directly in the process. The cost for electrical installations consists primarily of electrical equipment. and fluid process. 51 . Material and labour for pipe insulation is estimated to vary from 15 to 25 percent of the total installed cost of the piping. pipe. which can be divided into solid process. and supplies involved in all building connected to the plant. Building (including services) This cost consists of labour. This kind of cost can be varied depending on the type of the chemical processes. the installation costs for equipment are estimated from 25 to 55 percent of the purchased equipment cost. Electrical installations The electrical installation consists of four major components. with the installation charges being approximately equal to the cost for accessories. installation-labour costs. The process plant piping can run as high as 80 percent of purchased equipment cost or 20 percent of fixed capital investment. Piping The cost for piping covers the process pipe. and expenses for auxiliary equipment and materials required for instrumentation. fittings. solid-fluid process. In ordinary chemical plants. Depending on the complexity of the instruments and the service. electrical installations cost amounts to 10 to 15 percent of the value of all purchased equipment. and instrument and control wiring. Total instrumentation costs depend on the amount of control required and may amount to 6 to 30 percent of the purchased costs for all equipment. The electrical installation cost is generally estimated between 3 to 10 percent of the fixed-capital investment. materials and labour. additional charges for installation and accessories may amount to 50 to 70 percent of the purchased cost. valves.

require capital investment. travel. first aid. and fuel are part of the service facilities of an industrial plant. 52 . and other construction overhead. power. and cafeteria equipment and facilities. construction tools and rentals. For ordinary chemical plant. The total cost for service facilities in chemical plants generally ranges from 30 to 80 percent of the purchased equipment cost. fire protection.1. the construction expense is approximately 10 percent of the total direct cost of the plant. 2. Generally and it is approximately 30 percent of the purchased equipment cost or 8 percent of the total direct costs of the process plant. such as shop. fences. and landscaping. Waste disposal. railroad. taxes and insurance. construction and cost engineering. purchasing. water.2 Indirect Costs Engineering and supervision The cost for engineering and supervision includes the costs for construction design and engineering. accounting. and miscellaneous service items. Construction expenses The construction or field expense includes temporary construction and operation. drafting. home office personnel located at the construction site. Yard improvement cost for chemical process is approximately 10 to 20 percent of the purchased equipment cost or 2 to 5 percent of the fixed capital investment. Service facilities Utilities for supplying steam. parking area. Land The land cost for the plants is approximately 4 to 8 percent of the purchased equipment cost or 1 to 2 percent of the total capital investment. and home office expense.Yard improvements Yard improvement cost includes costs for fencing. road. grading. wharves and piers. site clearing. walkways.12. which are included under the general heading of service facilities cost. construction payroll. reproductions. communications. travel and living. compressed air.

such as storms.2 Estimation of Total Product Cost Capital investment is only one part of complete cost estimate. price changes.12. but it can be estimated to be 2 to 8 percent of the direct plant cost or 1.5 to 6 percent of the fixed capital investment. small design changes. Direct production cost This cost includes the expenses directly associated with the manufacturing operation. These types of cost involve expenditures for: • • • • • • • Raw materials Operating labour Operating supervision Power and Utilities (Steam. These expenses can be divided into three classifications as given below. Manufacturing costs are also known as operating or production costs. This cost can be divided into two categories of manufacturing costs and general expenses. Another equally important part is the estimation of costs for operating the plant and selling the products which can be grouped under the heading of total product cost. electricity. Contingency factor ranging from 5 10 15 percent of the direct and indirect plant costs are commonly used. floods.2. strikes.Contractor’s fee The contractor’s fee varies for different situations. Contingency Contingency factor is usually included in an estimate of capital investment to compensate for unpredictable events. and other unforeseen expenses.12. refrigeration.1 Manufacturing Costs The manufacturing costs associated with all expenses directly connected with the manufacturing operation or the physical equipment of the process plant. 2. fuel. 2. and water) Maintenance and repairs Operating supplies Laboratory charges 53 . errors in estimation.

the general expenses are involved in every plant’s operation.Fixed charges Fixed charges are the expenses which do not vary with the change in production rate. engineering and legal expenses. office supplies. upkeep on office buildings.12. 54 . The general expenses may be classified as: • Administrative expenses include costs for executive and clerical wages.2 General Expenses In addition to the manufacturing cost. They consist of: • • • • • • • • • • • Medical expenses Safety and protection General plant overhead Payroll overhead Packaging Restaurant Recreation Salvage Control laboratories Plant superintendence Storage facilities 2. They involve: • • • • Depreciation Property taxes Insurance Rent Plant overhead costs These costs are similar to the fixed charges in that they do not vary with the change of the production rate. and general communications.2.

These costs include expenditure for materials handling. The simulation was performed for absorption/stripping columns together with a liquefaction unit. penalized by the very high capital costs of the removal plant. The heat required for the rich solution regeneration process was provided to the kettle reboiler by steam extracted from the power plant connected to the CO2 removal plant. The study was performed with an aim to minimize the energy requirements for the process to remove CO2 when it was integrated in a fossil-fuel-fired power plant. 55 . however. as well as cost of captured CO2. containers. sales offices. The capital and variable costs of the CO2 removal and liquefaction system was estimated and their influences on the cost of electricity generation were calculated. 2. technical sale services and advertising. solvent circulation rate. The model described by authors allows the estimation of optimal absorber and stripper performance parameters for low energy consumption. Financing (interest) expenses include the extra costs involved in procuring the money necessary for the capital investments. solvent degradation. The authors concluded that the goal of 90% CO2 emissions reduction was. • Research and development expenses are the costs for any progressive concern which wishes to remain in a competitive industrial position. type of packing. which make this solution not feasible at the current price of electricity.• Distribution and marketing expenses are costs incurred in the process of selling and distributing the various products. height of packing. Some of the works are summarized below: Desideri and Paolucci [31] modeled an amine based carbon dioxide removal and liquefaction system using Aspen Plus simulation software for flue gases of conventional natural gas and coal fired 320 MWe power plants.13 Literature Review of CO2 Capture From Flue Gases The literature review is performed on the basis of process flowsheet evaluation. shipping. sales man. the mass transfer region. tray type. equipment design criterion such as types of column. corrosion and other process parameters to optimize the reboiler duty. solvent selection.

For the stripper steam consumption was only reduced slightly by increasing the packing height. It was kept open at the absorber inlet.Freguia and Rochelle [49] studied the details of MEA based CO2 removal model from flue gases with Aspen RateFrac with a purpose to understand how the design variables affect each other at the level of the whole process. Freguia and Rochelle showed that he addition of a strong acid to the solvent forms heat stable salts. An increase in CO2 content in the flue gas and the reduction of CO2 removal are accompanied by a small reduction in the specific steam consumption. Aspen Plus RateFrac module was used to integrate the heat transfer and multi component mass-transfer relationships for a packed absorber and stripper column. 56 . The effect is significant with less packing. equilibrium vapour pressures of CO2 and H2O. The rigorous Electrolyte-NRTL thermodynamics property method was inserted to predict enthalpies. In this way the lean solvent becomes an input to the model. The solvent loop was not closed. due to higher temperature. not of the single absorber and stripper. heat-stable salt loading and concentration. whereas with a large amount of packing the effect disappears and the reboiler duty reaches an asymptote. The steam consumption was reduced by a greater height of packing in the absorber. the addition of HSS can change steam consumption by as much as 40%. and absorber temperature on process variables to find operating conditions at low steam requirement. Freguia and Rochelle mentioned that the solvent circulation rate affects the steam requirements heavily and recommended operating the process at a solvent rate slightly higher than the optimum. stripper pressure. the reaction rate is not limiting. and solution speciation. The solvent they used in the model contains about 30 wt. which can slightly reduce the energy requirement by making the equilibrium relationship more linear. Sensitivity analyses were performed on solvent rate. column heights. The model was adjusted with the laboratory wetted wall column data and field data from a commercial plant. The stripper height required is much less than that of the absorber because. % aqueous monoethanolamine (MEA). CO2 removal. They claim that at a constant solvent rate.

published and personal sources. it is possible to operate stripper at any convenient pressure but they found that the optimum pressure is approximately 1.0 bar. Singh et al. The CO2 capture cost for the amine case was $55/ton of CO2 avoided (3. and an engineering sizing and costing software package such as Icarus Process Evaluator. concluded that both processes were expensive. Both capital and operating costs were evaluated for the two technologies investigated using a variety of sources such as vendor input. Singh et al. therefore. stripper condenser temperature 40oC. absorber feed stream temperature 40oC. stripper pressure 2. The specification for this work was the 85% carbon dioxide recovery and 98% mole purity of carbon dioxide product 57 . The simulation was conducted with a goal to capture 90% CO2 from the flue gas of pulverised coal fired boiler that burns western sub-bituminous coal producing 400 MWe. This study showed that the O2/CO2 case was less expensive than MEA scrubbing. Commercially available process simulation packages such as Hysys and Aspen Plus were used to develop the model. Singh et al.5 to 2 atm. This represented an increase of 20–30% in current electricity prices. [50] presented a techno-economic comparison of the performance of two different technologies of flue gas CO2 scrubbing using MEA and O2/CO2 recycle combustion combined with a low temperature flash (LTF) unit to the retrofit of a typical 400 MWe coal fired power plant. however. (2. [51] studied the amine capture process for a 500 MW power plant by simulating this process using Aspen Plus simulation program.2 bar.3 ¢/kWh) and that for the O2/CO2 case was lower at $35/ton of CO2 avoided. gas turbines and steam boilers The flue gas was treated in four separate absorption/regeneration column trains to eliminate the structural. The author used the following key operating conditions of the MEA capture process: Absorber pressure 1.The author mentioned that the stripper pressure effect was not very significant.4 ¢/kWh). The simulation converged using a decomposition method presented in Alie’s paper. Alie et al. considered in their study that the power output to the grid must remain fixed and a considerable amount of supplementary energy was supplied to either CO2 separation processes generated by gas turbine combined cycles (GTCCs). O2/CO2 appeared to be a more attractive retrofit option.

The study was carried out using HYSIM process simulator for the MEA capture process for a 1x107 m3 STP/day of flue gas containing 15% of CO2. A consistent set of restrictions were imposed for the simulation. The second phase was to simulate the stand alone regenerator using the results from phase I as the input data. solvent concentration on the cost of capturing CO2. The reboiler duty was compared between each case to find the best condition that give the minimum reboiler duty. The authors examined the effect of absorber pressure on the cost of CO2 removal by varying the absorber pressure from 1. The maximum reboiler temperature was set at 122oC to prevent thermal degradation of solvent. Then the conditions of the solvent stream were investigated.15 to 2 atm and reported that there is no cost benefit in operating the absorber column at higher pressure. The simulation was designed for a recovery of 95% carbon dioxide. The first was to simulate the stand-alone absorber and vary αlean (mole ratio of carbon dioxide to MEA in lean-solvent stream). feed gas pressure. The reboiler duty of the regenerator was considered because it has the most impact on the operating cost of this process. The top stage temperature of the stripper was set at 50oC to minimize the solvent losses due to vaporization. The decomposition method was divided into three phases. The results from decomposition method were compared with the coupled process flowsheet in the third phase. The CO2/amine loading was also restricted to reduce corrosion potentials. number of stages and type of solvent. The authors studied the effect of the solvent flow rate on the cost of separation and reported that the cost of CO2 separation increases almost exponentially with solvent flow rate and recommended that the solvent flow rate should be kept at a minimum. They recommended that the absorber should be operated at as low a pressure as possible. Chakma et al. To minimize the pressure drop in the absorber and stripper. The steam for the reboiler and pumps was assumed to be provided by the boilers in the power plants. On the point of MEA concentration. reboiler energy inputs.stream. valve trays with venturi openings were selected for both columns. the authors mentioned that an increase in MEA 58 . [52] studied the CO2 separation for low pressure flue gases from coal fired power plants. They studied the sensitivity of the effect of inlet gas composition.

An additional flash tank is installed. The feed gas is treated from a desulfurization system. the higher number of trays allows lower solution circulation rates thus reducing the overall costs. 59 . Barchas. Once heated in a solution exchanger to a higher temperature. equipment sizes are smaller except for the solution exchanger. the rich solution is then flashed in a flash tank. The main feature of the Kerr-McGee/Lummus Crest technology is its capability to operate with fuels ranging from natural gas to high-sulfur coal or coke.concentration decreases the cost of separation substantially but the possibilities of corrosion and solvent degradation must be taken into consideration in selecting the concentration level of the solvent. The technology is also suitable for flue gas that contains oxygen or a small amount of sulfur dioxide. And the steam consumption can be reduced. including the production cost. Diisopropanolamine (DIPA). A new energy saving unit can be installed as shown in Figure 2-7. Figure 2-6 shows the basic flow scheme of the Kerr-McGee/Lummus Crest carbon dioxide recovery technology. In the absorber. From this. studied the effect of the number of absorber and stripper trays on the cost of separation and mentioned that an increase in the number of trays in absorber as well as in stripper reduces the overall cost of CO2 capture. water removal. an increase in the number of trays lowers the reflux ratio for a given separation duty and thereby in the reduction of separation costs. Diethanolamine (DEA) Diglycolamine (DGA). R [53] studied the recovery of carbon dioxide from oxygen- containing gases and discussed the design aspects of a recovery carbon dioxide unit. and cooling system before being sent to an amine absorber where it is scrubbed with a 15-20 weight percent of MEA solution. The authors carried out the simulation runs with different solvents like Monoethanolamine (MEA). In the case of stripper. Methyldiethanolamine (MDEA) and Trieethanolamine (TEA) to compare their cost effectiveness in CO2 removal from power plan flue gases and concluded that from a cost effectiveness point of view. Chakma et al. none of the commonly available gas treating alkanoamine solvents can compete with 20 or 30 wt% MEA. Approximately 90 percent of carbon dioxide in the feed gas is recovered. R and Davis.

Condenser Exhaust Gas CO2 Product Wash Section Absorber

Lean Amine Cooler Stripper

Feed Gas Feed Gas Cooler Solution Exchanger Filter Reboiler

Reclaimer

Bottoms

Figure 2-6: Kerr McGee/ABB Lummus Crest CO2 Recovery Technology Basic Flow

Condenser Exhaust Gas CO2 Product Wash Section

Absorber Feed Gas Feed Gas Cooler

Lean Amine Cooler Stripper

Filter

Flash Tank

Reboiler

Solution E h

Reclaimer

Bottoms

Figure 2-7: Kerr McGee/ABB Lummus Crest CO2 Recovery Technology Energy Saving Design

60

Jou et al. [54] quantified the solubility of CO2 in 30 mass % monoethanolamine (MEA)

solutions at eight different temperatures of 0, 25, 40, 60, 80, 100, 120, and 150oC at CO2 partial pressures of ranging from 0.0001 to 20,000 kPa. This work was undertaken to rationalize the data available and to produce a body of data over a wide range of temperatures and pressures, which could serve as a standard for use in the modeling of vapour-liquid equilibrium in MEA solutions.
Wilson et al. [55] provided details for the MEA based CO2 extraction pilot plant test

facilities adjacent to SaskPower’s Boundary Dam coal fired power station (BDPS) and discussed the results obtained in terms of the absorption performance, or mass-transfer efficiency of the process, energy consumption for solvent regeneration, operational problems such as solvent degradation, levels of heat stable salts as well as corrosion in the CO2 plant. The pilot plant has a capacity to handle 14x103 m3/day flue gases and captures up to 4 tonnes of CO2/day. The amine extraction unit consisting essentially of 18” absorber and 16” regenerator treats the pre-conditioned flue gas from the Anderson 2000 unit. The process operation is based on the Fluor’s Econamine FGSM technology. Wilson et al. presented some valuable results both in design and operational aspects of absorption performance and solvent regeneration. The authors in their paper reported that CO2 absorption occurs mostly at the lower portion of the absorber. The lean CO2 loading and absorption efficiency tend to stabilize at a certain value of heat duty, which could be considered to be the optimal operating condition. They identified three major heat stable salts (i.e., sulphate, oxalate and thiocyanate) in the context of solvent degradation.
Veawab et al. [56] focused on the evaluation of absorption performance and energy

requirement for solvent regeneration of three common alkanolamines including monoethanolamine (MEA), diethanolamine (DEA), and methyldiethanolamine (MDEA). The primary amine, MEA, is the most attractive solvent for CO2 capture because it reacts with CO2 at a faster rate and the cost of raw materials is relatively low compared to the secondary and tertiary amines. However, the associated high capital and operating costs of absorption process using MEA guided to identify the alternative solvents that lead to a reduced cost compared to the cost of MEA process.

61

Veawab et al. reported that, based on the CO2 capture efficiency, the absorption performance of the test solutions was in the following order: MEA > DEA > MDEA. MEA required the shortest column height while the MDEA required the tallest. The energy requirement for solvent regeneration of different amines was reported in the following order: MEA > DEA > MDEA. MEA is more difficult to regenerate, thus resulting in higher residual CO2 loading of lean solution.
Tanthapanichakoon and Veawab [57] investigated the effect of heat-stable salts on

corrosion in the amine treating units using an aqueous solution of 5 kmol/m3 monoethanolamine (MEA) at 80oC and under atmospheric pressure and CO2 loading of 0.20 mol/mol. Carbon steel 1018 was used as a representative of the typical construction material of process equipment. Heat-stable salts in amine treating units are of great concern for corrosion because the presence of heat-stable salts in MEA solution led to increased corrosion. The authors reported that the heat-stable salts, which were tested in this study, were acetate, chloride, formate, glycolate, malonate, oxalate, succinate and sulfate. The experiments showed that heat stable salts were the major contributor to the increased corrosion of carbon steel 1018 and oxalate. None of the test heat stable salts showed pitting tendency on either carbon steel or stainless steel.
Veawab [58] discussed the impacts of operating parameters on corrosion and corrosion

controls in the CO2 capture process using reactive amine solvents. The author reported that an increase in CO2 loading intensifies the system’s aggressiveness and accelerate the corrosion process. The rich amine solution is generally more corrosive than the lean amine and the recommended maximum CO2 loadings in the rich amine solution are in the range of 0.25-0.40 mol/mol for MEA. The author mentioned that higher temperature tends to increase the corrosion rate. The most susceptible process areas to corrosion are the rich-lean heat exchanger, the regenerator and the reboiler where the amine solutions are heated to an elevated temperature. An increase in amine concentration also causes a higher corrosion rate although high amine concentration is desirable for energy saving purposes. Solution

62

velocity can cause severe erosion corrosion, especially in the presence of solid contaminants. The author discussed that corrosion can be inhibited through the addition of corrosion inhibitors. Inorganic corrosion inhibitors are in practice more favoured than the organic compounds because of their superior inhibition performance. Among these, vanadium compounds, particularly sodium metavanadate (NaVO3), are the most extensively and successfully used in the amine treating plants. However, there is a concern over the use of toxic inorganic inhibitors as it makes disposal of the resulting industrial waste difficult and costly.
Wilson, M. A. et al. [59] studied the MEA-based CO2 extraction pilot plant performance

of a pulverized coal power plant in Saskatchewan, Canada, to test the effectiveness of pre-conditioning the flue gases for sulphur oxide removal to reduce amine degradation. Dow Chemicals U.S.A. and Union Carbide Corporation supplied the patented amines used in the pilot plant for CO2 extraction. In addition, the effectiveness of the Andersen 2000 sulphur dioxide scrubbing process was also measured. The Amine Extraction Unit was used to test the Union Carbide "Flue Guard" technology and the Dow Chemical "FT" technology. Union Carbide "Flue Guard" technology provided the stabilizer, for increasing the oxygen tolerance of the amine, and corrosion inhibitor separately. Corrosion in the amine absorber and regenerator towers was generally minimal, indicating the effectiveness of the corrosion inhibitors. The stabilizer also worked effectively under adverse conditions to keep the loss of amine to oxygen degradation very low. On the other hand, the Dow Chemical FT solvent arrived with the corrosion inhibitor and stabilizer pre-mixed. The operating conditions were kept more or less the same as during the Union Carbide test to allow direct comparison of the two chemicals. The results from using the Dow solvent over the test period were much the same as for the Union Carbide technology, with similar CO2 capture, thermal, and product purity efficiencies. The author reported that the most significant differences noted between the Union Carbide and Dow solvents were in the levels of corrosion and in amine degradation due to oxygen. The Dow Chemical solvent exhibited slightly higher rates of corrosion,

63

[61] in their follow up paper discussed the pilot plant performance they developed for the new energy efficient solvent KS-2.35 kg/tonne CO2 recovered. reported that KEPCO and MHI developed the KS-1 solvent and its amine consumption was around 0.1~0. and reduction of amine consumption. and the molecular 64 . [60] studied the flue gas CO2 recovery technology and focused on the reduction of the initial and operating costs.29 m/s. However. Mimura et al. Subsequent tests were done in a pilot plant and showed excellent characteristics for KS-1. Mimura et al. Mimura et al.2 kg/tonne CO2 recovered. KS-1 loss could be reduced to between 0. Under normal operating conditions. which was about 1/6 of the MEA solvent consumption. maintaining appropriate concentrations of the corrosion inhibitors and stabilizers was more problematic. Detailed investigations identified that a combination of decomposition. Degradation of MEA can be as high as 2 kg/tonne of CO2 recovered. Mimura et al. The authors reported that the KP-1 packing was able to operate without flooding at 950 m3/h with a flue gas velocity of 3. Since the Dow Chemicals amine came premixed. and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI). and higher degradation rates. reduction of the KP-1 packing weight. vapour loss and mist loss were responsible for the amine losses. a pressure loss of 40 mm H2O was found through the CO2 absorption part (KP-1 packing part). Ltd emphasized on increase of flue gas velocity in the CO2 absorber. KS-2 was developed after KS-1. An energy efficient solvent was developed and commercialized from the results of this research and development work. Mimura et al. KP-1 was designed with a packing diameter of 320 mm and a flue gas velocity of 1. reported that KEPCO and MHI jointly developed very low-pressure loss and very high efficient gas and liquid contact KP-1 packing for atmospheric flue gas conditions. selected promising absorbents from 80 alkanolamine specimens that have been tested in the laboratory. if vapour loss and mist loss were reduced.although corrosion was generally minimal for both technologies. The joint research done by Kansai Electric Power Co (KEPCO) Inc.92 m/s. KS-2 and KS-1 have similar energy efficiency and both require 20% less energy than MEA but KS-2 is more stable than KS1 and is a more efficient absorbent for low CO2 content flue gas.

The regeneration energy required by KS-2 absorbent during 1000 hours continuous running tests is about 700 kcal/kg-CO2 recovered which is about 20% less than the MEA solution. KS-2 is very stable and may not be degraded by itself. and structural packing types. the cost of structured packing is generally higher than that of random ones. [62] evaluated the performance of the structured packing in terms of the volumetric overall mass-transfer coefficient (KGav) as a function of the process operating parameters including gas load. with optimum steam in natural gas-fired power plant. Solutions with lower CO2 loadings degraded faster than those with high loadings.structure of KS-2 has a higher degree of hindrance and high CO2 absorption capacity under flue gas condition and very low CO2 loading under regeneration condition compared to MEA and KS-1. Power plant power reduction is about 5~6% if KS-2 absorbent and KP-1 packing are used. and chromium. Structured packings showed excellent mass transfer performance with a lower pressure drop in comparison with random packings for the absorber. Goff and Rochelle [63] studied the oxidative degradation of monoethanolamine (MEA) at conditions typical of an absorber to capture CO2 from flue gas. pilot-scale. liquid temperature. copper. Three types of experiments consisting of laboratory-scale. solvent type. through the amine solution.15. containing varying concentrations of CO2. This result is due to the fact that structured packings possess a considerably higher geometric surface area per unit volume in comparison with those of random packings. Aroonwilas et al.4 and 0. nickel. solvent concentration. and industrial-scale trials were carried out and in each experiment different types of structured packings were used. The oxidative degradation was catalyzed by the presence of various multivalent cations such as iron. Experiments were conducted in a heated. Despite the superior performance of the structured packings. Dissolved iron is always present in 65 . liquid load. Comparisons of CO2 absorption performance between the tested structured and common random packings were performed. This study quantified the effect of varying iron and copper concentrations on the degradation rates. Degradation rates were measured as a function of iron and copper concentrations at 55oC using 7-M MEA solutions with CO2 loadings of 0. CO2 partial pressure. sparged reactor by bubbling air. Based on the heat stable salt analysis. corresponding to the conditions at the top and bottom of the absorber.

reported that in Concept A. SO2 content was reduced to about 10 ppmv as required by the downstream amine system. this study also looked at the effect of various chelating agents and corrosion inhibitors as possible inhibitors to the oxidative degradation rates.these systems as a corrosion product. Several inhibitors and chelating agents. Flue gases were cooled in a direct contact cooler and introduced to the MEA system where more than 96% of CO2 was removed. followed by Kerr-McGee/ABB Lummus Global commercial MEA-based CO2 capture process • • Concept B: O2/CO2 recycle combustion Concept C: Coal combustion in air with catalytic O2 removal and CO2 capture by tertiary amines MEA/MDEA process Marion et al. [64] conducted a comprehensive study evaluating the technical feasibility and economics of alternate CO2 capture for an existing coal fired 450 MWe power plant in Conesville. Adding copper to a system that already contains iron will result in an increase in the degradation rate regardless of the CO2 loading. namely: • Concept A: Coal combustion in air. Degradation catalyzed by either copper or iron appeared to be of the same order of magnitude. EDTA was more effective at inhibiting the degradation catalyzed by copper than iron. The researchers concluded that 66 . The addition of copper further catalyzed the degradation rates of the solution. but the rate was less than first order with respect to the metal concentrations. Three technology concepts were being evaluated. and is often added to the solutions as a copper (II) salt. a flue gas desulfurization unit was installed downstream and integrated into the power plant to strip SO2 from the 15% CO2 effluent gas stream. methyldiethanolamine and phosphate were tested as possible degradation inhibitors. Finally. copper is a known corrosion inhibitor in MEA CO2 removal systems. Marion et al. Ohio. Both iron and copper catalyzed the oxidative degradation of MEA. The authors reported that the degradation rate of solutions with high CO2 loading increased as the concentration of dissolved iron was increased. including (ethylenedinitrilo)-tetraacetic acid (EDTA). N-dihydroxyethyl glycine (bicine).

A De-Oxy catalyst was used upstream of the solvent contractor. %. N2 = 0. [66] studied carbon dioxide sources for industrial uses and considered carbon dioxide from flue gas as an important source. He also discussed the cost estimates for the process. Chapel D.95 vol.8 vol. described in Concept C an ABB designed process comprised of an optimized mixture of MEA and MDEA.83 to 17. N2 = 0. Marion et al. the flue gas stream leaving the flue gas desulfurization unit was cooled down to 38oC in a direct contact cooler and the flue gas leaving the cooler was split into two streams with about two third recycled back to the boiler and the remaining one third feeding the CO2 compression and liquefaction system.5 acres of land would be needed for the capture plant. the operating cost for carbon dioxide capture process is between 10.2 vol. The captured CO2 liquid product characteristics were reported CO2 = 99. N2 = 1. temperature = 28oC and pressure = 2000 psig. The plot plan required about 3 acres of land for the CO2 liquefaction and compression and direct contact cooling systems. So the economics of carbon dioxide capture process from flue gas was studied. temperature = 28oC and pressure = 2000 psig. and lower degradation rate. From the calculation. %. et al. %. O2 = 9300 ppmv. The capital and operating cost for carbon dioxide capture plant was determined using cost factors. installed downstream of the flue gas desulfurization unit and integrated into the power plant to strip CO2 from the effluent gas stream. This system recovers about 91% of the CO2.85 US $ / ton which depend on the flue gas sources. He showed that KS-1 has improved performance relative to MEA in terms of heat of dissociation of rich-MEA. The plot plan required for this was about 7 acres of land. lower corrosiveness. They reported the main cost factors for a 1000 ton/day of carbon dioxide. The captured CO2 liquid product characteristics were reported CO2 = 99.03 vol. Marion et al. %. higher CO2 solubility.05 vol. Moreover they reported that the capital cost for a large single-train plant 67 . %.97 vol. temperature = 28oC and pressure = 2000 psig. Nobuo Imai [65] from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries compares the performance of KS-1 to MEA. SO2 = 215 ppmv. %. The captured CO2 liquid product characteristics were reported CO2 = 97. mentioned that for Concept B.

would be lower compared to that with a multi-trains plant. and cost of CO2 Avoided. Rao and Rubin [67] studied the impacts of carbon capture and sequestration technology on power plant performance. pressure. are used to calculate the solvent flow rate. and electrical energy needs of the CO2 system. and composition of the inlet flue gas to the CO2 absorber and the gross power generation capacity of the power plant. The authors showed that for amine (MEA)-based absorption systems applied to coal-fired power plants. These parameters. regeneration heat requirement. Their objective was to develop a preliminary model of performance and cost of amine-based CO2 capture process based on available information by taking into account the uncertainties and variability in key performance and cost parameters and apply that model to study the feasibility and cost of carbon capture and sequestration at existing coal-based power plants as well as new facilities. The basic configuration is a MEA-based absorption system with pipeline transport of liquefied CO2 to a geologic sequestration site. along with those from the base plant. CO2 compression system. operating and maintenance costs. and economics. the cost of carbon avoidance depended strongly on assumptions about the 68 . They developed a mathematical model to simulate the performance of CO2 capture and storage system based on amine (MEA) scrubbing and incorporated that CO2 module to an existing coal-based power plant simulation model. temperature. MEA requirement. cost of electricity. They considered two types of input parameters to the CO2 performance model: Parameters from the “base plant”: These include the flow rate. emissions. They also reported that the 4600 ton/day of carbon dioxide single train plants are possible. The authors also developed the Process Cost Model that directly linked the process performance model to the model used to calculate four types of cost based on available data such as capital cost. and CO2 storage (sequestration) method. CO2 product transport. Parameters of the CO2 system: The CO2 module specifies parameters of the CO2 capture technology.

Slater et al. 69 .4 barg through a backpressure turbine that drives an electric generator. The product CO2 was dehydrated and compressed to 220 bara. The plant described above resulted in an overall plant installed cost of $160 million. The recovery plant was designed to recover about 90% of the CO2 from the flue gases. MP steam (62barg) was generated in utility boilers and used to provide energy for the CO2 capture plant. Adding or upgrading an FGD unit to remove SO2 was essential to minimize the cost of carbon mitigation. The reboilers only required LP steam (nominal 3. The presence of NOx had a much smaller effect on CO2 capture costs since most NOx is NO. not NO2. using Fluor’s proprietary Econamine FGSM amine capture technology. Slater et al. representing most of the CO2 emissions from the complex. The required steam for compressors and blowers was used directly. The presence of acid gas impurities such as SO2 and NO2 in power plant flue gas was seen to adversely affect the performance and cost of the CO2 removal system. reported that only a small cost penalty associated with multiple flue gas sources for a CO2 recovery plant. CO2 compression was achieved through a single steam turbine driven three-body five-stage compressor. [68] studied the cost of separating CO2 from multiple flue gas sources at one of their petrochemical complexes. The largest factor affecting plant cost with multiple flue gas sources was the wide separation between groups of sources that required separate flue gas processing trains. mentioned some useful design points in their study. The authors discussed in their paper the cost penalties associated with capturing CO2 from a large number of flue gas sources and also compared the cost of the capture facility with facilities designed with either a single flue gas source or only a few selected sources. and interactions with other pollution control systems. details of the CO2 capture and storage system designs.reference plant design. The remaining steam was expanded to 3. The recovery plant capacity was 3820 tonnes/day.4 barg (50 psig)). Dehydration was accomplished through a propriety glycerol-based Shell Global Solutions. An analysis of retrofit options found that the large energy requirements of CO2 capture lead to a more substantial loss of plant capacity compared to a new plant affording better heat integration. Slater et al.

amine based capture facility using Econamine FGSM process. The study provided a firm basis for comparison with other technologies and designs a feasible process and cost estimation and discussed the environmental impacts. The capture plant was designed to produce a high purity. suitable for use with Enhanced Oil recovery. Simmonds et al. the benefits and the challenges as well.Simmonds et al.000 tonnes per day CO2 (equivalent to 2. reported that the Econamine FGSM required SO2 and NOx at or below 10 ppm and 20 ppm respectively to avoid excessive degradation of the solvent. The authors anticipated a cost of CO2 capture of between US$ 50 and US$ 60 per tonne of CO2. 25 MW was required for the flue gas blower of which 15 MW of this power was required to overcome the pressure drop of this ducting.3 m in diameter and a stripper of 10.0 million tonnes per annum).4 m in diameter. post combustion. They reported that there were no technical restrictions on building columns of this size. high-pressure (220 bar) stream of 6. An optimal plant-ducting layout would require 2 km of ducting for the flue gas. 70 . The authors examined the issues of retrofitting a very large scale. [69] studied the cost and practicability of capturing CO2 from the site using today’s best available technology. The authors reported that their design called for four absorbers of 10.

224 0. m3/hr Mass Flow.1 Flue Gas Analysis for Process Simulation The Aspen Plus™ [72] program requires the input data of the flue gas stream which are temperature.023 Case III 160 1. Marys Cement Plant for Process Simulation Case I Temperature. oC Pressure. The flue gas flow rate.616 0. kg/hr H2O CO2 N2 O2 Mass Fraction H2O CO2 N2 O2 Mole Fraction H2O CO2 N2 O2 160 1.224 0. flow rate.681 0.318 0.318 0.Chapter 3: Process Simulation 3.013 8162 252711 290 x 103 10631 80335 155626 6119 0.681 0.023 Case II 160 1. kmol/hr Mass Flow . and flue gas composition. The flue gas in cement plant comes from the combustion process as well as from the kiln reaction itself. composition.024 0.023 71 . The objective was to capture 85% of the carbon dioxide at a purity of 98%.042 0.616 0. bar Mole Flow. pressure.224 0. To simulate the MEA-based CO2 absorption process flue gas data from St.072 0.024 0.013 5629 174283 200 x 103 7332 55404 107328 4220 0.042 0.318 0. Marys Cement Plant: • • • Case I: the plant operates at the highest capacity Case II: the plant operates at average load Case III: the plant operates at minimum operating capacity Table 3-1: Flue Gas Analysis from St. Marys Cement plant were used. coal and coal fines as fuel in the kiln furnace for combustion.024 0.681 0.616 0. Marys Cement plant burns mixtures of pet coke. temperature and pressure for the process simulation are analysed on the basis of three cases based on the daily production data from St.072 0. kg/hr Volume Flow.072 0.013 9851 304996 350 x 103 12831 96956 187824 7385 0. St.042 0.

3. and H2O. the baghouse to screen out the particulates and the flue gas desulfurization to scrub sulphur dioxide are not included in the simulation process. Corrosion is not taken into account in the simulation. The inlet flue gas entering the blower is considered free from all contaminants and consists primarily of CO2. The product carbon dioxide stream purity is specified at 98% by mole and compressed to 150 bar pressure for discharge. Detailed flowsheet explanation is described next: 3.3. O2. using rigorous vapour-liquid or vapourliquid-liquid equilibrium. No NOx and SO2 exist in the flue gas.3 Development of An Aspen Process Flowsheet The Aspen Plus™ process flowsheet developed using the assumptions for the simulation is shown in Figure 3-1. N2. For simplicity of the simulation dryer and transportation are not included in the Aspen simulation process.3. 72 . MEA solvent concentration is 30 percent by weight. Overall carbon dioxide recovery considered ranges from 55% to 95%. described later on. • • • • • • MEA is guarded with additives to tolerate the presence of O2 in the flue gas.2 Assumptions for The Simulation Process The following assumptions are made prior to the development of the MEA based CO2 absorption simulation process: • To reduce the complexity of the Aspen Plus™ simulation process. It is used in conjunction with the unit COOLER. It was modeled with FLASH2 unit operation model in Aspen Plus™ [72] simulation.1 Block Specifications The flowsheet consists of the following blocks: SEP SEP separates the feed into two outlet streams.

But there is a penalty in the form of blower power associated with this approach. Therefore. It represented as a single stage compressor. The BLOWER is modeled using the COMPR unit operation model in Aspen Plus™ [72]. the blower power consumption can be reduced significantly. The BLOWER changes the stream pressure to compensate for pressure drop in the absorber.40 2 12 0 66 SOL-COOL 2 1730016 LEANMEX 73499 MEA 40 2 9224 512 -13 57 1 188174 30 1 248102 160 1 252711 8162 40 1 252711 8162 BLOWER 57 FLUEGAS COOLER SEP Temperat ure (C) Pressure (bar) Mass Flow Rat e (kg/hr) Mol ar Flow Ra te (kmol/hr) 30 150 69162 1583 PRODCO2 MCOMPR WATER 40 2 1730016 LEAN-MEA 73499 57 2 40 1 248102 ABSORBER 1789945 74570 RICHSTPR LEANSTRC MIXER 66 2 1720780 72986 102 2 1789945 74570 CO2 2 69162 1583 6835 TREATGAS 7907 STRIPPER FLUESEP 7907 RICH-P1 119 SOL-HEX 2 1720783 LEAN-P2 72986 LEANSTPR 119 2 1720783 72986 FLUECOOL COOLER1 30 1 4609 SEPOUT 256 FLUEBLOW FLUE-ABS 1 1789945 RICH-MEA 74570 49 1 248102 7907 PUMP2 PUMP1 Figure 3-1: Aspen Plus™ Process flowsheet diagram for CO2 capture process BLOWER The absorption column operates at pressures slightly above the atmospheric pressure (1. the compressor duty is high and sensitive to the pressure to be compressed at. By reducing the flue gas temperature to 40°C. Because of the extremely large flow rate of flue gas. COOLER1 is used to cool down the stream leaving the blower to 40°C before it enters the absorber because the 73 . COOLER is used to cool down the flue gas temperature to 40°C before entering the blower and some water is removed from the flue gas using the SEP block. increase in feed pressure should increase the mass transfer rate in the absorber.2 bar) and the flue gas needs to be compressed using a blower. COOLER / COOLER1 / SOL-COOL Determines thermal and phase conditions of outlet stream and is modeled with the HEATER unit operation model in Aspen Plus™ [72]. It is wellknown that the absorption rate increases with partial pressure of CO2.

therefore. PUMP calculates power requirement using efficiency curves for water in a centrifugal pump. MIXER. increasing the temperature increased CO2 absorption due to an increase in the rate of reaction between CO2 and MEA but from 40°C to 65°C increasing the temperature decreased CO2 absorption because the Henry’s constant increases with increasing temperature [62].9 bar). It was observed that from 20°C to 37°C. composed of a series of COMPR blocks with inter-cooling stages. compression ratio.absorption reaction between MEA and carbon dioxide is favoured at lower temperatures (typically < 40°C). SOL-HEX SOL-HEX is implemented in Aspen Plus™ [72] using the HEATX unit operation model and it exchanges heat between the hot stream from the bottom of the stripper and the cold stream from the bottom of the absorber. SOL-HEX increases the cold stream RICH-P1 temperature to a maximum of 45°C by using the heat from hot stream LEANSTPR. Lower temperatures also decrease solvent degradation and corrosion rate [52]. By default. It is. SOL-COOL. MCOMPR is modelled with the MCOMPR unit operation model in Aspen Plus™ [72] and changes stream pressure across multiple stages with intercoolers. isentropic efficiency. PUMP2 is used to compensate for the pressure drop in the unit SOL-HEX. Due to low pressure of the absorber. SOL-HEX acts as a counter current heat exchanger where the LEANSTPR stream is used to heat up the RICH-P1 stream before going to the stripper. The CO2 compressor is required to compress the product CO2 for transportation via pipeline. This block requires that the outlet pressure. The SOL-COOL unit cools down the lean MEA solvent to the desired absorber inlet temperature of 40°C. and ABSORBER for the LEANSTPR stream. PUMP1 and PUMP2 Both PUMP1 and PUMP2 are modelled with the PUMP unit operation model in Aspen Plus™ [72] and change stream pressure to maintain the desired pressure when any pressure drop is observed. PUMP1 is needed to transfer the rich solution to the STRIPPER (1. and inter- 74 . MCOMPR MCOMPR represents a multistage compressor and is used to compress the final CO2 product.

The use of RateFrac™ completely avoids the need for efficiencies in tray columns or HETPs in packed columns. Thermal degradation of the MEA solvent due to high reboiler temperature is one of the major limitations in the stripper column. The purpose of modeling the STRIPPER is to minimize the reboiler heat duty. A low CO2 recovery causes a huge amount of CO2 recirculation throughout the columns and subsequently increases the equipment size and the reboiler duty due to a large amount of material to heat. with a high 75 . the location of the booster compressors and the ultimate end use of the product CO2. There is no condenser and reboiler in the ABSORBER column. rather than idealized representation of equilibrium stages. The outlet pressure is determined by the length of the pipeline. Make up MEA and WATER is mixed with LEANSTRC stream to compensate for MEA and WATER losses. It has far greater predictive capabilities than the conventional equilibrium model. On the other hand. It does not use empirical factors such as efficiencies and the Height Equivalent to a Theoretical Plate (HETP). RateFrac™ is a rate-based non-equilibrium model for simulating all types of multistage vapour-liquid fractionation operations by simulating actual tray and packed columns. RateFrac™ explicitly accounts for the underlying inter-phase mass and heat transfer processes to determine the degree of separation. RateFrac™ [72] directly includes mass and heat transfer rate processes in the system of equations representing the operation of separation process units. A significant amount of CO2 is recycled through the process and the most important factor is the amount of flue gas and solvent that flows through the column.stage temperatures be specified. ABSORBER and STRIPPER ABSORBER and STRIPPER are modeled with the RateFrac™ unit operation model in Aspen Plus™ [72] that performs rigorous rating and design for single and multiple columns. Another important operating parameter for the STRIPPER is its CO2 recovery. MIXER MIXER combines multiple streams into one single stream and is implemented with the MIXER unit operation model in Aspen Plus™ [72].

CO.4 percent. N2. The first one is to achieve the desired mass flow of CO2 in the distillate (commonly 85% of the CO2 in the flue gas) by varying the bottoms to feed ratio at the bottom of the stripper. In ABSORBER the inlets and outlets are connected to the top and bottom of the column.CO2 recovery much less material is recirculated. and weir height 2 inches are used to completely specify the tray geometry. H2O. column type. There is therefore an optimized CO2 recovery in the stripper that would minimize the reboiler duty. The LEAN-MEA flows back from the stripping column after the amine regeneration process. and H2 are not included in the flue gas for MEA based CO2 absorption process. but the reboiler duty increases to achieve high CO2 separation. The diameter of the Absorber and Stripper column needs not to be specified because it is an output of the model. The flue gas composition for the CO2 capture process is composed of CO2. The ABSORBER and STRIPPER are specified with constant pressures through out the columns. tray spacing 24 inches. and column pressure. Inside the stripper. two design specifications are specified. SO2. 3.2 Stream Specifications FLUE-GAS The flue gas for CO2 capture process is received at atmospheric pressure and a temperature of 160°C. and O2. Ar. The flue gas enters at the bottom of the column and the LEAN-MEA enters at the top of the column. The other specification is the mole purity of carbon dioxide (typically 98% CO2 purity) in the product stream by varying the molar reflux ratio at the top of the stripper. NO. The CO2 molar composition in the flue gas is 22. The feed enters the column above the mass transfer region. The STRIPPER is composed of partial vapour condenser and a kettle reboiler. ABSORBER and STRIPPER need to be specified on the basis of column configurations. internal geometry. The default value for entrainment flooding 80%. RateFrac™ has built-in routines for bubble cap and valve tray.3. The total number of trays of the column needs to be specified as well as the column diameter estimate. One of the drawbacks of an amine plant is the MEA’s low tolerance to SO2 in 76 .

and H2O with temperatures up to 120°C and amine concentrations up to 50 wt.3. NRTL models non-ideal liquid solutions for ionic interactions in the solution. Aspen Plus™ provides special data packages which are made specifically for a defined process. MEA. The “emea” package provides the thermodynamic properties for the H2O.3 Property Specifications The ELECNRTL property method is used for developing the Aspen Plus™ simulation model with the user interface because this feature assists in adding any missing ionic components. Aspen Plus™ [72] physical property system contains binary and pair interaction parameters and chemical equilibrium constants for systems containing CO2. MEA. The water from the flue gas must be removed before entering the blower. The “emea” insert package is suitable for the simulation that deals with monoethanolamine (MEA) and acid gases. and inputting parameters for equilibrium constants. retrieving binary interaction parameters. so it is added as one of the components. The flow rates of MEA and water are calculated immediately prior to Mixer execution. and CO2 system [72]. therefore any initial values suffice. An “emea” package is inserted in the Aspen Plus™ property set prior to the development of the entire flowsheet. The elementary steps for the reaction can be represented by the following equilibrium reactions: 77 .1 bar.the flue gas.%. One of these packages contains components and property definitions specifically defined for amine gas treating processes at specified conditions. MEA and WATER Make up MEA and WATER is added to the process to compensate for the loss from the top of the Absorber and from the Stripper distillate. N2 is also defined in the system to obey Henry’s law. Make up MEA and WATER is added to the mixer at a temperature of 40°C and a pressure of 2. defining the solution chemistry. Henry’s law is used for CO2 and H2S. The ELECTROLYTE-NRTL (or ELECNRTL) property method is used to accommodate interactions with ions in solution. H2S. 3. H2S. The flue gas is cooled down to 40°C before it enters the blower for pressurization. N2 is not included in the “emea” insert package.

the simulation is carried out into three steps [51]: • • • Step 1: The stand alone absorber model Step 2: The absorber and stripper integrated model. 78 . the results from the previous step becoming the initial guess for the subsequent step. and Step 3: The absorber and stripper integrated model with recycle stream.2H 2 O ↔ H 3 O + + OH − CO 2 + 2H 2 O ↔ H 3 O + + HCO 3 − 2 (R 13) (R 14) (R 15) (R 16) (R 17) − HCO 3 + H 2 O ↔ H 3 O + + CO 3 MEAH + + H 2 O ↔ H 3 O + + MEA MEACOO − + H 2 O ↔ HCO 3 + MEA − To overcome difficulties in converging the flowsheet. The details of each step are given below. Step 1: The Stand Alone Absorber Model The model of the stand-alone absorber is shown in Figure 3-2. Since it is extremely difficult to converge the MEA flowsheet with a closed recycle stream. the rational behind this three-step process is to determine very good first initial guesses for each step. especially due to the recycle stream.

% in the LEAN-ABS stream.MEA Figure 3-2: Stand-alone absorber model Table 3-2 and Table 3-3 represent the stream input data and block data.3. The simulation for the stand alone absorber is performed for a CO2 recovery from 55% to 95% and lean loading (mol MEA/ mol CO2) of LEAN-ABS from 0.ABS ABSOR BER C OOLER 1 BLOWER FLU EBLOW SEP C OOL ER SEPOU T R IC H. The total number of trays for the absorber column specification is chosen arbitrarily to be 10. for Case II (regular plant load data) for the stand-alone absorber model. Marys Cement plant. respectively. A reasonable initial estimate of LEAN-ABS stream is made before the simulation starts. The convergence of the simulation depends on how accurately the initial guess is made.L EAN.ABS TREATGAS FLU ESEP FLU EGAS FLU EC OOL FLU E.05 to 0. The mass flow rate of WATER is varied to keep the MEA concentration at 30 wt. The absorber column pressure is specified at a constant pressure of 1. FLUEGAS data for the input stream were obtained from the St. 79 . % MEA concentrations the LEAN-ABS flow rate is calculated. A design specification (DS-1) in Aspen Plus™ is defined for a target recovery of carbon dioxide in the flue gas.2 bar. The design specification in Aspen Plus™ measures the CO2 flow rate in TREATGAS and varies the mass flow rate of LEAN-ABS stream to obtain the target carbon dioxide recovery. For a desired percentage of carbon dioxide recovery and 30 wt.

kg/hr Mass Fraction MEA H2O CO2 160 1. bar Mass Flow. °C Top segment pressure.013 Isentropic 1. °C Pressure.061 Table 3-3: Block input data for stand alone absorber model (Case II) Block Name COOLER Block Properties Flash specifications: Temperature.2 RateFrac™ n/a n/a 40 1. bar Number of Segments Column estimated diameter. bar Type Condenser type Reboiler type Operating Parameters: Temperature.Table 3-2: Stream input data for stand alone absorber model (Case II) Stream Name Stream Properties Value FLUE-GAS LEAN-ABS Temperature. m Pressure drop across column. bar Type Temperature. bar Flash specifications: Temperature. kg/hr H2O CO2 N2 O2 Temperature. bar Mass Flow.657 0. °C Pressure.2 10 5. °C Pressure.1 1730020 0.5 0 Above segment 1 Above segment 10 ABSORBER 80 . °C Pressure.282 0. bar FLUE-ABS feed location LEAN-ABS feed location Value SEP BLOWER COOLER1 40 1.013 Flash2 30 1. bar Type Discharge pressure.2 40 1. °C Pressure.013 10631 80335 155626 6119 40 2.

There are a partial condenser and a kettle reboiler at the top and bottom of the stripper. The other design specification (DS-2) is to attain the desired mole purity of carbon dioxide (typically 98% of CO2 purity) in the product stream by varying the molar reflux ratio (RR) at the top of the stripper. SOL-COOL. The temperature in the reboiler remains approximately 123oC 81 . for the additional streams and blocks of absorber and stripper integrated model. SOL-HEX. and MCOMPR. it was integrated with the stripper model along with the following other unit operations: PUMP1. MIXER. respectively.9 bar and the total number of tray is arbitrarily chosen to be 12 for the simulation. respectively in order to control the separation between the carbon dioxide and the MEA. The process flowsheet for the absorber and stripper integrated model is shown in Figure 3-3. The stripper operating pressure is specified at 1. PUMP2. The first design specification (DS-1) is to achieve the desired mass flow of CO2 in the distillate for a set of lean loading by varying the bottoms-to-feed ratio (B: F) at the bottom of the stripper. The stripper is defined with two design specifications inside the column. the rich MEA solution enters above stage 6 of the stripper.Step 2: Absorber and Stripper Integrated Model Once the stand alone absorber model has successfully converged. SOL-COOL LEAN-MEA MCOMPR LEANMEX MEA PRODCO2 WATER CO2 LEAN-ABS MIXER LEANSTRC RICHSTPR TREATGAS ABSORBER FLUESEP RICH-P1 BLOWER FLUEGAS COOLER SEP RICH-MEA FLUEBLOW SEPOUT PUMP1 PUMP2 FLUE-ABS LEANSTPR FLUECOOL COOLER1 LEAN-P2 SOL-HEX STRIPPER Figure 3-3: Absorber and Stripper integrated model The purpose of modelling stripper is to minimize the reboiler heat duty while capturing the desired amount of carbon dioxide. Table 3-4 and Table 3-5 represent the stream input data and block data.

kg/hr Mass Fraction MEA 40 2. °C Pressure.1 Isentropic 2. kg/hr Mass Fraction H2O Temperature. bar Mass Flow.948 1 40 2.1 45 1 Table 3-5: Block input data for absorber and stripper integrated model Block Name Block Properties Type Condenser type Reboiler type Operating Parameters: Number of Segments Tray type Column estimated diameter.94 1.1 16. bar Discharge Temperature. °C Pressure. bar Mass Flow. bar Type No of Stages Discharge Pressure.1 Polytropic 4 150 30 SOL-HEX SOL-COOL PUMP1/PUMP2 MCOMPR 82 . Table 3-4: Stream input data for absorber and stripper integrated model Stream Name Stream Properties Value WATER MEA Temperature. °C Pressure.which readily agrees with the operating conditions found in the literature [31]. bar Type Discharge pressure. °C Temperature. bar Pressure drop across column. Solvent degradation starts if the reboiler temperature exceeds 125oC. °C Value RateFrac™ Partial vapor Kettle STRIPPER 12 Valve 6 0. bar Feed tray location Cold stream outlet Temperature increase.8 1.9 0 7 45 40 2. m Bottom to feed ratio (mole) Reflux ratio (mole) Top segment pressure.

To ease the convergence of the simulation. 83 . To ease convergence. This model is used once the convergence of the absorber and stripper integrated model is achieved.MEA to the STRIPPER. The combined stream LEANMEX is cooled down to 40°C in the block SOL-COOL. PUMP1 is used to increase the RICH-MEA pressure a little bit higher than the STRIPPER operating pressure to transfer the RICH. When the stream LEAN-ABS exactly matches the stream LEAN-MEA. Step 3: The Absorber and Stripper Integrated Model with Recycle Stream The absorber and stripper integrated model with recycle stream is shown in Figure 3-4. then the inlet stream LEAN-ABS is removed from the block absorber and the stream LEAN-MEA substitutes LEAN-ABS as recycle stream. The stream LEAN-P2 is used as tear stream for convergence C1 and tear stream LEANSTRC is used for convergence C2. MIXER. thus reducing the reboiler duty. The Wegstein method was used for the tear stream convergence. PUMP2 is used to compensate for the pressure drops across the unit SOL-HEX. and ABSORBER. the stream LEAN-ABS should match exactly the stream LEAN-MEA. SOLCOOL. On the other hand. the sequence of the block for simulation is defined inside the process convergence options of Aspen Plus™ as shown in Table 3-6. The flow rates of WATER and MEA make up are adjusted in order to control the flow rate of LEAN-MEA to be equal to LEAN-ABS. Both PUMP1 and PUMP2 are used to change the stream pressure to uphold the desired pressure when any pressure drop is observed. The target carbon dioxide recovery is attained by varying the flow rate of the stream MEA and the make up WATER is varied to retain the MEA concentration at 30 wt % in the LEAN-MEA stream.The hot LEANSTPR stream from the bottom of the stripper is used to preheat the rich MEA stream RICH-P1 to a maximum temperature of 45°C in SOL-HEX. The design specifications in the STRIPPER remain the same as those in Step 2 but the design specifications in the ABSORBER are modified. Make up MEA and WATER streams are mixed with the LEASTRC stream in the MIXER. The convergence depends on how accurate the initial guesses are made. which will help for converging the flowsheet.

SOL-COOL MEA MCOMPR PRODCO2 LEANMEX WATER CO2 MIXER LEAN-MEA TREATGAS LEANSTRC RICHSTPR STRIPPER ABSORBER FLUESEP BLOWER FLUEGAS COOLER SEP FLUECOOL COOLER1 RICH-MEA LEAN-P2 FLUE-ABS RICH-P1 SOL-HEX LEANSTPR SEPOUT FLUEBLOW PUMP2 PUMP1 Figure 3-4: Absorber and Stripper integrated model with Recycle stream Table 3-6: Block Simulation sequence for Absorber and Stripper integrated model with Recycle stream Loop Return Block Type Block COOLER SEP BLOWER COOLER1 C2 MIXER SOL-COOL ABSORBER PUMP-1 C1 SOL-HEX STRIPPER PUMP-2 C1 C2 MCOMPR Unit Operations Unit Operations Unit Operations Unit Operations Begin Convergence Unit Operations Unit Operations Unit Operations Unit Operations Begin Convergence Unit Operations Unit Operations Unit Operations Return to Return to Convergence Convergence Unit Operations 84 .

30 for Case II is discussed in this section. The CO2 capture efficiency increases and MEA and water evaporation loss decreases if the temperature in the column is maintained at low temperature. The separator is used to condense and separate some of the saturated water of the flue gas. A clean flue gas. Before the flue gas is vented to the atmosphere. The flue gas is cooled down to 40°C before it enters the separator. as shown in Figure 3-5.3. The lean MEA solution temperature is maintained at 40°C temperature and at 1. Marys cement plant is usually emitted through the stack into the atmosphere at a temperature of 160°C. The separator flash temperature is set at 30°C. It is very important to keep the lean MEA solution temperature as low as possible for two main reasons: (1) to reduce MEA and water make up and (2) to increase CO2 capture efficiency. Case II and Case III are presented in Appendix B. The simulation results for Case I. is used as the basis for the MEA CO2 capture process.4 Aspen Simulation Parameters for MEA based CO2 Absorption Model Aspen Plus™ simulation parameters for MEA based CO2 capture process for a CO2 recovery of 85 percent and lean loading (mol CO2/mol MEA) of 0. Higher flue gas temperatures in the range of 50°C to 85°C tend to increase MEA and H2O evaporation losses [31]. Flue gas from the St. A lean MEA solution temperature of 40°C is a good compromise between the above benefits. free of SO2 and particulates.2 bar pressure. The flue gas enters at the bottom of the absorption column and the lean MEA solution flows counter currently at the top of the absorber. 85 . The lean MEA solution is composed of 30% wt MEA and has a lean loading of 0. This reduces the blower power requirement to compress the flue gas before it enters into the absorber. Some water is removed during the cooling process. The flue gas from the separator next enters the blower where the flue gas is compressed to a pressure of 1. it passes through the flue gas conditioning units where SO2 is scrubbed and all the particulate matters are removed. The lean solution temperature also increases in this temperature range. The total number of trays in the absorber is set at 3 with no condenser and reboiler. cooling duty and cooling tower size [31].2 bar. The flue gas from the blower further cools down to 40°C before it enters the absorption column.30 mol CO2/mol of MEA.

20 bar. The heat required by 86 . a wash section is included at the top of the absorption column to remove H2O and vapourized the MEA carried by the washed gas. In SOLHEX. The STRIPPER column is modelled with 9 theoretical stages. this pump is needed to transfer the rich solution to the stripper.9 bar. However. Therefore. Make up for the MEA and WATER streams are mixed with LEASTRC stream in the MIXER at a temperature of 40°C and a pressure of 2. this process is not included in the simulation. there is no cost benefit in operating the absorber at high pressure [52]. the absorption column is set at a pressure of 1. This is done to cool the treated flue gas and to avoid MEA losses [70] [71]. This reaction can be reversed by varying the temperature [55]. The rich MEA stream from the bottom of the absorber then flows to PUMP1 where its pressure is increased to 2. It is well known that the absorption rate in the absorber increases with partial pressure of CO2. the hot LEANSTPR stream from the bottom of the STRIPPER is used to preheat the RICH-P1 stream. In a commercial unit. where the condenser represents the first stage and a kettle reboiler represents the 9th stage. The principle of CO2 extraction using amines is based on the reaction of a weak base (MEA) with a weak acid (CO2) to form a water soluble salt. there is a penalty in the form of blower power associated with this. The absorption of CO2 is an exothermic process where MEA reacts chemically with CO2 in the column. The flow rates of WATER and MEA make up are set from the calculation in order to control the flow rate of LEAN-MEA to be equal to LEAN-ABS to ease to convergence in the simulation step.2 bar for this simulation process. where the temperature of the RICHP1 stream is increased from 56. The combined stream LEANMEX is cooled down to 40°C in the block SOL-COOL. So.9°C before it enters the STRIPPER. This heat exchanger reduces the reboiler heat duty and reduces the cooling duty of SOL-COOL on the lean solution as well. Therefore. an increase in feed pressure should increase the mass transfer rate in the absorber.9°C to 101.1 bar.The absorption column operates at a temperature of 40oC and a pressure of 1. The Stripper operates at a pressure of 1.1 bar. Due to the very low pressure of RICH-MEA stream. The carbon dioxide is stripped from the MEA solvent by heat when the MEA solution descends through the stripping tower. The RICH-P1 stream from PUMP1 next enters the heat exchanger SOL-HEX. However.

30 is shown in Table 3-7. However. which corresponds to a temperature slightly below 125oC [31]. The stripper column operates best at higher pressures. A reflux drum is provided to separate the cooled CO2 and the condensed steam. The lean solution from the bottom of the stripper exits at a temperature of 119. A typical heat source can be a conventional industrial steam generator. An increase in the pressure leads to an increase in reboiler temperature and. which is not shown in Figure 3-5. subsequently the temperature of the whole column. 87 . The carbon dioxide exits at the top of the STRIPPER and CO2 is compressed depending on its utilization. The vapour exits at the top of the STRIPPER and is sent to a reflux condenser where the steam is condensed and the CO2 is cooled. The condensate is then pumped to the stripper column.1°C. The Aspen simulation results for Case II with 85% CO2 capture and lean loading of 0. A wash section is also provided in the stripper unit where residual MEA vapour is condensed and returned to the column.the rich solution regeneration process is provided to the kettle reboiler from an external source. the product CO2 is compressed to a pressure of 150 bar and cooled down to a temperature of 30°C for the pipeline transportation. The simulation results for Case I and Case III is provided in Appendix B. solvent degradation occurs at reboiler temperatures greater than 125°C. The pressure limit for the solution in order to prevent temperatures in excess of 125°C is 2 bar. In this study.

40 2 12 0 66 SOL-COOL 2 1730016 LEANMEX 73499 MEA 40 2 9224 512 -13 57 1 188174 30 1 248102 160 1 252711 8162 40 1 252711 8162 BLOWER 57 FLUEGAS COOLER SEP T emperat ure ( C) Pressure (bar ) Mass Flow Rat e (kg/hr) Mol ar Flow Ra te (kmol/hr) 30 150 69162 1583 PRODCO2 MCOMPR WATER 40 2 1730016 LEAN-MEA 73499 57 2 40 1 248102 ABSORBER 1789945 74570 RICHSTPR LEANSTRC MIXER 66 2 1720780 72986 102 2 1789945 74570 CO2 2 69162 1583 6835 TREATGAS 7907 STRIPPER FLUESEP 7907 RICH-P1 119 SOL-HEX 2 1720783 LEAN-P2 72986 LEANSTPR 119 2 1720783 72986 FLUECOOL COOLER1 30 1 4609 SEPOUT 256 FLUEBLOW FLUE-ABS 1 1789945 RICH-MEA 74570 49 1 248102 7907 PUMP2 PUMP1 Figure 3-5: Aspen simulation process parameters for MEA based CO2 capture process 88 .

Table 3-7: Aspen simulation results of MEA based CO2 absorption for Case II (CO2 recovery: 85% and lean loading: 0.703 0.224 0.1 2.324 0.616 0.025 335 0 1825 5555 191 0.2 6835 188174 156035 -73 15223 12 12047 154848 6043 0.627 0.107 0.025 335 0 1825 5555 191 0.2 7907 248102 176408 -190 6035 0 80334 155616 6118 0.097 0 0 62614 7978 3948 27 2 0.097 0 0 62614 7978 3948 27 2 0.053 0 0 LEAN STPR 119.061 0 0 62612 7978 2396 0 0 0.024 0 0.98 0.042 0 0.283 0.987 0.318 0.024 590 0 1825 5555 191 0.028 WATER 40 2.681 0.809 0.032 845 0 274 5528 189 0.84 0.042 0 0.023 49.024 0 0.042 0 0.9 1.283 0.107 0.053 0 0 RICH STPR 101.081 0 0.272 0.024 FLUE BLOW FLUE ABS 40 1.001 0 0.616 0.109 0.231 0.072 0 0.061 0 0 62612 7978 2396 0 0 0.627 0.024 LEAN MEA 40 2.024 0 0.823 0.859 0.9 2 74570 1789950 15231 -5128 1128000 487354 173749 767 75 0.033 0 0 RICH MEA 56.053 0 0 TREAT GAS 56.042 0 0.63 0.655 0.1 0 12 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 PROD CO2 30 150 1583 69162 221 -148 35 0 68285 767 75 0.324 0.2 74570 1789950 1898 -5203 1128000 487354 173749 767 75 0.231 0.107 0.001 2 0 1552 27 2 0.655 0.013 8162 252711 209428 -205 10631 0 80335 155626 6119 0.097 0 0 62614 7978 3948 27 2 0.124 0 0.9 72986 1720780 1818 -4939 1127970 487354 105464 0 0 0.013 7907 248102 196399 -191 6035 0 80334 155616 6118 0.001 Temperature C Pressure bar Mole Flow kmol/hr Mass Flow kg/hr Volume Flow m3/hr Enthalpy MMkcal/hr Mass Flow kg/hr 160 1.001 0 0.023 FLUE SEP 30 1.033 0 0 LEAN P2 119.318 0.703 0.109 0.1 72986 1720780 1818 -4939 1127970 487354 105464 0 0 0.681 0.024 H 2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mass Frac H 2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mole Flow kmol/hr H 2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mole Frac H 2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 89 .1 1.272 0.703 0.858 0.064 0.04 0.013 8162 252711 290000 -197 10631 0 80335 155626 6119 0.858 0.84 0.63 0.7 1.224 0.9 2 74570 1789950 1898 -5203 1128000 487354 173749 767 75 0.3 1.072 0 0.024 590 0 1825 5555 191 0.627 0.061 0 0 63124 7979 2396 0 0 0.30) FLUE GAS FLUE COOL 40 1.84 0.63 0.1 73499 1730020 1733 -5086 1137190 487366 105462 0 0 0.017 0.042 0 0.324 0.272 0.033 0 0 RICH P1 56.011 0.025 335 0 1825 5555 191 0.2 7907 248102 171293 -190 6035 0 80334 155616 6118 0.109 0.1 512 9224 9 -35 9224 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 512 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 MEA 40 2.231 0.282 0.657 0.

the number of trays in the absorber and the stripper was arbitrarily chosen to be 10 and 12. an increase in the number of trays in the absorber also reduces the reboiler heat duty as shown in Figure 3-6 but the change is trivial. The reduction in reboiler heat duty is due to the fact that higher number of trays allows lower solution circulation rates in the absorber and thus reduces the heat required by reboiler. Like the stripper trays. The reboiler heat duty is strongly dependent on the absorber and stripper number of trays. As can be seen the reboiler duty can be lowered by increasing the stripper number of trays from 4 to 9. Further increase in the number of trays in the stripper increases the reboiler duty only marginally. Figure 3-6 shows the effect of number of trays in the absorber and stripper columns on the reboiler heat duty.3. An increase in the number of trays in the stripper requires a lower reflux ratio for a given carbon dioxide recovery thereby helping in the reduction of the reboiler heat duty. Then the absorber number of trays was reduced and fixed at 8 and stripper number of trays was varied from 4 to 12 to study the effect of number of stripper trays on the reboiler duty. 90 . respectively.5 Simulation Results and Discussions Initially. Figure 3-6 shows that a minimum reboiler heat duty is obtained with the absorber number of trays 3 and stripper number of trays 9 for a desired 85% CO2 capture (Case II). the absorber number of trays was reduced and fixed at 6 and the number of trays in the stripper was varied from 4 to 12. Simulations were carried out to optimize the number of trays for both the absorber and the stripper columns. The effect of number of stripper trays on the reboiler heat duty was studied by varying the stripper tray numbers from 4 to 12 while keeping the absorber trays fixed at 10. It is seen from Figure 3-6 that the reboiler duty can be reduced by increasing the stripper number of trays. Again.

91 . Figure 3-6: The effect of number of trays in the absorber and stripper on the reboiler heat duty It is seen from Figure 3-7 that the lean solvent flow rate increases with lowering the number of stages required for the separation. When the solvent flow rate increases. the diameter of the column increases subsequently which will increase the capital cost required for the CO2 capture process.12 11 Reboiler duty (MW) 10 Stripper Tray No. 9 90 8 95 7 100 6 105 5 110 115 120 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 4 Absorber Tray No.

LEAN-MEA flow rate. The absorber column itself consumes no energy in terms of a reboiler or a condenser and the only energy consumption takes place in the reboiler of the stripper column. So.720 1. It is desirable to capture higher percentage of carbon dioxide.660 1. 85 percent carbon dioxide recovery with lean loading of 0.05 to 0.620 1.30. Figure 3-8 shows the reboiler duty for CO2 recovery from 55% to 95% with a lean loading from 0. 92 .740 1. As can be seen from Figure 3-8 the minimum reboiler heat duty is required for a CO2 recovery of 55 percent and lean loading of 0. It is observed that at lean loading of 0. at least in the range 55% to 95%. 10 Kg/hr 1.30 was chosen for further analysis and cost evaluation.30 for Case II. A low CO2 recovery will result in a large amount of CO2 recirculated throughout the process and consequently will increase the size of the equipment required. the reboiler heat duty is not very sensitive to the CO2 recovery.700 1.640 1. The study was made for a carbon dioxide recovery from 55% to 95% for different lean loadings.680 1.600 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 3 Absorber No of Trays Figure 3-7: LEAN-MEA flow rate for different absorber number of stages The simulation was conducted with the goal of capturing carbon dioxide from flue gas with minimum reboiler heat duty per unit CO2 captured.30.

As can be seen from Figure 3-9.730. the range of rich loading was increased from 0.30 0.4858 to 0. Higher CO2 loadings require greater flow of lean MEA to achieve the same level of CO2 recovery. Figure 3-9 represent the LEAN-MEA or/and RICHMEA flow rate. For Case II. The rich loading values for Case I and Case III are presented in Appendix B.05 to 0.020 kg/hr for Case II when the lean loading was increased from 0.10 0. It is seen from Figure 3-10 that the rich loading increases with increasing lean loading.261 to 1. respectively.05 to 0. Figure 3-10 shows the relationship between the carbon dioxide loading in rich solvent and lean solvent. the LEAN-MEA flow rate was increased from 732.25 0. The rich loading increase is due to significant increase of carbon dioxide recirculation through the columns as the lean loading increases.4948 with lean loading increase from 0.30.05 0. for different lean loadings (mol CO2/mol MEA).20 0.00 0. The data for Case I and Case III can be seen in Appendix B.35 Lean Loading (mol CO2 /mol MEA) 55% 65% 75% 85% 95% Figure 3-8: Reboiler duty for different CO2 recovery at various Lean loading Solvent flow rate is perhaps the most important parameter that affects significantly carbon dioxide capture from flue gas.30. But the value of rich loading increase is not much compared to the value of lean loading increase.600 500 Reboiler duty (MW) 400 300 200 100 0 0.15 0. 93 .

20 0.15 0.490 0.00 0.30 0.475 0.10 0. 1000 kg/hr 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0.2000 1800 LEAN or RICH-MEA flow rate.15 0.495 0.30 0.05 0.480 0.500 Rich Loading (mol CO 2 / mol MEA) 0.20 0.10 0.35 LEAN-MEA RICH-MEA Figure 3-9: LEAN or RICH-MEA flow rate for various lean loading (mol CO2/mol MEA) 0.25 Lean Loading (mol CO2 /mol MEA) 0.485 0.05 0.00 0.470 0.25 0.35 Lean Loading (mol CO2 /mol MEA) Figure 3-10: Rich loading (mol CO2/mol MEA) at different lean loading 94 .

15 Case II 0.10 0. As can be seen. So the cost evaluation was done for a CO2 recovery of 85% with lean loading (mol CO2/mol MEA) of 0.30 Case III 0.25 0. Case II. Figure 3-12 (a)-(c) represents the reboiler duty per tonne of CO2 captured against different lean loadings for Case I. The carbon dioxide recovery was specified at 85 percent with purity of 98 percent by mole.There is a relationship between the energy requirement or energy consumption per unit CO2 captured and the CO2 loading of lean amine solution obtained after the regeneration process.35 Lean Loading (mol CO2 /mol MEA) Figure 3-11: Reboiler duty at different lean loading for Case I.30 for the Case I. and Case III respectively.30 is trivial.35 for CO2 recovery of 85% and 98% mole purity. The effect of lean loading (mol CO2/mol MEA) on reboiler duty for CO2 capture process was studied by varying the lean loading from 0.00 0.30 for a CO2 recovery of 85% 550 500 450 Reboiler duty (MW) 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0.05 to 0. the difference in reboiler duty for lean loading of 0.20 0.98 MW (For Case II) when the lean loading was varied from 0. Case II and Case III.05 Case I 0. Figure 3-11 shows the effect of lean loading on reboiler duty for CO2 Capture process for Case I. The first one is the circulation rate of the solvent and the second one is the value of the lean loading of the stream 95 . Case II. The simulation did not converge at lean loading of 0.05 to 0.25 and 0. The reboiler duty decreased from 508 to 68. and Case III.30. There are two important factors affecting the value of the reboiler duty. Case II and Case III and purity of 98%.

25 0.05.20 0. the reboiler would consume a lot of energy to separate the carbon dioxide until the lean solvent reaches that CO2 loading. Even though the solvent circulation rate is low. 96 .30. So.10 0. Also at low lean-CO2 loading. a significant amount of additional energy is required during the regeneration process.15 0.05 0. the amine solution with a higher CO2 loading can be regenerated more easily and with lower reboiler duty than with a lower CO2 loading.leaving the bottom of the stripper and recycled back to the absorber. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0.30 0. The CO2 loading of lean solution may require to be adjusted to an optimal level where the energy consumption at the regeneration unit is reduced. a huge amount of heat is required at the reboiler to separate the desired carbon dioxide because the specified loading is very low.35 Lean Loading (mol CO2 /mol MEA) Figure 3-12 (a): Reboiler duty per tonne of CO2 Captured at various lean loading for Case I When the lean loading specification is increased. This may result in a significant reduction in the overall cost of the capture process.00 Reboiler duty/tonne CO2 Captured (MW/tonne) 0. At a lean loading of 0. while maintaining a satisfactory capture performance. the reboiler duty decreases until it reaches a minimum for a lean loading equal to 0.

8

Reboiler duty/tonne CO2 Captured (MW/tonne)

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Lean Loading (mol CO2/mol MEA)

Figure 3-12 (b): Reboiler duty per tonne of CO2 Captured at different lean loadings for Case II
8

Reboiler duty/tonne CO2 Captured (MW/tonne)

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Lean Loading (mol CO2 /mol MEA)

Figure 3-12 (c): Reboiler duty per tonne of CO2 Captured at different lean loadings for Case III

97

3.6 Case IV: Switching to a Lower Carbon Content Fuel at Average Plant Load
Cement manufacturing industry emits a large amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere because combustion is the heart of this industry and the reaction itself in the kiln also produces huge amount of carbon dioxide. In cement manufacturing operations about 40% of the industry’s emissions come from fossil fuel combustion; about 5% from transport of raw materials; and about 5% emissions comes from combustion of fossil fuel required to produce the electricity consumed by the cement manufacturing operations and the remaining cement-related emissions (about 50%) an inherent byproduct originate from the process that converts limestone (CaCO3) to calcium oxide (CaO), the primary precursor to cement [19]. The appropriate selection and use of a fuel has always been and still is a matter of great concern for the cement industry. The current fierce competition in the cement market and the high impact of the item “fuel cost” in the final price of the product is making companies look for the most economic mix to fire in their kilns. Solid pulverized fuels are most frequently used by the cement industry. Coal is the most widely used fuel by the cement industries and among those bituminous coal ranks first in preference, followed by subbituminous coal and lignite. Petcoke’s share in the cement production energy matrix grew significantly in the last 10 years. Delayed petcoke, fluidcoke, flexicoke are three different types of petcoke used in cement industry. The use of residual solids such as scrap tires, saw dust, wood chips, cardboard, textiles, and plastic shavings by cement plants has increased noticeably because it provides reduction of cement production costs. Fuel oil is widely used in the cement industry because it is very easy to fire in its liquid phase. In the last few years the share of liquid wastes such as solvents, paint sludge, used lubricant oils etc. has grown considerably in cement plants energetic matrix. The share of natural gas in the cement plant energy matrix has grown slightly in the past few years. Fuel usage in North American cement plants is approximately 58 percent coal, 13 percent each of petcoke, natural gas, and “other fuels” such as residues and wastes, and 2.5 percent fuel oil [19].

98

It is unlikely that the cement industry would switch from burning low cost fuel such as coal, coke, petcoke to high cost natural gas. Natural gas costs more than twice or thrice as much per GJ than coal or petcoke, and switching to natural gas would also render the profitability of the plant to be dependent on the likely market fluctuations in the price of natural gas. However, this section discussed the switching fossil fuel especially coal to less carbonintensive industrial fuels such as natural gas to see how it can reduce GHG emissions in a cost-effective manner. Natural gas is a naturally occurring gas mixture, consisting mainly of methane. The component, composition, and heating value use for the calculation is shown in Table 3-8 [Union Gas]. Table 3-8: Natural gas composition and properties

Component
Methane Ethane Propane iso-Butane neo-Butane iso-Pentane neo-Pentane Hexane Nitrogen Carbon dioxide Oxygen Hydrogen Specific Gravity Gross Heating Value MJ/m ) Ignition Point Theoretical Flame Temperature Maximum Flame Velocity
3

Formula
CH4 C2H6 C3H8 i-C4H10 n-C4H10 i-C5H12 n-C5H12 C6H14 N2 CO2 O2 H2

Composition (mol %)
94.9 2.5 0.20 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 1.60 0.70 0.02 trace 0.585 37.8 593oC 1960oC 0.30 m/s

99

This section discusses the carbon dioxide emission for the average plant capacity. The average clinker production capacity is 94.2 tonnes of clinker per hour. At average plant load the carbon dioxide production in the kiln from the calcinations reaction is 48.984 tonnes of CO2 per hour. If coal, petcoke, and coal fines are used as fuel for combustion, the CO2 generation is 31.351 tonnes of CO2 per hour. If fuel switching of coal, petcoke, and coal fines to natural gas takes place the carbon dioxide generation from the burning of natural gas is 16.442 tonnes of CO2 per hour. The carbon dioxide emission reduced 14.909 tonnes per hour which is 18.55 percent reduction of carbon dioxide reduction. Details of the emission reduction calculation are reported in the Appendix D.

3.7 Sources of Waste Heat in The Cement Industry for Steam Generation
Cement manufacturing is a highly energy-intensive process. A schematic diagram for different stages of cement manufacturing process was shown in Figure 2-1. Once the raw materials for cement making have been selected and blended, ground and homogenized into a fine and uniform kiln feed, then the raw materials enter at the upper end of the kiln. The raw materials slides and tumbles into the most progressively hotter zone of the kiln where a flame is produced by precisely controlled burning of powdered coal, oil or gas under forced draft. At the lower end of the kiln, fuels such as powdered coal, fuel oil, and natural gas feed a flame that reaches 1870°C. Here in the hottest part of the kiln, the raw materials reach about 1480°C and become partially molten. This intense heat triggers chemical and physical changes and a series of chemical reactions converts the calcium and silicon oxides into calcium silicates, cement’s primary constituent. At the lower end of the kiln, the raw materials emerge as a new substance: red-hot particles called clinker. During the clinker-burning process, the combustion products are produced by the burning of the fossil or alternative fuels that leave the kiln as stack gas. The hot flue gas leaves the kiln at a temperature of 800°C and enters into the preheater tower where the flue gas increases the raw material waiting for kiln temperature of 150oC-250oC. The flue gas exits the preheater tower at temperature of 445oC and then enters into the conditioning tower where water is sprayed to cool down the flue gas to a temperature of 263oC. The flue gas exiting the perheater tower contains finely divided particles of raw mix, fly ash, 100

cement kiln dust (CKD). rotary cooler. If the plant runs at regular production load. The flue gas from the stack goes to the CO2 capture process where the flue gas is cooled down to 40oC before it enters into the blower and around 92. NOx. Marys cement plant can cool down the hot clinker to a temperature of 350oC and then the further clinker cool down in 101 . shaft cooler. the clinker is red hot and contains around 1. For the present operating condition in St. The sludge from the conditioning tower is partially recycled back as cement raw material.g. and at the same time maximize the recovery of heat to secondary air. traveling grate cooler. It is critical that cooling of the clinker is rapid to secure a phase composition that imparts adequate cementitious properties. O2. N2. this amount of waste heat can not be recovered. and volatile organic constituents (VOC) (e. potassium sulfate) CO2. These particles are almost entirely removed from the gas stream before the stack gas is vented to the atmosphere. SOx. At the discharge end of the kiln. The other source of heat recovery in cement industry is the clinker cooling. This type of cooler can produce clinker discharge temperatures around 80°C. In a few of the European cement plants.35 KW of heat per tonne of clinker produced can be recovered during the flue gas cooling process. the amount of waste is around 180 KW per tonne of clinker produced.calcined kiln feed. By using improved technology and special type of heat exchanger this waste heat can be recovered. The clinker is grate-cooled by forced-draft air in the clinker cooler.. tertiary air. and grate cooler are used for this purpose but the grate cooler is widely used in North America where the clinker and air moves the cross-current direction. Then it enters to baghouse to remove the particulates and after that the flue gas emits through the stack at temperature of 160oC. exhaust-gas. It is equally important that the heat exchange between clinker and air is efficient to ensure proper cooling. The flue gas after conditioning tower enters to raw mill where it is further cooled down. The conditioning tower serves the purpose of removing the particles from the stack gas. A large amount of heat is wasted in the conditioning tower because the flue gas enters into the conditioning tower at 445°C and exits at 263°C. The clinker cooler in St. waste-heat recovery systems have been installed which produce low grade steam for heating nearby residential and commercial buildings. Different kinds of clinker cooler such as planetary cooler.168 GJ per tonne of clinker thermal energy [22] and at a temperature of 1400oC. Marys cement plant. and the related process requirement.

By using improved technology this amount of heat can be recovered and produced steam that can be used in reboiler for CO2 capture process. 102 . If the plant operates in regular load. Marys cement plant is about 393 KW per tonne of clinker produced but unfortunately this amount of heat is wasted because of the process constraints. the amount of heat that can be recovered as waste heat from St. This amount of heat can be recovered to produce steam.ambient air and a heat of approximately 106 KW per tonne of clinker produced is wasted during this time.

the absorber and stripper columns were not sized automatically by IPE. estimates.1 Sizing and Costing Using Icarus Process Evaluator (IPE) Icarus Process Evaluator (IPE) is designed to automate the preparation of detailed designs. the next step is to evaluate the total capital investment and total operating cost. Mapping (and sizing) can be done either one item at a time or all items at once. 103 . For the whole plant cost evaluation. IPE uses expert links to affect the automatic transfer of process simulator output results. When the components sizing and costing are completed. After loading the process simulator data into IPE. investment analysis and schedules from minimum scope definition. The standard model or process component in Aspen Plus is recognized by IPE and would be mapped with the equipments or project components existing in IPE. the loaded data is examined using process view to make sure the models and arrangements.Chapter 4: Economic Evaluation 4. there are more units that must be taken into account. The cost of each project component is then estimated in order to evaluate the total cost of the whole capture plant. The project components ABSORBER and STRIPPER were then sized manually with DTW TRAYED using IPE’s expert sizing programs [73]. But the capital cost and operating cost reported by IPE is not exactly the total cost of the whole carbon dioxide capture plant. The simulation results from Aspen Plus™ were sent to IPE as input data for sizing and costing. IPE would use all the information from the Aspen simulation results and specifications to evaluate these costs automatically. The costs calculated in IPE are based only on the units used in the Aspen Plus™ simulation. Size of equipment is a prerequisite to costing and results of size calculations performed during process simulation are loaded automatically by IPE [73]. But the absorber and stripper column were simulated using the RATEFRAC model which were not recognized by IPE. whether from process simulation results or sized equipment lists. Therefore. Mapping relates each process simulator model to one or more of IPE’s list of several hundred types of process equipment. Table 4-1 shows the mapping specifications in IPE for the MEA based carbon dioxide capture process.

104 . and CO2 product purity of 98 percent by mole. The capture cost was evaluated with the lean loading (mol CO2/mol MEA) of 0. The lean loading of 0. Also a sensitivity analysis was also performed for the lean loading varying from 0.Table 4-1: Project Component Map Specifications for CO2 Capture Process Process Component BLOWER MCOMPR COOLER COOLER1 SOL-HEX SOL-COOL PUMP1 PUMP2 Project Component DGC CENTRIF DGC CENTRIF DHE FLOAT HEAD DHE FLOAT HEAD DHE FLOAT HEAD DHE FLOAT HEAD DCP CENTRIF DCP CENTRIF RB KETTLE C STRIPPER C CP CENTRIF HT HORIZ DRUM DTW TRAYED ABSORBER SEP DTW TRAYED DVT CYLINDER Definition Heavy duty. This section describes the cost analysis of MEA based CO2 capture process from cement plant flue gases for Case I.2 Cost Analysis Cost analysis is important to investigate the development of any new process or process modification. The total cost (capital + operating) of each cases was translated to $/tonne of CO2 captured.30 is chosen for the cost evaluation because the reboiler heat duty was found minimum at this loading and it was considered the most practical design among other lean loadings. and Case III.30. Cost evaluation was performed using Icarus Process Evaluator (IPE) with the balance of equipment costing from a number of published sources [33] [50] [70] [71].05 to 0.30 for CO2 recovery of 85%. low noise blower Centrifugal compressor Floating head shell and tube exchanger Floating head shell and tube exchanger Floating head shell and tube exchanger Floating head shell and tube exchanger Centrifugal pump Centrifugal pump Kettle type reboiler with floating head Quoted equipment (Overhead splitter) Quoted equipment (Bottom splitter) Centrifugal pump Horizontal drum Trayed tower Trayed tower Vertical process vessel (knock out drum) 4. Case II.

4. 105 .015 / m3 MEA cost = $ 1.06 / kWh Steam Cost = $ 9.2.18 / ton Cooling water cost = $ 0.44 / kg Operating Charges: 25 percent of Operating Labor Costs Plant Overhead Cost: 50 Percent of Operating Labor and Maintenance Costs General and Administrative Expenses: 8 Percent of Subtotal Operating Costs Project Capital Escalation: 5 Percent Raw Material Escalation: 3.5 Percent Operating and Maintenance Labor Escalation: 3 Percent Utilities Escalation: 3 Percent Working Capital: 5 Percent of Total Capital Investment Construction material for absorber and regenerator are stainless steel in order to prevent the corrosion.1 Assumptions for the MEA based CO2 Capture Cost Analysis The important assumptions and specifications used in carrying out the economic evaluation of MEA based CO2 capture process are given below: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Currency Description: U.S. DOLLARS (2005) Operating Hours per Year: 8000 Interest Rate: 7 Percent per Year Economic Life of Project: 20 Years Salvage Value: 20 Percent of Initial Capital Cost Depreciation Method: Straight Line Labour Cost: $ 20 / hr / Operator Supervisor Cost: $ 35 / hr / Supervisor Electricity cost = $ 0.

526 2.135 505.560 477.808 29.150 415.169 41.087.400 409.817.312 Case II Case III Parameter .290 25.628 2.320.400 54.600 67.632 145.427.835 500.146 453.631 399.641 1.624 4.4.100.476.724 501.199 163.852 5.361 413.768 3.057 527.260 450.100 12.401.731 33.530 19. Case II.156 5.321.210 375.633 53.2 Capital Cost The summary of capital cost for Case I.670.547 258.670.584 5.980.927 5.762 5.160.111 432.347 64.463 54.072.467.888.912 2.580 414.775 43.825 2.236 6.582.940 3.413 1.573.519.970.540 1.020 239.630 4.150 267.500 346. and Case III Cost ($) Case I Direct Costs Purchased Equipment Equipment Installation Piping Civil Steel Instrumentation Electrical Insulation Paint Other Total Direct Cost Indirect Costs Total Design.911.714 2.2.342. Eng.993.153. Table 4-2: Summary of Capital Cost for Case I.959.577 124.266 6.785 6.180 4.355.744 29.125. Procurement cost G and A Overheads Contract Fee Contingencies Total Indirect Cost Fixed Capital Cost Working Capital Total Capital Cost (IPE) Reclaimer cost FGD Equipment cost CO2 Drying System cost Grand Total Capital Cost Annual Capital cost Salvage value Annual Salvage value 106 1.161.645.100 375.329 2.108 3.437. Case II.350 18.548.300 14.885 999.140 268.667.711 2.464 454.210 4.995 3.200 72.600.497.101 7.162 2.495.500 13.853.885 2.747 2.327.339.702.699.838.918 1. and Case III is shown in Table 4-2.370 21.422.

[50]. other sources were used. In order to evaluate the capital cost and the operating cost for these additional units. so. The carbon dioxide pipeline transportation and sequestration costs were not considered in the present cost analysis. the cost factors were calculated based on the mass or mole of the stream related to those units. and CO2 dryer were not included in Aspen Plus™ simulation model to avoid the complexity of the simulation. Because the objective was to estimate the cost of the capture process for different amounts of flue gas from this work. some assumptions were developed and the reference of these assumptions was from the work of Singh et al. The solution degradation was not considered during the MEA based CO2 capture simulation process. The baghouse. For the equipments that were not simulated.The basic plant cost was estimated using Icarus Process Evaluator (IPE) and the balance of equipment cost was estimated from published sources.947/(kg mol CO2 produced/hr) Operating Cost $ 2. the reclaimer unit was not modelled and simulated. baghouse. Table 4-3 shows capital and operating costing factors for the reclaimer.3/(ton CO2 produced) $ 190/(kg mol flue gas/hr) n/a 107 . But in reality the cost for the reclaimer has to be included in the cost evaluation. to evaluate the carbon dioxide capture cost using amine scrubbing. Table 4-3: Capital and Operating Cost factors for Reclaimer. In particular. Baghouse and FGD and CO2 Drying Unit [50] [70] [71]. flue gas desulphurisation unit (FGD). many information were taken from a report from Fluor Daniel [70] [71]. Unit Reclaimer Baghouse & FGD Drying Capital Cost $ 242/(kg mol CO2 produced/hr) $ 652/(kg mol flue gas/hr) $ 2. The CO2 compressor which compresses the product carbon dioxide to 150 bar was estimated using Icarus Process Evaluator (IPE) but the cost of CO2 drying system to prevent the corrosion in the compressor was not evaluated by IPE. flue gas desulphurization (FGD) unit and drying units.

000 280.405 638.000 276.444 25.200 11.113. 108 .000 280.853.000 230.454 15.000 280.070. Case II.159 640.504.871. The operating cost for reclaimer as MEA make up cost for the solution degradation.000 1.264.634 1.602 Total Direct Production Cost Plant Overhead Cost (50% of Operating Labor and maintenance cost) General and Administrative cost Operating cost (at second year) Annual Operating Cost (over 20 years) Baghouse.356. Table 4-4: Summary of Operating Cost for Case I.048.000 20.838 640.581 1.968.042. electricity cost and the steam cost.838 602.362 29.722.4.004 17.511 18.557 25.401.000 1.152 22.256.481.2.510 866. Case II.683.000 230.000 17.023 577.690 1. and Case III Cost ($/yr.686 859. and Case III is shown in Table 4-4.089 19.780 1.177.000 1. the utility cost includes the cooling water cost.799 1.072.155.2.2.440. baghouse and FGD has to be included for these units as discussed in section 4.516.069.613 598. FGD Scrubber chemical cost MEA make-up cost from degradation Total Annual Operating Cost The raw material cost in Table 4-4includes the MEA cost and the process water cost.550.401 640.3 The Operating Cost The summary of capital cost for Case I.385 16.000 230.000 356.155.443.702 22.547 14.) Parameters Case I Manufacturing Costs Direct Production Costs Raw material cost Utility cost Operating Labor cost Operating Supervision cost Maintenance and Repair cost Operating Supplies and Laboratory charge (25% of Operating labor costs) Case II Case III 1. As can be seen from Table 4-4that in the operating cost the predominant cost the utility cost.000 284.000 12.

operating labour and supervision cost.602 20.156 124.744 54 109 .2857[73] [74].309 546. utility cost. Case II and Case III Parameters Annual Capital Cost Annual Salvage value Annual Operating Cost Total Annual Cost ($) Total Annual CO2 Captured (tonne) $ / tonne of CO2 Captured Case I 3.401.744. plant overhead cost.101 18.4.356.641 25. The total annual cost for the MEA based CO2 capture plant is calculated as follows: Total annual cost = Annual operating cost + Amortised capital cost – Annual salvage value CO2 capture cost = Total annual cost/ Total CO2 Captured Table 4-5 summarizes the annual capital cost. operating charges.817.785 163.413 29. Operating cost at second year is obtained from IPE and annual operating cost over 20 years is calculated using the annuity factor as 14. annual operating cost. maintenance and repair cost.390. total annual cost and the CO2 capture cost per tonne of CO2 captured for Case I.161.280 51 Case III 2.288 49 Case II 2. Salvage value is assumed as 20 percent of initial capital cost.657 376.355.113. • Annual operating cost which includes the raw material cost.686 32. 7% interest rate and straight line depreciation method is used.023 27.4 CO2 Capture Cost The total annual cost consists of three costs: • Amortised capital cost (which is calculated over 20 years.2. with 7% interest rate) in which the capital recovery factor is used to determine the amount of each future annuity payment required to dissipate a given present value when the interest rate and number of payments are known [74]. general and administrative costs.058 659.072.927 145. • Annual salvage value which is calculated over 20 years. annual salvage value. Table 4-5: CO2 Capture cost for Case I. Case II and Case III.

and MEA degradation cost. and Case III The CO2 capture cost are USD 49. and 37% of total CO2 capture process for Case I. 110 . is the third highest cost for the capture process. baghouse and FGD scrubber chemical cost. The variable operating and maintenance cost includes the raw material cost. As can be seen that for the three cases the steam cost is the highest capture cost in CO2 capture process and steam cost represents 41%. and 35% of the total CO2 capture cost respectively. and Case III the variable operating and maintenance cost represents 35%. 90%. respectively. variable operating and maintenance cost and steam cost. Overall.60 CO2 Capture Cost ($/tonne of CO2 Captured) 50 20 20 40 20 30 19 20 17 18 10 7 5 8 5 9 6 0 Case I Annual Capital Cost Fixed O&M Case II Variable O&M Case III Steam Cost Figure 4-1: Breakdown of CO2 capture cost per tonne of CO2 captured for Case I. Case II. Case II. operating supplies and laboratory charges. Figure 4-1 shows the breakdown of CO2 capture cost per tonne of CO2 captured in terms of annual capital cost. plant overhead cost and general and administrative cost is the second highest cost in CO2 capture process. respectively. Case II. maintenance and repair cost. and 89% of total CO2 capture cost for Case I. the operating cost for CO2 capture rocess represents 90%. and Case III. fixed operating and maintenance cost. and Case III. and Case III respectively. 51. The fixed operating and maintenance cost including the operating labour and supervision cost. 35%. and 54 per tonne of CO2 captured for Case I. For Case I. 39%. Case II. Case II.

963 17.800 276.933 1.321.256.336 717.563.321. huge amount of Table 4-6 (a): Summary of capital cost for lean loading from 0.307 211.012.114.05 to 0. As can be seen.700 186.510 1.314.883 3.624 4.30 for Case II.05 the annual capital cost is the maximum and at lean loading of 0.447.947 486.620 957.840 763.900 23.448 9.452 414.510.606 487.986.453.573. Procurement Cost G and A Overheads Contract Fee Contingencies Total Indirect Cost Fixed Capital Cost Working Capital Total Capital Cost (IPE) Reclaimer cost FGD Equipment cost CO2 Drying System cost Grand Total Capital Cost Annual Capital cost Salvage value Annual Salvage value 0.907 8.962.05 88.012.324.15 (Case II) Parameters Direct Costs Purchased Equipment Equipment Installation Piping Civil Steel Instrumentation Electrical Insulation Paint Other Total Direct Cost Indirect Costs Total Design.683 7.874.170 4.477.546 27.060.580 11.636.712 4.584 111 Cost ($) 0.070 375.890 10. Eng.496.681 13.736 39.822 822.244.820.825.584 5.828 5.564.321.15 10.330 40.973 22.258 4.800 139.180 36.150 1.920 25.05.901.739.559 3.004 208.094.258.534.800 2.4.258.3 Sensitivity Analysis of CO2 Capture Cost to Lean Loading The effect of lean loading on cost of CO2 capture was studied for case II.549.500 4.05 to 0.527.030 7.400 661.685.101 18.744 42.090.509 105.087 0.484 375.022 4.573.397.624 4.502.104 5.861 439. This is due to the fact that at low lean loading of 0.432.730 30.010.584 5.299.901 .410 32.741.149 375. The CO2 recovery was specified at 85 percent and the carbon dioxide product purity at 98 percent by mole.359.30 the annual capital cost is minimum.744 196.283.552 18.547 4.320 5. Table 4-6 (a)-(b) shows the summary of capital cost for lean loading (mol CO2/mol MEA) from 0.100 112.300 36.084.761. at low lean loading of 0.10 65.573.412 467.041.894.977.227.584 5.477 1.503 29.204.831 444.227 140.109.153 7.172 3.624 4.744 146.841 106.104 2.

624 4.500 538.268 3.194. it would produce high amount of vapour flowing back to the bottom of the stripper column and this leads to an increase in stripper diameter and consequently the direct costs.000 94.817.853.584 5.30.232 39.556.724 88.542 375.383 0.549 439.400 558.573.321.800 4.744 38.744 29.891 3.788 1.339 Cost ($) 0.918 1.020 239.30 6.770 601.624 4. As a result the annual capital cost increases and the minimum annual cost is obtained at lean loading of 0.190 1.560 6.30 (Case II) Parameters Direct Costs Purchased Equipment Equipment Installation Piping Civil Steel Instrumentation Electrical Insulation Paint Other Total Direct Cost Indirect Costs Total Design. Procurement Cost G and A Overheads Contract Fee Contingencies Total Indirect Cost Fixed Capital Cost Working Capital Total Capital Cost (IPE) Reclaimer cost FGD Equipment cost CO2 Drying System cost Grand Total Capital Cost Annual Capital cost Salvage value Annual Salvage value 0.667.111 432.949.639.162 2.384.628 2.422.832 7.553.971 699.762 1.427.624.210 375.526 2.624 4.113.363 375.927 5.271.150 415.777 476. Eng.Table 4-6 (b): Summary of capital cost for lean loading from 0.20 to 0.460 27.762 714.20 8.510.25 8.169 41.480 27.306 454.560 477.500 13. The reboiler would consume a lot of energy even though the MEA solvent circulation rate is low.630 4.100 375. If the reboiler heat duty is increased.483 432.510 6.830.368 7.494 3.924.582.321.600 67.393 3.641 reboiler heat duty is required in order to separate the carbon dioxide until the lean solvent reaches that loading.626 887.683 737.476.553 4.321.212 90.993.945.872 1.573.320.584 5.195.329 2. 112 .530 19.320.605.445.945.573.528.970.670.899 182.315 3.450 509.259 3.507.497.300 19.838.744 37.411.063 186.633 53.047.600 78.286 33.072.100 20.115 1. indirect cost and fixed capital cost increases.632 145.724 501.584 5.

000 Labor and maintenance cost) General and Administrative cost 6.922 39.008 76.780.399 28.480 700.555 38.25 757.30 859.701 22.440.799 1.550.264.000 230.677.484. FGD Scrubber chemical cost MEA make-up cost from degradation Total Annual Operating Cost .000 801.339 0.000 276.329 18.502.256.000 0.000 682.789 Table 4-7(b): Summary of operating cost for lean loading from 0.15 (Case II) Parameters Manufacturing Costs Direct Production Costs Raw material cost Utility cost Operating Labor cost Operating Supervision cost Maintenance and Repair cost Operating Supplies and Laboratory charge (25% of Operating labor costs) 0.925 640.454 15.000 1.414.580 950.780 MEA make-up cost from degradation 1.256.101.161.15 956.000 230.105.945 640.256.023 Total Direct Production Cost Plant Overhead Cost (50% of Operating Labor and maintenance cost) General and Administrative cost Operating cost (at second year) Annual Operating Cost (over 20 years) Baghouse.822.256.550.000 454.000 280.000 1.000 687.550.447.072.824 Operating cost (at second year) 87.251 640.006 24.555 15.550.000 280.254.316 3.780 1.20 996.Table 4-7(a): Summary of operating cost for lean loading from 0.20 to 0.000 17.256.601.671.000 280.000 Cost ($) 0.779.438 52.477 640.287.780 1.444 Total Annual Operating Cost 103.000 280.671 31.587 27.016.128.115.478 22.269 46.000 480.550.998 20.159 640.973.000 280.000 230.000 1.565 Baghouse.953 41.780 1.331 36.340.321.444 25.115 1.092.922.912.000 17.043 25.780 1.256 640.000 Total Direct Production Cost 80.464.000 230.05 to 0.10 922.481.662 55.991. FGD Scrubber chemical cost 1.05 911.612 598.444 1.256.443.444 25.299 Plant Overhead Cost (50% of Operating 1.000 230.444 1.30 (Case II) Parameters Manufacturing Costs Direct Production Costs Raw material cost Utility cost Operating Labor cost Operating Supervision cost Maintenance and Repair cost Operating Supplies and Laboratory charge (25% of Operating labor costs) 0.524 1.272 2.000 280.748 113 Cost ($) 0.123 Annual Operating Cost (over 20 years) 100.488.000 21.444 30.290.000 230.550.155.000 1.459.524.173.781.000 980.780 1.089 19.

30.30 for Case II.736 957.072.30 (Case II) Parameters Annual Capital Cost Annual Salvage value Annual Operating Cost Total Annual Cost ($) Total Annual CO2 Captured (tonne) ($) / tonne of CO2 Captured 0.383 29.05 to 0.280 53 0.503 717.907 208.368 186.10 13.05.041.128. Two terms affect the value of the reboiler heat duty: the first one is the circulation rate of the solvent and the second one is the value of the lean loading of the stream leaving the bottom of the stripper and recycled back to the absorber.641 27.280 121 0.744.30.280 62 0.788 25.789 42.528.05 to 0.134.817. The trend of the CO2 capture cost is the same as the trend of the reboiler heat duty because the steam utility cost at the reboiler represents around 60% to 80% of the total annual capture cost.280 78 Table 4-8 (b): CO2 capture cost for lean loading from 0.555 66.527. As huge amount of heat is consumed by the reboiler at low lean loading of 0.748 546. Table 4-8 (a): CO2 capture cost for lean loading from 0.05 and the operating cost decreases with increasing lean loading and it is minimum at lean loading of 0. The major operating cost in CO2 capture process is the steam consumption by the reboiler.339 546.339 33.605.777 30.30 for Case II.087 55.662 120.15 4.20 to 0.673.927 145.05 to 0.20 3.Table 4-7 (a)-(b) above shows the summary of operating cost for lean loading (mol CO2/mol MEA) from 0.309 25.177 546.901 38.25 3.05 to 0.698.15 (Case II) Parameters Annual Capital Cost Annual Salvage value Annual Operating Cost Total Annual Cost ($) Total Annual CO2 Captured (tonne) ($) / tonne of CO2 Captured 0.254.780.30 2.584 103.023 546.126.280 51 114 . The reboiler heat duty decreases from 508 MW to 69 MW when the lean loading is increased from 0.814 546.922. so the annual operating cost is maximum at lean loading of 0.832 182.05 18. Table 4-8 (a)-(b) represents the CO2 capture cost per tonne of CO2 captured for lean loading from 0.755.484.874.795 546.280 221 0.

At a lean loading of 0.2 percent of total CO2 capture cost respectively which represents the minimum cost for this case.5 percent of total operating cost and 39.35 Lean Loading (mol CO2/mol MEA) Figure 4-2: CO2 capture cost per tonne of CO2 captured at various lean loading (Case II) Figure 4-2 shows the CO2 capture cost per tonne of CO2 captured at lean loading from 0.05 the steam cost corresponds to 78 percent of the total operating cost and 67 percent of the total capture cost.30.05 0.1 0. Figure 4-3 is a breakdown of CO2 capture cost per tonne of CO2 captured at different lean loading for Case II. It is seen from Figure 4-3 that at lean loading of 0.3 0.05 to 0.25 0. the lean loading that gives the minimum CO2 capture cost per tonne of CO2 captured for a CO2 recovery of 85 percent is 0. As can be seen from this figure.15 0.2 0.30 which corresponds to a cost of $ 51 per tonne of carbon dioxide captured and the capture cost is maximum at lean loading of 0.CO2 Capture Cost ($)/tonne of CO2 Captured 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 0.05 which corresponds to CO2 capture cost of $ 221 per tonne of CO2 captured. 115 .30 the steam cost carries about 43.

The CO2 composition in the flue gas was 14. flue gas from burning of coal) are used for comparison with the data obtained in the present study. CO2 Capture from an existing coal fired power plant was studied by Singh et al (2003) [50] with the conventional amine scrubbing approach as well as an emerging alternative commonly known as O2/CO2 recycle combustion. Figure 4-3 compares the different results in terms of USD per tonne of CO2 avoided for the amine case and it ranges from USD 49 to USD 55 per tonne of CO2 avoided..05 0.4 Comparison of CO2 Capture Cost with Other Studies Many researchers dealt with the design and cost of CO2 capture for fossil fuel. The cost of CO2 capture however.250 CO2 Capture Cost (USD/tonne of CO2 Captured) 200 150 148 100 70 50 40 31 34 41 30 21 7 27 29 7 21 26 6 20 26 5 0 0.59% on molar basis.e. The results of these studies (i. 2001 [32]).15 0.based power plants.20 0.10 0.. Mariz (1998) [71].30 Lean Loading (mol CO2/mol MEA) Annual Capital Cost Other Operating Costs Steam Cost Figure 4-3: Break down of CO2 capture cost per tonne of CO2 captured at various lean loading (Case II) 4. for the amine case was reported to USD 53 per tonne of CO2 avoided. 2003 [50]). CO2 capture costs are compared to the studies from the University of Waterloo (Singh et al. and Alstom (Nsakala et al. 116 .25 0.

51 and 54 per tonne CO2 captured for Case I. respectively which lies in the range estimated by other researchers. it did not help reducing the capture cost. 117 . The CO2 capture cost with this condition based on the data given by Mariz (1998) is approximately $48/ton CO2 captured. In the Alstom case (Nsakala et al. Mariz (1998) also suggested economic scaling in approximating the total plant cost relative to a fixed plant size. A summary of the operating costs for a 13 vol% CO2 in the flue gas producing 907 ton/day CO2 is also provided by the author. The value obtained in this study is $ 49. which had a higher capital cost and lower operating cost..Capture Cost (USD/tonne of CO2 avoided) $60 $54 $50 $49 $51 $55 $53 $48 $40 $30 $20 $10 $Case I Case II This Study Case III David Singh et al. reported a CO2 capture cost of USD 53 per tonne of CO2 captured. Case II and Case III. (2003) Alstom (2001) Mariz (1998) Figure 4-4: Comparison of CO2 capture cost Mariz (1998) [71] illustrates the variation in total plant cost with volume percent of CO2 in the flue gas for a fixed plant size of 290 ton/day. although the concentration of CO2 in the flue gas from the cement plant was higher than in the case of power plant. 2001 [32]). There is an increase of about 14% in the total plant cost when the CO2 composition of the flue gas varies from 13% to 8%. This points out that.

because of the process constraints. The operating cost for capturing CO2 represented approximately 90% of total CO2 capture cost for all cases. and Case III respectively.Chapter 5: Conclusions The design and costing of a MEA based CO2 capture process for cement plant was studied using Aspen Plus™ and Icarus Process Evaluator (IPE). 2. 51. 3. 1. and 37% of total CO2 capture process for Case I. If the plant operates at regular load.55 percent at the average plant load operation. Case II. 4. Switching high carbon content fuel like coal. The variable operating and maintenance cost was the second highest cost in CO2 capture process and represented around 35% of the total CO2 capture cost for three cases. and Case III respectively. Marys cement but unfortunately. and 54 for Case I. this amount of heat is wasted. Lots of waste heat is available in cement making process but it is too difficult and costly to recover waste heat to generate steam to be used in the reboiler for CO2 capture process. 118 . 39%. The stem cost was the highest cost in CO2 capture process and represented 41%. Case II. Design and costing of CO2 capture from cement plant flue gas is similar to design and costing of capturing carbon dioxide from power plant flue gases by using MEA based CO2 absorption process. Four cases were considered all to reach a CO2 purity of 98% i) the plant operates at the highest capacity ii) the plant operates at average load iii) the plant operates at minimum operating capacity and iv) fuel switching to a lower carbon content fuel at average plant load. The CO2 capture cost per tonne of CO2 captured was found $ 49. petcoke. A number of important conclusions can be drawn with respect to the validity and performance of MEA based CO2 capture process for cement plant. By using improved technology this amount of waste heat can be recovered to produce steam. coal fines to natural gas. the carbon dioxide emissions can be reduced by 18. around 37 MW of waste heat per hour can be recovered from St.

not only the minimum capture cost should be considered. To decide what is the best operating condition for carbon dioxide capture process for cement plant. CO2 capture is dependent on economic recovery of heat to satisfy parasitic heat requirements of MEA process. Mariz (1998) reported the CO2 capture cost approximately $48/ton CO2 captured.5. The capture cost obtained in this study was within the range obtained by other researchers. Singh. et al (2003) with the conventional amine scrubbing reported the CO2 capture cost USD 53 per tonne of CO2 avoided. but also the maximum steam that can be supplied and the maximum annual cost per year that can be paid. 119 . The value obtained in this study lied in the range estimated by other researchers.

tray spacing. weir height etc.9 bar. cryogenic separation. and Triethanolamine (TEA) on the CO2 capture cost should to be studied. Diisopropanolamine (DIPA). valve tray. monoethanolamine (MEA) was selected as viable solvent for capturing carbon dioxide from flue gases. 2. A detailed design needs to be investigated to recover this waste heat to generate steam by using improved technology. MEA based CO2 capture process is an energy intensive process and large amount of heat is required by the reboiler to separate CO2. 5. the following recommendations are made. Diglycolamine (DGA). In cement plants huge amounts of heat are wasted but due to process constraints cannot be recovered. and physical absorption using Selexol should be studied to find out the best capture process for capturing CO2 from flue gas. In this study.) as well as structured packing which has been shown studied to have a greater mass transfer coefficient and higher surface area. 6. For further study. Evaluate the design and cost by using plate-type absorber and a stripper with other types of trays (i. 4. The effect of other solvents such as Diethanolamine (DEA). FGD unit. In this study only the MEA based CO2 capture process was studied but other available CO2 separation techniques like membrane separation. sieve tray. CO2 dryer should be incorporated in the simulation process.Chapter 6: Recommendations Based on the results of this study.2 bar and 1. 120 . 1. The cost should be evaluated together to augment the accuracy of the estimation. Methyldiethanolamine (MDEA). The effect of absorber and stripper pressure on CO2 capture cost needs to be studied to find out the optimum absorber and stripper pressures. 3. the whole capture plant which consists of Baghouse. hybrid process. In this study the absorber and stripper pressure was specified at 1.e. respectively.

net/fundamentals/7h. (August 2004). Information on Greenhouse gas sources and sinks.html.ec. Pittsburgh.S. 944 pp. [6] Sullivan. Cambridge University Press. August 22. Atmospheric Environment. Ottawa. Hoffman (1992). Department of Geography. 121 .ca/pdb/ghg/overview_e. Chapter7: Introduction to the Atmosphere. http://www. Greenhouse Gas Division. Environment Canada.gc. Paper 90-141. I–V. presented at the 83rd Annual Meeting of the Air and Waste Management Association. [4] [5] http://www.5. 2002. 2004. 26A (14): 2665–2668. Ontario. Vols. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. U. 2004. M. B C. U. http://www. [7] Afshin.physicalgeography. September 10. M et al.gov/)..htm Atmospheric Science Explorers. Environmental Protection Agency. [10] EPA (1981). (1990). Fundamentals of Physical Geography.edu/learn/1_3_1. Coal and the greenhouse issue.K. A. Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation. M.ucar. [3] Pidwirny. Pennsylvania. Environment Canada. Okanagan University College.cfm.esd. Thompson.S. June 24–29. M. K1A 0H3 [8] [9] Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (http://cdiac. and J. K.References [1] United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) and UN framework convention on climate change (2001): Climate change information kit [2] IPCC (2001b). Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990-2002. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Methane reductions: Implications for global warming and atmospheric climate change.B.ornl. 2001. K. Reports EPA-450/4-81-026 a to e [11] IPCC (2001a). Hogan. Summary for Policymakers — A Report of Working Group 1 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

S. Cement. Conches-Geneva. 1995.9 PP 121. 44-001. 2001. Contribution of WGI to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.[12] IPCC (1996b). J. [21] [22] Statistics Canada. U.ch/ pub/sarsyn. Innovations in Portland Cement Manufacturing. UK [18] International Energy Agency. (2004) editors. Towards a sustainable cement industry: substudy 8: climate change. S and Humphreys. [15] IPCC (1995). Illinois.K. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory . [16] Humphreys. et al.A. 1999. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. 1387 pages. K. available online at www. K. Catalogue No. The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the cement industry. [19] Mahasenan. K. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Second Assessment Report. Climate change 2001: the scientific basis.T.Battelle. 1995 Summary for Policy Makers — A Report of Working Group 1 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.. Report PH3/7. WA 99352. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. N 2001. Bhatty. 122 .K. [13] Houghton. [14] IPCC (1996a).. Skokie. Cambridge University Press. Paris. The Science of Climate Change. Second Assessment Synthesis of Scientific-Technical Information Relevant to Interpreting Article 2 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.ipcc. France. I. Richland. 2005. J. and Mahasenan. 1990–2002 annual editions. CD400. Switzerland [17] IPCC. World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Smith. USA [20] Informetrica Limited and Statistics Canada. et al. Industrial GDP at Basic Prices by NAICS Code in 1997 Dollars. The Science of Climate Change. U. The Cement Industry and Global Climate Change: Current and Potential Future Cement Industry CO2 Emissions. table 2. April 20. N.htm. Portland Cement Association..

P. Cairns.R.33 (5-8).. Washington D. A. Engineering Feasibility of CO2 Capture on an Existing U.The European Cement Association.. Meisen.ca.. [27] [28] Blue Circle Cement. (2001). 18. 1999. and Tontiwachwuthikul. A. In: First Conference on Carbon Sequestration. A. and Paolucci.. Trade. Research and Development Issued in CO2 Capture Energy conversion and Management science Vol. Recovery of CO2 from power plant flue gases using amines. A. Existing Coal Power Plant Retrofit CO2 Control Options Analysis. A Division of Blue Circle Canada INC. USA. (1992). Richland. Belgium CEMBUREAU (1998). 902 Battelle Blvd. Canada. www. et al. CO2 Separation from Combustion Gas Streams by Chemical Reactive Solvents In: Proceedings of Combustion Canada ’99. (1999). and Shuai. CEMBUREAU (1996). Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (operated by Battelle). U. United States [33] Simbeck. D. Belgium. M.S. World Cement Directory. WA 99352. 1899-1915 [32] Nsakala.. X. 2004 for more information.[23] CIEEDAC. A Review of Energy Consumption and Related Data: Canadian Portland Cement Industries 1990 to 2000. Cement Production.(1999). Energy Conversion and Management. Voluntary Challenge & Registry Submission. N. CEMBUREAU . Brussels. Vol. Performance Modelling of a Carbon Dioxide Removal System For Power Plants. Consumption Data: World Cement Market in Figures 1913-1995. T.cieedac. 40. [26] Mahasenan. CEMBUREAU .. 1997 PII S0196-8904(96)00242-7 [29] [30] Wilson. 123 . (1997). World Statistical Review No. 38 pp 37-42. pp325-331 Chakma.. The Role of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage in Reducing Emissions from Cement Plants in North America. (2002). N. and McDonald. Energy Conversion Management. Calgary. (2000). Australia.. Coal-Fired Power Plant. Brussels.sfu.. [24] [25].et al.The European Cement Association. [31] Desideri. et al.C. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT-5).

IEA WorkingParty on Fossil Fuels. et al. M. Washington DC. M. United Kingdom [38] Copeland. 196(1976) Riesenfeld. USA. et al.. and Palkes. A. 2002. UK.. et al. V. and Aroonwilas. Inst. AIChE J. In: Proceedings of Combustion Canada ’99. M. Stoke Orchard. IEA Greenhouse R&D Programme. C. L. 29(4). A Novel Strategy for Greenhouse Gas Abatement In Coal Fired Power Plants. K. [37] Thambimuthu. and Bholm. May 2001. E. Sci. et al. C. P. K. 967-987.. M. Washington DC. Veawab. Trans. and Thambimuthu.[34] Croiset. V.. (1950) Pet. R. NETL. [39] IEA WPFF (2002): Challenges for large-Scale CO2 Utilization and Sequestration. 19. 95 [42] Danckwerts. Report No.March 19. A Design Study of the Application of CO2/O2 Combustion to an existing 300 MW Coal Fired Power Plant. Asrarita. 124 . In: Proceedings of Combustion Canada ’99. Canada. The influence of Carbonation Ratio and Total Amine Concentration on Carbon Dioxide Absorbtion in Aqueous Monoethanolamine Solutions. [40] [41] IEA GHG (1995): Carbon dioxide utilization. CO2 Capture from the flue Gas of Conventional Fossil-Fuel Fired Power Plants. T32 (1967) [43] [44] [45] Sada. Enriched Oxygen Combustion. Calgary.. Chem. Calgary. (2001): A novel CO2 separation system. USA. 1st National Conference on Carbon Sequestration. (1999). Energy Systems Division. Canada [35] McDonald. (2002) Corrosion Science 44. Engrs.V... (1976) Chemical Absorption of Carbon Dioxide into Aqueous Solutions of Monoethanolamine. K. 141-150. et al. Pittsburgh. Task Force on Zero Emissions Technology Strategy. Natural Resources Canada IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme Cheltenham. Eng. Argonne National Laboratory Report.. F. E. (1999). A. and McNeil. Chem.... (1967) The Absorption of Carbon Dioxide into Aquous Amine Solutions and the Effects of Catalysis. 22. (1994). G. M. (1964). (2002) CO2 Capture and Reuse CANMET Energy Technology Centre. A. J. Ref. Cheltenham. [36] Wolsky. 45.

et al.. (1995). The Solubility of CO2 in a 30 Mass Percent Monoethanolamine Solution. 44:3073-3091 [51] [52] Alie. R. [57] Tanthapanichakoon. Energy Conversion Management 33 (5-8). pages 127–133. (2003) Techno-economic study of CO2 capture from an existing coalfired power plant: Mea scrubbing vs. K. T.. S. Department of Chemical Engineering. D. 140-147. 1980.[46] [47] [48] Veawab. Gale and Y. Elsevier Science Ltd.. G.. In J. 33(5–8):325–331.. A.(1980).. et al. Canada Chakma. et al. and Rochelle. C. A Corrosion in CO2 Capture Unit for Coal-Fired Power Plant Flue Gas GHGT 6 Goff. F. Timmerhaus. Decomposition of CO2 capture process flowsheets.147- 208. Kaya. and Veawab. et al. A. M. S and Rochelle. Ontario. [53] [54] Barchas. In J. W. G. volume 1. 1995. Comparison of chemical solvents for mitigating CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants. (1995). et al. R. (2003) Modeling of CO2 absorption/stripping with monoethanolamine. 49(7):1676–1687. Recovery of CO2 from power plant flue gases using amines. Waterloo. Kaya. (2002) Perforamcne and cost analysis for CO2 capture from flue gas streams: absorption and regeneration aspects. (2002) Heat stable salts and corrosivity in amine treating units. Veawab. A. 15(2):231–240. 73. 3rd edition. pp. editors. Greenhouse Gas Control 125 . McGraw-Hill Book Company. G. T.Y.. University of Waterloo. (1992). O2/CO2 recycle combustion. editors.. Energy Conversion and Management. [55] [56] Wilson. S. AIChE Journal. et al. Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers. Singh. GHGT6 Peters.. A.. October 2002. M. Oxidative degradation of Aqueous Monoethanolamine in CO2 capture systems under absorber conditions. Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies. Davis. 333-340 (1992) Jou. Heat Recovery Systems and CHP. Energy Conversion and Management. [49] [50] Freguia. (1992). Gale and Y. The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering.

volume 1. October 2002... editors.. October 2002. Oxidative degradation of aqueous monoethanolamine in CO2 capture systems under absorber conditions.. [63] Goff. [64] Marion. volume 2. et al.. Kaya. 33(5–8):325–331. A. In 26th International Conference on Coal Utilization & Fuel Systems. T.. (2002).. Gale and Y. Research and development on energy saving technology for flue gas carbon dioxide recovery and steam system in power plant. et al. A. 1995. Recent developments in flue gas CO2 recovery technology. volume 2. pages 1591–1594.. Florida. [58] Veawab. N. (1992) Recovery of CO2 from power plant fule gases using amines. Engineering feasibility of CO2 capture on an existing US coal-fired power plant. volume 2..Technologies: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies. In 4th Workshop of International Test Network for CO2 capture. G. et al. Japan. Gale and Y. et al. editors. October 2002. Clearwater. Elsevier Science Ltd. Kyoto. [62] Aroonwilas. 126 . T.A. S. (2001). T. Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies. (1995). G. 36(6–9):397–400. Energy Conversion and Management. 38:2044–2050. Elsevier Science Ltd.. pages 115–119. In J. Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies. (2002) Flue gas CO2 capture: CO2 capture technology of KS-1. Mimura. Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies. Elsevier Science Ltd. In J. J.. (2002). March 2001. pages 1057–1062. Gale and Y. Kaya. [65] Imai. Energy Conversion and Management. October 2002. et al. [59] [60] Wilson. In J. M. Elsevier Science Ltd.. Corrosion in CO2 capture unit for coal-fired power plant flue gas. [61] Mimura. pages 1595–1598.(1999) Behaviour of the mass-transfer coefficient of structured packings in CO2 absorbers with chemical reactions.. Kaya. editors. October 2002. IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme. and Rochelle. Journal of Industrial Engineering Chemical Research.

October 2002. Elsevier Science Ltd. United States. [74] James. Cambridge. editors. A technical.. and environmentalassessment of amine-based CO2 capture technology for power plant greehouse gas control. [73] Icarus Process Evaluator. October 1999. et al. Cambridge... et al. L. Engineering Economics. 36(20):4467– 4475. pp. et al. October 2002. Cost of CO2 Recovery and Transmission for EOR From Boiler Stack Gas.. (2003).[66] Chapel. (2002). [68] Slater. [70] Mariz.. [72] Aspen Plus. Carbon Dioxide Recovery: Large Scale Design Trends. and Rubin. Environmental Science and Technology.L. Kaya. (1998). volume 1. In Canadian Society of Chemical Engineers Annual Meeting. volume 1. (1999) Recovery of CO2 from flue gases: Commercial trends. et al. editors. Gale and Y. M. S. A study of very large scale post combustion CO2 capture at a refining & petrochemical complex. [69] Simmonds. 1986. Elsevier Science Ltd. In J. (2002). Icarus Process Evaluator User Manual. Massachusetts.. 1998 [71] Mariz. Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies. In: Proceedings of the Forth Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT-4). Aspen Plus User Guide. (2002). R. [67] Rao. pages 103–107... Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies.L. (2003). M. B. Gale and Y. United States. (1998). Aspen Technology Limited.. SwitzerlandMariz et al. In J. 127 . 37(7). Massachusetts. The Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology. 42-47. Interlaken. 43-54. C. 1st Canadian Edition. C. Carbon dioxide capture from multiple flue gas sources. A. Saskatchewan. G. et al. Aspen Technology Limited. Kaya. pages 39–44. E. McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited. economic. Saskatoon. D.

% FLOWSHEET CONNECTIVITY BY STREAMS -----------------------------------------------------------STREAM FLUEGAS MEA FLUESEP FLUEBLOW TREATGAS RICH-P1 RICHSTPR CO2 LEANMEX PRODCO2 SOURCE ------SEP BLOWER ABSORBER PUMP1 SOL-HEX STRIPPER MIXER MCOMPR DEST COOLER MIXER BLOWER COOLER1 ---SOL-HEX STRIPPER MCOMPR SOL-COOL ---- STREAM WATER FLUECOOL SEPOUT FLUE-ABS RICH-MEA LEANSTRC LEAN-P2 LEANSTPR LEAN-MEA SOURCE ---COOLER SEP COOLER1 ABSORBER SOL-HEX PUMP2 STRIPPER SOL-COOL DEST MIXER SEP ---ABSORBER PUMP1 MIXER SOL-HEX PUMP2 ABSORBER 128 .1 02/28/2005 CO2 CAPTURE PROCESS FOR CASE II RUN CONTROL SECTION RUN CONTROL INFORMATION ------------------------------------------THIS COPY OF ASPEN PLUS LICENSED TO UNIV OF WATERLOO TYPE OF RUN: NEW INPUT FILE NAME: _4444mfu.Appendix A: Aspen Simulation Report ASPEN PLUS PLAT: WIN32 VER: 12.1\Engine\xeq SIMULATION REQUESTED FOR ENTIRE FLOWSHEET DESCRIPTION ------------------H2O-MEA-H2S-CO2 PROPERTY METHOD: ELECNRTL TEMPERATURE: UP TO 120 C MEA CONCENTRATION UP TO 50 WT.inm OUTPUT PROBLEM DATA FILE NAME: _4444mfu LOCATED IN: PDF SIZE USED FOR INPUT TRANSLATION: NUMBER OF FILE RECORDS (PSIZE) = 0 NUMBER OF IN-CORE RECORDS = 256 PSIZE NEEDED FOR SIMULATION = 256 CALLING PROGRAM NAME: LOCATED IN: apmain C:\PROGRA~1\ASPENT~1\ASPENP~2.

----C-1 C-2 CO2 MOLEFLOW # MASS ENTHALPY # # = CONVERGED * = NOT CONVERGED LB = AT LOWER BOUNDS UB = AT UPPER BOUNDS DESIGN-SPEC: MEACON ----------------------------------SAMPLED VARIABLES: MEACON : MEA MASSFLOW IN STREAM LEANMEX SUBSTREAM MIXED WATER : H2O MASSFLOW IN STREAM LEANMEX SUBSTREAM MIXED 129 .12201E-04 MAXIMUM ERR/TOL -------0.16758E-05 TOLERANCE --------0.41429E-04 TOLERANCE ----------------0.13322E-04 0.FLOWSHEET CONNECTIVITY BY BLOCKS ---------------------------------------------------------BLOCK COOLER SEP BLOWER COOLER1 ABSORBER PUMP1 SOL-HEX PUMP2 STRIPPER MIXER SOL-COOL MCOMPR INLETS FLUEGAS FLUECOOL FLUESEP FLUEBLOW FLUE-ABS RICH-MEA LEAN-P2 LEANSTPR RICHSTPR LEANSTRC LEANMEX CO2 OUTLETS FLUECOOL FLUESEP SEPOUT FLUEBLOW FLUE-ABS TREATGAS RICH-MEA RICH-P1 LEANSTRC RICHSTPR LEAN-P2 CO2 LEANSTPR LEANMEX LEAN-MEA PRODCO2 LEAN-MEA RICH-P1 MEA WATER CONVERGENCE STATUS SUMMARY --------------------------------------------------DESIGN-SPEC SUMMARY ===================== DESIGN SPEC -------MEACON RECOVERY ERROR ----------0.13735 VARIABLE ID -------CONV STAT BLOCK ---.66565E-04 0.10000E-03 ERR/TOL -----------VARIABLE --------------STAT ------# # CONV BLOCK ---------$OLVER01 $OLVER02 -0.21544E-08 0.20014 0.41429 12.047 TEAR STREAM SUMMARY ====================== STREAM ID -----LEAN-P2 LEANSTRC MAXIMUM ERROR ------0.10000E-03 0.6 0.21544E-04 9223.

SPECIFICATION: MAKE MEACON / (MEACON+WATER) WITHIN 0.000 KG/HR FINAL VALUE = 12.36 273.728 FINAL VALUE ------------------1825.000.0 KG/HR FINAL VALUE = 9.00010000 APPROACH 0.00010000 APPROACH 0.0470 KG/HR VALUES OF ACCESSED FORTRAN VARIABLES: VARIABLE --------------CO2IN CO2OUT VALUE AT START OF LOOP ------------------------1825.728 UNITS -------KMOL/HR KMOL/HR 130 .113719E+07 FINAL VALUE ------------------487366 0.36 273.00000 KG/HR UPPER LIMIT = 100.223.58 KG/HR VALUES OF ACCESSED FORTRAN VARIABLES: VARIABLE -------------MEACON WATER VALUE AT START OF LOOP ------------------------487366 0.85000 MANIPULATED VARIABLES: VARY : TOTAL MASSFLOW IN STREAM MEA SUBSTREAM MIXED LOWER LIMIT = 1.113719E+07 UNITS --------KG/HR KG/HR DESIGN-SPEC: RECOVERY ------------------------------------SAMPLED VARIABLES: CO2IN CO2OUT : CO2 MOLEFLOW IN STREAM FLUE-ABS SUBSTREAM MIXED : CO2 MOLEFLOW IN STREAM TREATGAS SUBSTREAM MIXED SPECIFICATION: MAKE (CO2IN-CO2OUT)/CO2IN WITHIN 0.00000 KG/HR UPPER LIMIT = 50.30000 MANIPULATED VARIABLES: VARY : TOTAL MASSFLOW IN STREAM WATER SUBSTREAM MIXED LOWER LIMIT = 1.

2986+04 6.3259 0.2612+04 7978.9301-03 -4.1972 ERR/TOL 9.00E+00 QMIN = -5.0 0.0 0.3192-05 0.0725 -2870.0 0.0 0.0725 -2870.0 0.2986+04 6.4633 0.0 482.0 0.6528 T 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3343-07 2.0 0.2001 0.2252 T 434.SIGNIFIES COMPONENT IS A TRACE COMPONENT *** ITERATION HISTORY *** TEAR STREAMS: ITERATION ---------------1 MAX-ERR/TOL -------------------0.0 0.6531-07 2.0 0.MOLEFLOW KMOL/HR MEA+ MOLEFLOW KMOL/HR CO3-2 MOLEFLOW KMOL/HR HS.0 -0.0 2396.1086 T .5665-06 7.00E+00 QMIN = -5.2284 PREV VALUE 7.4944-06 7.0 0.0 0.MOLEFLOW KMOL/HR MEACOO.MOLEFLOW KMOL/HR S-2 MOLEFLOW KMOL/HR H3O+ MOLEFLOW KMOL/HR OH.4633 0.0 0.100D-05 MAXIT= 50 WAIT 1 ITERATIONS BEFORE ACCELERATING QMAX = 0.0 0.0 0.3739 0.0 METHOD: WEGSTEIN STATUS: CONVERGED TOTAL NUMBER OF ITERATIONS: 1 131 .0 2396.0801-03 2.0 METHOD: WEGSTEIN STATUS: CONVERGED TOTAL NUMBER OF ITERATIONS: 1 *** FINAL VALUES *** VARIABLE TOTAL MOLEFLOW KMOL/HR H2O MOLEFLOW KMOL/HR MEA MOLEFLOW KMOL/HR H2S MOLEFLOW KMOL/HR CO2 MOLEFLOW KMOL/HR HCO3.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.100D-03 Trace molefrac: 0.0 0.2612+04 7978.MOLEFLOW KMOL/HR N2 MOLEFLOW KMOL/HR O2 MOLEFLOW KMOL/HR PRESSURE ATM MASS ENTHALPY CAL/GM VALUE 7.100D-03 Trace molefrac: 0.100D-05 MAXIT= 50 WAIT 1 ITERATIONS BEFORE ACCELERATING QMAX = 0.2001 STREAM ID --------------- VARIABLE ---------------- LEAN-P2 CO2 MOLEFLOW CONVERGENCE BLOCK: C-2 ----------------------------------------Tear Stream: LEANSTRC Tolerance used: 0.CONVERGENCE BLOCK: C-1 ---------------------------------------Tear Stream: LEAN-P2 Tolerance used: 0.0 0.0 0.

0 0.5780 PREV VALUE 9223.0 0.SIGNIFIES COMPONENT IS A TRACE COMPONENT *** ITERATION HISTORY *** TEAR STREAMS: ITERATION ---------------1 MAX-ERR/TOL -------------------0.3343-07 2.6540-07 2.8655-05 -2.0725 -2914.5667-06 7.0 0.0725 -2914.2612+04 7978.0 0.3259 0.MOLEFLOW KMOL/HR S-2 MOLEFLOW KMOL/HR H3O+ MOLEFLOW KMOL/HR OH.0 0.0 2396.0672 PREV VALUE 7.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0. % OF RANGE XTOL= 1.3259 0.0 0.1374 STREAM ID VARIABLE ---------------.*** FINAL VALUES *** VARIABLE TOTAL MOLEFLOW KMOL/HR H2O MOLEFLOW KMOL/HR MEA MOLEFLOW KMOL/HR H2S MOLEFLOW KMOL/HR CO2 MOLEFLOW KMOL/HR HCO3.4633 0.MOLEFLOW KMOL/HR MEACOO.0 0.0 0.0 0.1072 ERR/TOL -7.0 0.6874 T 0.0 2396.5780 ERR/TOL -2.2986+04 6.MOLEFLOW KMOL/HR N2 MOLEFLOW KMOL/HR O2 MOLEFLOW KMOL/HR PRESSURE ATM MASS ENTHALPY CAL/GM VALUE 7.0 -461.4944-06 7.0 0.0000 % OF RANGE MAX-STEP= 100.0 0.1374 T .0 0.0 0.4633 0.0 0.MOLEFLOW KMOL/HR MEA+ MOLEFLOW KMOL/HR CO3-2 MOLEFLOW KMOL/HR HS.0 0.6191 T -417.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1544-05 132 .0 0.8311-05 -8.2612+04 7978.000000E-08 THE NEW ALGORITHM WAS USED WITH BRACKETING=NO METHOD: SECANT STATUS: CONVERGED TOTAL NUMBER OF ITERATIONS: 1 *** FINAL VALUES *** VARIABLE TOTAL MASSFL KG/HR VALUE 9223.-------------LEANSTRC MASS ENTHALPY CONVERGENCE BLOCK: $OLVER01 -------------------------------------------------SPECS: MEACON MAXIT= 30 STEP-SIZE= 1.2986+04 6.0519-05 0.

2154E-04 CONVERGENCE BLOCK: $OLVER02 -------------------------------------------------SPECS: RECOVERY MAXIT= 30 STEP-SIZE= MAX-STEP= XTOL= 1.4143E-04 ERR/TOL -----------0.*** ITERATION HISTORY *** DESIGN-SPEC ID: MEACON ITERATION --------------1 VARIABLE --------------9224 ERROR ----------0.05 ERROR ---------0.4143 COMPUTATIONAL SEQUENCE -----------------------------------------SEQUENCE USED WAS: COOLER SEP BLOWER COOLER1 C-2 | $OLVER02 | | $OLVER01 MIXER | | (RETURN $OLVER01) | | SOL-COOL ABSORBER | (RETURN $OLVER02) | PUMP1 | C-1 SOL-HEX STRIPPER PUMP2 | (RETURN C-1) (RETURN C-2) MCOMPR 133 .2154E-08 ERR/TOL -------------0.000000E-08 % OF RANGE % OF RANGE THE NEW ALGORITHM WAS USED WITH BRACKETING=NO METHOD: SECANT STATUS: CONVERGED TOTAL NUMBER OF ITERATIONS: 1 *** FINAL VALUES *** VARIABLE TOTAL MASSFL KG/HR VALUE 12.0000 100.0470 PREV VALUE 12.0470 ERR/TOL 0. 1.4143 *** ITERATION HISTORY *** DESIGN-SPEC ID: RECOVERY ITERATION ---------------1 VARIABLE --------------12.

644611E+08 -0.125239E-10 0. 261944.000000E+00 HS0.000000E+00 CO2 1825.000000E+00 0.OVERALL FLOWSHEET BALANCE -----------------------------------------------*** MASS AND ENERGY BALANCE *** IN OUT CONVENTIONAL COMPONENTS (KMOL/HR) H2O 1102.757417E-05 0.000000E+00 0.38 O2 191.000000E+00 OH0.661614E+08 COMPONENTS -------------------ID H2O MEA H2S CO2 HCO3MEACOOMEA+ CO3-2 HSS-2 H3O+ OHN2 O2 TYPE FORMULA C C C C C C C C C C C C C C H2O C2H7NO H2S CO2 HCO3MISSING MISSING CO3-2 HSS-2 H3O+ OHN2 O2 NAME OR ALIAS H2O C2H7NO H2S CO2 HCO3MISSING MISSING CO3-2 HSS-2 H3O+ OHN2 O2 REPORT NAME H2O MEA H2S CO2 HCO3MEACOOMEA+ CO3-2 HSS-2 H3O+ OHN2 O2 LISTID EMEA SUPERCRITICAL COMPONENT LIST CO2 H2S BLOCK: ABSORBER MODEL: RATEFRAC --------------------------------------------------------INLETS . -0.000000E+00 5555.000000E+00 0.121337E-10 -0.000000E+00 0.12 MEA 0.197272 0.262742E-04 0.000000E+00 CO3-2 0.FLUE-ABS COLUMN LEAN-MEA COLUMN 1 1 SEGMENT SEGMENT 4 1 134 .000000E+00 0.217 RELATIVE DIFF 0.217 TOTAL BALANCE MOLE (KMOL/HR) MASS (KG/HR ) ENTHALPY (CAL/SEC) 1102.38 191.39 HCO30.10 0.000000E+00 H3O+ 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 MEACOO0.34 0.000000E+00 1825.30 8674.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.197221 H2S 0.000000E+00 0.257672E-03 0.000000E+00 S-2 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 -0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.926961E-05 0.000000E+00 0.256992E-01 8674.000000E+00 0.161425E-04 -0.000000E+00 MEA+ 0.000000E+00 N2 5555.24 261946.000000E+00 0.

1 81405.0 0.50800E-01 1.TREATGAS COLUMN RICH-MEA COLUMN 1 1 SEGMENT SEGMENT 1 3 PROPERTY OPTION SET: HENRY-COMPS ID : CHEMISTRY ID: ELECNRTL ELECTROLYTE NRTL / REDLICH-KWONG EMEA EMEA .1 0.0000 7.000000E+00 0.197812E+07 -0.APPARENT COMPONENTS *** MASS AND ENERGY BALANCE *** IN TOTAL BALANCE MOLE (KMOL/HR) MASS (KG/HR ) ENTHALPY (CAL/SEC) 81405.0000 0 3 3 3 TOTAL NUMBER OF EQUILIBRIUM SEGMENTS TOTAL NUMBER OF NON-EQUILIBRIUM SEGMENTS TOTAL NUMBER OF TRAY SEGMENTS TOTAL NUMBER OF TRAYS **** TRAY PARAMETERS **** SEGMENT NUMBER(S) TYPE OF TRAYS NUMBER OF TRAYS PER SEGMENT COLUMN DIAMETER COLUMN DIAMETER ESTIMATE PERCENT FLOODING EXIT WEIR HEIGHT SYSTEM FACTOR NUMBER OF PASSES MIXING OPTION USED FOR VAPOR MIXING OPTION USED FOR LIQUID MASS-TRANSFER SUBROUTINE CORRELATION HEAT-TRANSFER SUBROUTINE CORRELATION INTERFACIAL-AREA SUBROUTINE CORRELATION 1.197812E+07 0.3 BUBBLE CAP 1.146565E+10 -0.0 1.235406E-15 -0.0000 1 COMPLETE COMPLETE BUILT-IN AICHE BUILT-IN COLBURN BUILT-IN AICHE METER METER METER 135 .0000 80.00010000 **** INPUT PARAMETERS FOR COLUMN 1 **** CONDENSER DUTY REBOILER DUTY DISTILLATE VAPOR MOLE FRACTION CAL/SEC CAL/SEC 0.146565E+10 -0.OUTLETS .1628 6.114416E-07 OUT RELATIVE DIFF **** INPUT PARAMETERS **** NUMBER OF COLUMNS TOTAL NUMBER OF SEGMENTS NUMBER OF INTERCONNECTING STREAMS MAXIMUM NO OF RATEFRAC BLOCK ITERATIONS MAXIMUM NO OF FLASH ITERATIONS RATEFRAC BLOCK TOLERANCE FLASH TOLERANCE 1 3 0 50 30 0.000 0.00010000 0.

835.0681+04 -2.060 328.12189E-01 **** COLUMN 1 RESULTS **** LIQUID TEMP VAPOR TEMP BOTTOM SEGMENT LIQUID TEMP VAPOR TEMP TOP SEGMENT LIQUID FLOW VAPOR FLOW BOTTOM SEGMENT LIQUID FLOW VAPOR FLOW DISTILLATE VAPOR MOLE FRACTION SEGM TEMPERATURE LIQUID VAPOR K K 1 3 SEGM 329.98781 .1843 1.9436+04 -6.93516 .317 329.43 74.1 329.64839E-01 .7487E+05 0.869.95 1.834 74.4570+04 6835.6 8.0 6.99998 .7457E+05 6835 8428 7.13316E-01 .**** PRESSURE SPECIFICATIONS **** COLUMN 1 SEGMENT 1 1.8 328.24725E-04 .843 330.3499+04 7906.00000 HEAT DUTY LIQUID VAPOR CAL/SEC CAL/SEC FLOW RATE FEED RATE PRODUCT RATE LIQUID VAPOR LIQUID VAPOR MIXED LIQUID VAPOR KMOL/HR KMOL/HR KMOL/HR KMOL/HR KMOL/HR KMOL/HR KMOL/HR 0.18431 ATM ***************************** ********* RESULTS ********* ***************************** **** COMPONENT SPLIT FRACTIONS **** OUTLET STREAMS --------------------------TREATGAS RICH-MEA COMPONENT: H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 .1843 TOP SEGMENT K K K K KMOL/HR KMOL/HR KMOL/HR KMOL/HR ENTHALPY LIQUID VAPOR CAL/MOL CAL/MOL -6.5644 7.98668 .427.569.4341 1 3 136 .49301E-02 .9778+04 -1.3 330.5368+04 329.8 PRESSURE ATM 1.99507 .

4005E-01 0.APPARENT COMPONENTS *** MASS AND ENERGY BALANCE *** IN TOTAL BALANCE MOLE (KMOL/HR) MASS (KG/HR ) ENTHALPY (CAL/SEC) OUT RELATIVE DIFF 7906.451 317.**** BULK X-PROFILE **** SEGMENT 1 3 H2O 0.72000 1.328.2763E-01 0.8087 0.14 137 .8478 0.328.1212E-04 CO2 0.2269E-01 BLOCK: BLOWER MODEL: COMPR -------------------------------------------------INLET STREAM: OUTLET STREAM: PROPERTY OPTION SET: HENRY-COMPS ID: CHEMISTRY ID: FLUESEP FLUEBLOW ELECNRTL ELECTROLYTE NRTL / REDLICH-KWONG EMEA EMEA .526383E+08 -0.0 956.415.00000 *** RESULTS *** INDICATED HORSEPOWER REQUIREMENT KW BRAKE HORSEPOWER REQUIREMENT NET WORK REQUIRED POWER LOSSES ISENTROPIC HORSEPOWER REQUIREMENT CALCULATED OUTLET TEMP K ISENTROPIC TEMPERATURE K EFFICIENCY (POLYTR/ISENTR) USED OUTLET VAPOR FRACTION IDEAL HEAD DEVELOPED.082 0.1066 0.4521E-01 0.328.599132E-02 *** INPUT DATA *** ISENTROPIC CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR OUTLET PRESSURE ATM ISENTROPIC EFFICIENCY MECHANICAL EFFICIENCY 1.36 1.5294E-01 0.4381E-03 0.2886E-04 0.00000 1.000000E+00 248102.56 0. 248102.3673E-03 0.000000E+00 -0.3731E-04 0.56 7906.36 0.6592 O2 0.1188 MEA 0.421 322.1236 0.1993 N2 0. 0.18431 0.529556E+08 -0.8397 MEA 0.3125E-04 **** BULK Y-PROFILE **** SEGMENT 1 3 H2O 0.72000 1.36 1. M-KGF/KG KW KW KW KW 1.1070 CO2 N2 O2 0.

00010000 *** RESULTS *** OUTLET TEMPERATURE K OUTLET PRESSURE ATM HEAT DUTY CAL/SEC OUTLET VAPOR FRACTION PRESSURE-DROP CORRELATION PARAMETER 313.320 2.940.00000E+00 138 .0000 -0.12 8162.57581 1. ISENT.367524E-01 OUT RELATIVE DIFF *** INPUT DATA *** TWO PHASE TP FLASH SPECIFIED TEMPERATURE SPECIFIED PRESSURE MAXIMUM NO. ISENT.APPARENT COMPONENTS *** MASS AND ENERGY BALANCE *** IN TOTAL BALANCE MOLE (KMOL/HR) MASS (KG/HR ) ENTHALPY (CAL/SEC) 8162.ACTUAL HEAD DEVELOPED.150 1. 252711. ACTUAL TEMP EXPONENT 1.273.15 1. ITERATIONS CONVERGENCE TOLERANCE K ATM 313. EXPONENT AV.20904E+07 1. L/MIN OUTLET VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE.48 1.00000 30 0.140 0. EXPONENT AV.36117 3.36170 1.568774E+08 0.000000E+00 -0.12 0.99867 1.547870E+08 -0. 0.0000 0.57453 BLOCK: COOLER MODEL: HEATER --------------------------------------------------INLET STREAM: OUTLET STREAM: PROPERTY OPTION SET: HENRY-COMPS ID: CHEMISTRY ID: FLUEGAS FLUECOOL ELECNRTL ELECTROLYTE NRTL / REDLICH-KWONG EMEA EMEA . M-KGF/KG MECHANICAL EFFICIENCY USED INLET HEAT CAPACITY RATIO INLET VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE .99858 0.965.000000E+00 252711.00000 1.36168 1. L/MIN INLET COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR OUTLET COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR AV. ACTUAL VOL. TEMP EXPONENT AV. VOL.

72301E-01 0.62288E-01 1943.73675E-01 2292.526383E+08 OUT RELATIVE DIFF 7906.62 139 .23087 0.42369E-01 0.68063 0.11287E-02 0.72301E-01 0. -0.000000E+00 -0.98936E-04 0.99766 0.00000E+00 V-L PHASE EQUILIBRIUM: COMP H2O CO2 N2 O2 F(I) 0.22364 0.56 0.56 248102.99867 0.00010000 *** RESULTS *** OUTLET TEMPERATURE K OUTLET PRESSURE ATM HEAT DUTY CAL/SEC OUTLET VAPOR FRACTION PRESSURE-DROP CORRELATION PARAMETER 313.000000E+00 248102.0000 0.99292E-04 0.58 203.22364 0.23427E-01 BLOCK: COOLER1 MODEL: HEATER --------------------------------------------------INLET STREAM: OUTLET STREAM: PROPERTY OPTION SET: HENRY-COMPS ID: CHEMISTRY ID: FLUEBLOW FLUE-ABS ELECNRTL ELECTROLYTE NRTL / REDLICH-KWONG EMEA EMEA .17425E-03 0.15 1.1843 -0.42369E-01 0.97 0.3 613.291301E-02 *** INPUT DATA *** TWO PHASE TP FLASH SPECIFIED TEMPERATURE SPECIFIED PRESSURE MAXIMUM NO ITERATIONS CONVERGENCE TOLERANCE K ATM 313.19871E-02 0.150 1.70258 0.V-L PHASE EQUILIBRIUM: COMP H2O CO2 N2 O2 F(I) 0.APPARENT COMPONENTS *** MASS AND ENERGY BALANCE *** IN TOTAL BALANCE MOLE (KMOL/HR) MASS (KG/HR ) ENTHALPY (CAL/SEC) 7906.15378E+06 1.24181E-01 K(I) 0.23427E-01 X(I) Y(I) K(I) 0.17418E-03 Y(I) 0.70258 0.527921E+08 0.69 240.4 518.24181E-01 X(I) 0.68063 0. 0.18431 30 0.23087 0.

7 0. ATM 148.000 1.038 6.8000 COOLER SPECIFICATIONS PER STAGE STAGE NUMBER 1 2 3 4 PRESSURE DROP ATM 0.25 9161.BLOCK: MCOMPR MODEL: MCOMPR -----------------------------------------------------INLET STREAMS: CO2 TO STAGE 1 OUTLET STREAMS: PRODCO2 FROM STAGE 4 PROPERTY OPTION SET: ELECNRTL ELECTROLYTE NRTL / REDLICH-KWONG HENRY-COMPS ID: EMEA CHEMISTRY ID: EMEA .0000E+00 0.038 COMPRESSOR SPECIFICATIONS PER STAGE NUMBER 1 2 3 4 EFFICIENCY 1. KW TOTAL COOLING DUTY. ATM TOTAL WORK REQUIRED.406925E+08 583.240 TEMPERATURE K 313.000000E+00 .000000E+00 .0000E+00 0.25 9161.0000E+00 0. CAL/SEC 148.868273E-02 UT ELATIVE DIFF *** INPUT DATA *** ISENTROPIC COMPRESSOR USING ASME METHOD NUMBER OF STAGES 4 FINAL PRESSURE.410489E+08 .8000 0.000 EFFICIENCY 0.2 313.2 140 .0000E+00 *** RESULTS *** FINAL PRESSURE.819.8000 0.000 1.APPARENT COMPONENTS *** MASS AND ENERGY BALANCE *** IN TOTAL BALANCE MOLE (KMOL/HR) MASS (KG/HR ) ENTHALPY (CAL/SEC) 583.124.54 -1.8000 0.2 313.000 1.2 303.7 0.

2 303.000 1.140260E+10 -0.137109E-04 OUT RELATIVE DIFF 141 .981 2.66 49.3 414.66 148.0 PRESSURE RATIO 2.173002E+07 0.66 49.000 BLOCK: MIXER MODEL: MIXER ----------------------------------------------INLET STREAMS: OUTLET STREAM: PROPERTY OPTION SET: HENRY-COMPS ID: CHEMISTRY ID: LEANSTRC MEA WATER LEANMEX ELECNRTL ELECTROLYTE NRTL / REDLICH-KWONG EMEA EMEA .000 1.777648E-08 -0.0 COOLING LOAD CAL/SEC -.000 1.2 313.5 73498.1544E+06 -.981 2.8 419.589 16.*** PROFILE *** COMPRESSOR PROFILE STAGE NUMBER 1 2 3 4 OUTLET PRESSURE ATM 5.5 0.6803E+06 VAPOR FRACTION 1.140258E+10 -0.APPARENT COMPONENTS *** MASS AND ENERGY BALANCE *** IN TOTAL BALANCE MOLE (KMOL/HR) MASS(KG/HR ) ENTHALPY (CAL/SEC) 73498.5 416.636008E-08 0.981 2.2 OUTLET PRESSURE ATM 5.589 16.981 OUTLET TEMPERATURE K 350.4495E+06 -.2 313.173002E+07 -0.3 STAGE NUMBER 1 2 3 4 INDICATED HORSEPOWER KW 1453 1714 1621 1336 BRAKE HORSEPOWER KW 1453 1714 1621 1336 COOLER PROFILE STAGE NUMBER 1 2 3 4 OUTLET TEMPERATURE K 313.5350E+06 -.66 148.

00010000 OUTLET PRESSURE: MINIMUM OF INLET STREAM PRESSURES BLOCK: PUMP1 MODEL: PUMP --------------------------------------------INLET STREAM: OUTLET STREAM: PROPERTY OPTION SET: HENRY-COMPS ID: CHEMISTRY ID: RICH-MEA RICH-P1 ELECNRTL ELECTROLYTE NRTL / REDLICH-KWONG EMEA EMEA .000000E+00 0.630.9 0.0757 49.000000E+00 -0.0757 8.00010000 *** RESULTS *** VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE PRESSURE CHANGE NPSH AVAILABLE FLUID POWER BRAKE POWER ELECTRICITY PUMP EFFICIENCY USED NET WORK REQUIRED HEAD DEVELOPED L/MIN ATM M-KGF/KG KW KW KW KW M-KGF/KG 31.144535E+10 0.*** INPUT DATA *** TWO PHASE FLASH MAXIMUM NO ITERATIONS 30 CONVERGENCE TOLERANCE 0.APPARENT COMPONENTS *** MASS AND ENERGY BALANCE *** IN TOTAL BALANCE MOLE (KMOL/HR) MASS (KG/HR ) ENTHALPY (CAL/SEC) 74569.6 74569.6 0.144537E+10 -0.97385 1.00000 30 0.178994E+07 -0.85938 49.810900E-05 OUT RELATIVE DIFF *** INPUT DATA *** OUTLET PRESSURE ATM DRIVER EFFICIENCY FLASH SPECIFICATIONS: LIQUID PHASE CALCULATION NO FLASH PERFORMED MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ITERATIONS TOLERANCE 1.178994E+07 0.0757 0.78954 0.1745 49.19790 42.64952 142 .

00010000 *** RESULTS *** VOLUMETRIC FLOW PRESSURE CHANGE NPSH AVAILABLE FLUID POWER BRAKE POWER ELECTRICITY PUMP EFFICIENCY USED NET WORK REQUIRED HEAD DEVELOPED RATE L/MIN ATM M-KGF/KG KW KW KW KW M-KGF/KG 30.137196E+10 -0.205341E-05 OUT RELATIVE DIFF *** INPUT DATA *** OUTLET PRESSURE ATM DRIVER EFFICIENCY FLASH SPECIFICATIONS: LIQUID PHASE CALCULATION NO FLASH PERFORMED MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ITERATIONS TOLERANCE 2.19738 0.172078E+07 -0.07254 1.0 0.0 10.0987 11.APPARENT COMPONENTS 143 .7511 11.000000E+00 0.15436 BLOCK: SEP MODEL: FLASH2 --------------------------------------------INLET STREAM: OUTLET VAPOR STREAM: OUTLET LIQUID STREAM: PROPERTY OPTION SET: HENRY-COMPS ID: CHEMISTRY ID: FLUECOOL FLUESEP SEPOUT ELECNRTL ELECTROLYTE NRTL / REDLICH-KWONG EMEA EMEA .4 72986.APPARENT COMPONENTS *** MASS AND ENERGY BALANCE *** IN TOTAL BALANCE MOLE (KMOL/HR) MASS (KG/HR ) ENTHALPY (CAL/SEC) 72986.00000 30 0.137196E+10 0.85938 11.BLOCK: PUMP2 MODEL: PUMP --------------------------------------------INLET STREAM: OUTLET STREAM: PROPERTY OPTION SET: HENRY-COMPS ID: CHEMISTRY ID: LEANSTPR LEAN-P2 ELECNRTL ELECTROLYTE NRTL / REDLICH-KWONG EMEA EMEA .000000E+00 -0.7511 2.172078E+07 0.4 0.296.7511 0.

47 196.99837 0.23427E-01 X(I) 0.96869 V-L PHASE EQUILIBRIUM: COMP H2O CO2 N2 O2 F(I) 0.13791E-02 0.12292E-03 Y(I) 0.000000E+00 0.12 8162.23087 0.00000 30 0.12740E-03 0.72301E-01 0.3 509.157640E-01 OUT RELATIVE DIFF *** INPUT DATA *** TWO PHASE TP FLASH SPECIFIED TEMPERATURE K SPECIFIED PRESSURE ATM MAXIMUM NO ITERATIONS CONVERGENCE TOLERANCE 303.577884E+08 0.72 BLOCK: SOL-COOL MODEL: HEATER ---------------------------------------------------INLET STREAM: OUTLET STREAM: PROPERTY OPTION SET: HENRY-COMPS ID: CHEMISTRY ID: LEANMEX LEAN-MEA ELECNRTL ELECTROLYTE NRTL / REDLICH-KWONG EMEA EMEA .141285E+10 0.173002E+07 -0.91098E+06 0.*** MASS AND ENERGY BALANCE *** IN TOTAL BALANCE MOLE (KMOL/HR) MASS (KG/HR ) ENTHALPY (CAL/SEC) 8162.505719E-11 0.150 1.APPARENT COMPONENTS *** MASS AND ENERGY BALANCE *** IN TOTAL BALANCE MOLE (KMOL/HR) MASS (KG/HR ) ENTHALPY (CAL/SEC) 73498.42438E-01 1812. -0.000000E+00 0.173002E+07 0.22364 0.568774E+08 -0.0000 -0.5 73498.12 252711.00010000 *** RESULTS *** OUTLET TEMPERATURE OUTLET PRESSURE HEAT DUTY VAPOR FRACTION K ATM CAL/SEC 303.70258 0.24181E-01 K(I) 0.140260E+10 -0.000000E+00 -0.68063 0.5 0.725641E-02 OUT RELATIVE DIFF 144 .42369E-01 0.15 1. 252711.

15 2.47144E-03 0.69260E-02 575.*** INPUT DATA *** TWO PHASE TP FLASH SPECIFIED TEMPERATURE SPECIFIED PRESSURE MAXIMUM NO ITERATIONS CONVERGENCE TOLERANCE K ATM 313.13729E-03 0.85884 0.21316E-10 0.150 2.32604E-01 0.APPARENT COMPONENTS 145 .10856 0.16 BLOCK: SOL-HEX MODEL: HEATX -----------------------------------------------HOT SIDE: --------------INLET STREAM: OUTLET STREAM: PROPERTY OPTION SET: HENRY-COMPS ID: CHEMISTRY ID: LEAN-P2 LEANSTRC ELECNRTL ELECTROLYTE NRTL / REDLICH-KWONG EMEA EMEA .36528E-01 0.10252E+08 0.10856 0.21316E-10 0.74504E-07 K(I) 0.99238 0.0725 -0.00010000 *** RESULTS *** OUTLET TEMPERATURE K OUTLET PRESSURE ATM HEAT DUTY CAL/SEC OUTLET VAPOR FRACTION PRESSURE-DROP CORRELATION PARAMETER 313.APPARENT COMPONENTS COLD SIDE: --------------INLET STREAM: OUTLET STREAM: PROPERTY OPTION SET: HENRY-COMPS ID: CHEMISTRY ID: RICH-P1 RICHSTPR ELECNRTL ELECTROLYTE NRTL / REDLICH-KWONG EMEA EMEA .07254 30 0.79 226.10414E-10 X(I) 0.10414E-10 Y(I) 0.85884 0.71433E-02 0.32604E-01 0.00000E+00 V-L PHASE EQUILIBRIUM: COMP H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 F(I) 0.00000E+00 0.38825E-06 0.

0203 0.*** MASS AND ENERGY BALANCE *** IN TOTAL BALANCE MOLE (KMOL/HR) MASS (KG/HR ) ENTHALPY (CAL/SEC) 147556 147556 0.694769E-06 -0.595376E-05 OUT RELATIVE DIFF *** INPUT DATA *** FLASH SPECS FOR HOT SIDE: TWO PHASE FLASH MAXIMUM NO ITERATIONS CONVERGENCE TOLERANCE FLASH SPECS FOR COLD SIDE: TWO PHASE FLASH MAXIMUM NO ITERATIONS CONVERGENCE TOLERANCE FLOW DIRECTION AND SPECIFICATION: COUNTERCURRENT HEAT EXCHANGER SPECIFIED COLD TEMP CHANGE SPECIFIED VALUE K LMTD CORRECTION FACTOR PRESSURE SPECIFICATION: HOT SIDE PRESSURE DROP COLD SIDE PRESSURE DROP ATM ATM 0.00010000 45.0203 0.00010000 30 0.0203 0.0203 146 .0203 0.0000 30 0.0203 0.351073E+07 -0.0203 0.0203 0.449133E-06 0.0203 0.281729E+10 0.351073E+07 0.00000 HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENT SPECIFICATION: HOT LIQUID HOT 2-PHASE HOT VAPOR HOT LIQUID HOT 2-PHASE HOT VAPOR HOT LIQUID HOT 2-PHASE HOT VAPOR COLD LIQUID COLD LIQUID COLD LIQUID COLD 2-PHASE COLD 2-PHASE COLD 2-PHASE COLD VAPOR COLD VAPOR COLD VAPOR CAL/SEC-SQCM-K CAL/SEC-SQCM-K CAL/SEC-SQCM-K CAL/SEC-SQCM-K CAL/SEC-SQCM-K CAL/SEC-SQCM-K CAL/SEC-SQCM-K CAL/SEC-SQCM-K CAL/SEC-SQCM-K 0.0000 1.281731E+10 -0.0000 0.

3960D+02 P= 2.5572 LOG-MEAN TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE: LMTD CORRECTION FACTOR LMTD (CORRECTED) NUMBER OF SHELLS IN SERIES K 1.0945 8964.5223 1 PRESSURE DROP: HOTSIDE.0000 0.2223 0.2223 8964.3008D+02 P= 1.RICH-P1 T= 3.*** OVERALL RESULTS *** STREAMS: ------------------------------------------------| | LEAN-P2 -----------> | HOT |----------> LEANSTRC T= 3. TOTAL COLDSIDE.0000 HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENT: AVERAGE COEFFICIENT (DIRTY) UA (DIRTY) CAL/SEC-SQCM-K CAL/SEC-K 0.0000D+00 ------------------------------------------------DUTY AND AREA: CALCULATED HEAT DUTY CALCULATED (REQUIRED) AREA ACTUAL EXCHANGER AREA PER CENT OVER-DESIGN CAL/SEC SQM SQM 20969519.0000 11.| COLD |<--------.9738D+00 | | P= 1.1562D-02 | | V= 0.0000D+00 | | RICHSTPR <---------.00000E+00 0.0203 1819907. TOTAL ATM ATM 0.0725D+00 V= 0.9738D+00 V= 1.0725D+00 | | P= 2.0000 PRESSURE DROP PARAMETER: HOT SIDE: COLD SIDE: 0.0000D+00 | | V= 0.7508D+02 | | T= 3.00000E+00 147 .9221D+02 | | T= 3.

142438E+10 -0.0074 BLOCK: STRIPPER MODEL: RATEFRAC -----------------------------------------------------INLETS OUTLETS .*** ZONE RESULTS *** TEMPERATURE LEAVING EACH ZONE: HOT -----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | LIQ | LIQ | LEANSTRC | | |------> | 354.APPARENT COMPONENTS *** MASS AND ENERGY BALANCE *** IN TOTAL BALANCE MOLE (KMOL/HR) MASS(KG/HR ) ENTHALPY (CAL/SEC) 74569.141265E+10 0.0203 0.574 5870499.178994E+07 0.3010 0.6 0.2967 3108.521 AREA SQM 5855.5499 631171.1 ZONE HEAT TRANSFER AND AREA: ZONE 1 2 HEAT DUTY CAL/SEC 15099019.000000E+00 0.823803E-02 OUT RELATIVE DIFF 148 .7017 9.0203 1188736.178994E+07 -0.9256 DTLM AVERAGE U UA K CAL/SEC-SQCM-K CAL/SEC-K 12.6 | | 339.260154E-15 -0.RICHSTPR .5 | | 330.CO2 LEANSTPR PROPERTY OPTION SET: HENRY-COMPS ID: CHEMISTRY ID: COLUMN 1 SEGMENT 4 COLUMN 1 SEGMENT 1 COLUMN 1 SEGMENT 9 ELECNRTL ELECTROLYTE NRTL / REDLICH-KWONG EMEA EMEA .2 RICHSTPR <-----375.6 | | | | BOIL | LIQ | RICH-P1 | | |<-----| 345.6 74569.1 | | | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------COLD LEAN-P2 ------> 392.

0000 4.00010000 **** TRAY PARAMETERS **** SEGMENT NUMBER(S) TYPE OF TRAYS NUMBER OF TRAYS PER SEGMENT COLUMN DIAMETER COLUMN DIAMETER ESTIMATE PERCENT FLOODING EXIT WEIR HEIGHT SYSTEM FACTOR NUMBER OF PASSES MIXING OPTION USED FOR VAPOR MIXING OPTION USED FOR LIQUID MASS-TRANSFER SUBROUTINE CORRELATION HEAT-TRANSFER SUBROUTINE CORRELATION INTERFACIAL-AREA SUBROUTINE CORRELATION 2.8 BUBBLE CAP 1.4196 5.000 0.0000 2 1 9 7 7 7 1 9 0 80 30 0.00010000 0.9500 0.6500 1.50800E-01 1.0000 1 COMPLETE COMPLETE BUILT-IN AICHE BUILT-IN COLBURN BUILT-IN AICHE METER METER METER **** MANIPULATED VARIABLES **** VARY VARY 1 2 MOLE-RR OF COLUMN=1 MOLE-B:F OF COLUMN=1 149 .5000 80.**** INPUT PARAMETERS **** NUMBER OF COLUMNS TOTAL NUMBER OF SEGMENTS NUMBER OF INTERCONNECTING STREAMS MAXIMUM NO OF RATEFRAC BLOCK ITERATIONS MAXIMUM NO OF FLASH ITERATIONS RATEFRAC BLOCK TOLERANCE FLASH TOLERANCE **** INPUT PARAMETERS FOR COLUMN 1 **** MOLAR BOTTOMS / FEED RATIO MOLAR REFLUX RATIO DISTILLATE VAPOR MOLE FRACTION TOTAL NUMBER OF EQUILIBRIUM SEGMENTS EQUILIBRIUM SEGMENT NUMBERS TOTAL NUMBER OF NON-EQUILIBRIUM SEGMENTS TOTAL NUMBER OF TRAY SEGMENTS TOTAL NUMBER OF TRAYS 0.

97877 **** DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS **** 1 2 SPEC-TYPE UNITS SPECIFIED VALUE CALCULATED VALUE ABSOLUTEERROR MOLE-FRAC 0.0000 LEANSTPR .0000 1.39301 1.9800) OF COMP CO2 IN PRODUCT STREAM=CO2 MASS-FLOWS (6.00000E+00 150 .32841E-06 1.31112E-04 .87515 ATM **** MANIPULATED VARIABLES **** 1 2 MOLE-RR MOLE-B:F 0.98000 -0.98000 0. 68285.**** DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS **** SPEC SPEC 1 2 MOLE-FRAC (0.0000 .60699 .57198E-07 . 0.8285+04 KG/HR) OF COMP CO2 IN PRODUCT STREAM=CO2 **** PRESSURE SPECIFICATIONS **** COLUMN 1 SEGMENT 1 ***************************** ********* RESULTS ********* ***************************** **** COMPONENT SPLIT FRACTIONS **** OUTLET STREAMS -------------------------CO2 COMPONENT: H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 .83214 0.11102E-15 MASS-FLOW KG/HR 68285.99997 1.59720E-15 .

6941E-03 0.8033+04 -6.1027 0.2146E-10 O2 0.9 375.1093 CO2 0.2 PRESSURE ATM 1.317.5103+04 -6.7299E+05 1583 2901 3134 2232 2339 3735 4773 1583.2396E-04 0.2 260.2 373.212 392.5080E-05 0.8663+04 -6.212 1.3787E-01 0.1145E-06 0.5060+04 -7.3698E-04 0.5988E-09 0.5564E-06 0.7533E+05 0.9985 0.8752 1.743.7152+04 -6.8282E-03 0.133 392.8475 0.0 370.8618+04 -6.773.2527+04 -4.583.6998+04 -6.590 0.986.4 375.48 1.2986+04 **** BULK X-PROFILE **** SEGMENT 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 H2O 0.7552E+05 0.164773+08 0.5666E-06 0.4273+04 -6.9079+04 -6.2688E-08 0.4 387.4290E-03 0.9701E-03 0.8752 1.4523+04 -7.1 362.0 392.4382E-02 0.1573E-03 0.5990+04 -7.4 392.2871E-05 0.4602E-01 0.8752 1.2393E-05 0.8483 0.4655E-01 0.2483 921.3648+04 7.133 260.1059 0.3 376.1209E-04 0.9950 0.8752 1.1152+04 1.6477+07 -6.38 -4.8752 1.1 371.7671+04 SEGM FLOW RATE FEED RATE PRODUCT RATE LIQUID VAPOR LIQUID VAPOR MIXED LIQUID VAPOR KMOL/HR KMOL/HR KMOL/HR KMOL/HR KMOL/HR KMOL/HR KMOL/HR 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 1317 1550 1570 0.**** COLUMN 1 RESULTS **** LIQUID TEMP VAPOR TEMP BOTTOM SEGMENT LIQUID TEMP VAPOR TEMP TOP SEGMENT LIQUID FLOW VAPOR FLOW BOTTOM SEGMENT LIQUID FLOW VAPOR FLOW CONDENSER DUTY (W/O SUBCOOL) REBOILER DUTY MOLAR REFLUX RATIO DISTILLATE VAPOR MOLE FRACTION MOLAR BOILUP RATIO TOP SEGMENT K K K K KMOL/HR KMOL/HR KMOL/HR KMOL/HR CAL/SEC CAL/SEC 260.8579 MEA 0.7776E+05 0.1057 0.8752 ENTHALPY HEAT DUTY LIQUID VAPOR LIQUID VAPOR CAL/MOL CAL/MOL CAL/SEC CAL/SEC -9.8752 1.9985 0.6 388.00000 0.065401 SEGM TEMPERATURE LIQUID VAPOR K K 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 260.7492 7.1049E-10 151 .25 72.4 376.4 4.8594 0.3283E-01 N2 0.5194E-03 0.7436+06 -7.83214 1.

0 -2.8202E-03 0.0 0.0 0.3706E-06 0.5271+05 4.1948E-03 0.0000 0.0 0.3596 0.1327 1.0 1551.0000 0.0273 191.3967+04 8162.0 0.1855 FLUEBLOW BLOWER COOLER1 VAPOR 334.0 ENTHALPY: CAL/MOL 1583.0 0.2483 6.3009E-14 0.0 5555.2169 SUBSTREAM: MIXED PHASE: VAPOR COMPONENTS: KMOL/HR H2O MEA H2S CO2 HCO3MEACOOMEA+ CO3-2 HSS-2 H3O+ OHN2 O2 TOTAL FLOW: KMOL/HR KG/HR L/MIN STATE VARIABLES: TEMP K PRES ATM VFRAC LFRAC SFRAC 0.0 0.4760E-03 0.4744 0.1500 1.9513E-02 0.1730E-01 0.0 0.3304 7906.1791E-04 0.0 5555.0 0.0 0.1150 N2 0.2169 ---COOLER VAPOR 590.9480 4.0 0.5086+04 8162.3797 191.0 0.4810+05 2.1843 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1855 FLUECOOL FLUEGAS COOLER SEP VAPOR 590.1472E-02 0.0 1825.1500 1.0 0.8032E-07 0.0 5555.3921 0.1325 0.0 0.8549+06 313.**** BULK Y-PROFILE **** SEGMENT 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 H2O 0.1155E-02 0.0 0.4966 0.2570E-03 0.0000 1.0 0.0273 191.0 0.5644 2.3474E-03 0.0 0.0 0.4164+04 152 .0 -2.0 0.3797 191.5271+05 3.0 0.0 0.0 1825.3901E-03 0.2527+04 1.4526 0.0 0.9800 0.4905+06 313.8752 1.9921 0.0 5555.0 0.7647-12 0.8751E-02 0.0 0.0 0.0000 1.1213 2.8333+06 433.4946 0.0 -9.0 0.0 0.7756 0.2232 0.0000 0.0 0.0 0.1500 1.9401+06 322.0 -2.1230E-02 0.0 27.0 1825.3866 2.9632+05 260.5369 0.0 0.9594E-08 CO2 FLUE-ABS FLUEBLOW FLUECOOL FLUEGAS -------------------------------------------------------------------STREAM ID FROM : TO : CO2 STRIPPER MCOMPR FLUE-ABS COOLER1 ABSORBER VAPOR 334.3921 0.8831E-04 0.5644 2.4346E-07 O2 0.4037+04 7906.0 0.9921 0.0 0.9162+04 2.7462E-03 0.9245E-04 0.0 0.0 0.5833 0.4956 0.3596 0.1956E-02 CO2 0.8831 MEA 0.0 0.5025 0.0 0.0000 0.1843 1.0 -2.0 0.1213 2.0 0.0000 0.1325 0.0 1825.4513 1.5251 0.4810+05 2.0 0.

2812-02 1.4810+05 1.9105-10 0.5271+05 2.2792+07 1.2067-03 30.1930 74.3160-02 CPMX KJ/KG-K 0.0 2.9614 MIXED SUBSTREAM PROPERTIES: *** VAPOR PHASE *** VOLFLMX L/MIN 2.7915-02 2.5562+05 6117.9752 0.4787+07 3.9614 -780.0334+04 0.8333+06 2.1284 2.4853 4.2492 -5.0027 31.0 0.0 0.8549+06 2.2774-02 4.0 0.0 767.6528-02 8.0 6.0 1.9051-05 3.0586 30.0 0.7068 1.3422 4.0 0.6877+07 1.0 0.0 0.7973-02 3.0 0.3792 -763.0 0.4484-03 31.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.7120 1.0 0.0 0.9796-02 4.1029-02 1.4905+06 2.0 0.0 0.6158-05 1.0 0.0 8.5563+05 6118.0 0.0 0.0437-02 1.0 0.0000 0.7142-04 30.5271+05 2.3792 FLUE-ABS 2.0946 2.0631+04 0.4706 -5.0000 0.8145-05 8.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.4820-05 1.0 0.5271+05 153 .0692+07 -1.9763 0.5685 1.9401+06 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.2638+07 1.8901-03 43.8973-05 1.5271+05 1.0 1.0000 0.0 6.0335+04 0.CAL/GM CAL/SEC ENTROPY: CAL/MOL-K CAL/GM-K DENSITY: MOL/CC GM/CC AVG MW -2118.9162+04 6034.0216 -5.9162+04 KMX KCAL-M/HR-SQ 1.4810+05 6034.7663-02 1.0183 30.0 0.5957 -3.3792 -810.0000 0.6834 STREAM ID *** LIQUID PHASE *** VOLFLMX L/MIN MASSFLMX KG/HR KMX KCAL-M/HR-SQ SIGMAMX DYNE/CM MUMX CP CPMX KJ/KG-K MWMX MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING CO2 2.1206 -4.9763 0.0 0.0 8.9614 4.0 1.0 0.8146 MWMX 43.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8285+04 0.7068 1.6834 -766.8089-02 1.0346-02 1.7902 -5.3792 FLUEBLOW 3.0 0.0000 0.4064-03 31.5563+05 6118.4810+05 2.9614 FLUECOOL FLUEGAS TOTAL STREAM PROPERTIES: *** ALL PHASES *** MASSFLOW KG/HR H2O MEA H2S CO2 HCO3MEACOOMEA+ CO3-2 HSS-2 H3O+ OHN2 O2 MASSVFRA MASSSFRA MASSFLMX KG/HR 35.4810+05 2.0 0.7599-02 1.0334+04 0.0631+04 0.0061 31.0335+04 0.7120 1.9632+05 MASSFLMX KG/HR 6.5626 4.0 0.1773-02 MUMX CP 1.0 0.5562+05 6117.0 8.0 0.0 0.

0 1.9467 23.3739 0.0 0.6834 2.0 0.0000 LFRAC 0.0152 -1.5644 KG/HR 2.0 LIQUID 6.0 SUBSTREAM: MIXED PHASE: VAPOR COMPONENTS: KMOL/HR H2O 334.0 0.0 2396.0 -6.0 0.9614 4.8887+04 313.9632+05 260.2612+04 7978.3665 -2.8333+06 433.0000 VFRAC 1.9401+06 322.0 1. ERROR: 0.1843 31.2733+06 STATE VARIABLES: TEMP K 303.0 0.0273 O2 191.5381 -59.3124+04 6.0 0.5667-06 7.0296+04 339.0258-05 GM/CC 1.7128 4.9921 MEA 0.2792 -2.0 1.6812 -2870.9982 23.0000 0.5190 4.3124+04 7978.5667-06 1.0 0.0296+04 392.0 2396.6605 7978.0 0.0000 30.0 1.3939 CAL/SEC -5.0 N2 5555.0725 0.0 0.0000 0.4112+04 CAL/GM -768.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0152-02 0.3739 0.7671+04 -2870.0 H3O+ 0.0014-05 LIQUID 6.5768 154 .0 0.0 1.7208+06 2.3720+09 -62.4129+09 -63.3259 2396.0 0.0 0.2284 -1.3596 HCO30.6459 4.VOLFLMX L/MIN TEMP K PRES ATM MWMX 2.1500 1.0 0.1500 1.0 S-2 0.5180 4.0 MEACOO0.1500 2.7300+06 2.9467 23.0 2396.6540-07 7.6605 0.4513 1.1855 TOTAL FLOW: KMOL/HR 7906.0 HS0.0 0.5381 LEAN-P2 LEANMEX LEANSTPR PUMP2 MIXER STRIPPER SOL-HEX SOL-COOL PUMP2 2.0 392.0 0.3792 3.5768 0.2986+04 1.8544 -2.0 -6.2633-03 AVG MW 31.0 0.7671+04 -2918.4026+09 -1.2406-02 0.7300+06 1.1843 31.9843 23.0 0.2118 1.2133 2.0 OH0.3859 2.3792 6.0 0.3259 0.3720+09 -59.3898 -2.0000 0.0 -6.7208+06 3.3499+04 7.4810+05 L/MIN 3.4633 0.0 1.0 0.9202+04 -2940.0 0.0 0.0 LIQUID MAX CONV.0 0.1500 PRES ATM 1.0 0.0 CO3-2 0.4633 0.0000 30.0 1.0 0.0725 0.0 0.0 CO2 1825.5665-06 7.2612+04 7978.6540-07 7.0 0.3792 2.0 ENTHALPY: CAL/MOL -2.0 LIQUID 0.2343 -1.8752 43.1500 1.0 H2S 0.2956+07 ENTROPY: CAL/MOL-K 1.0 SFRAC 0.6531-07 7.0725 0.4905+06 313.2986+04 1.1816-02 0.0 MEA+ 0.0 0.0 0.9294+04 3.8752 0.6531-07 7.9614 FLUESEP LEAN-MEA LEAN-P2 LEANMEX LEANSTPR --------------------------------------------------------------------------STREAM ID FROM: TO : FLUESEP SEP BLOWER LEAN-MEA SOL-COOL ABSORBER 0.8700+04 -6.3499+04 1.5765-02 DENSITY: MOL/CC 4.0152-02 0.8549+06 313.1327 1.4361 CAL/GM-K 4.5665-06 7.

4031 66.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.1500 1.7200-02 CPMX KJ/KG-K 0.0 1.4115 23.9800-02 MUMX CP 1.0 0.0 0.0725 23.5381 1.0 0.6638 0.0334+04 0.0 0.4810+05 KMX KCAL-M/HR-SQ 1.0 0.7300+06 2.3479 3.0725 23.4489-05 0.0 4.8737+05 0.7208+06 0.0296+04 1.4015 56.1372+06 4.2133 2.0000 31.0725 23.0 0.9763 0.7068 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.5381 1.0 4.0 0.3882-05 2.MIXED SUBSTREAM PROPERTIES: *** VAPOR PHASE *** VOLFLMX L/MIN 3.0 8.4492-05 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0296+04 392.1280+06 4.0 1.0 4.7300+06 2.8737+05 0.2118 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.8887+04 1.5457 23.5562+05 6117.0 0.8735+05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1500 2.0 0.5768 FLUESEP 31.5768 155 .0296+04 1.0296+04 392.3601 23.3889-05 2.0 0.0 4.0 0.3792 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3479 3.0 0.4015 56.0 0.1280+06 4.9294+04 1.3939 71.0 0.0 0.8752 23.7324 3.3882-05 2.8887+04 313.0 2.4810+05 3.8735+05 0.5381 3.5768 1.0 0.5768 2.0 0.7208+06 3.2733+06 MASSFLMX KG/HR 2.3792 MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING LEAN-MEA MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING LEAN-P2 MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING LEANMEX LEANSTPR MISSING MISSING TOTAL STREAM PROPERTIES: *** ALL PHASES *** MASSFLOW KG/HR H2O MEA H2S CO2 HCO3MEACOOMEA+ CO3-2 HSS-2 H3O+ OHN2 O2 MASSVFRA MASSSFRA MASSFLMX KG/HR VOLFLMX L/MIN TEMP K PRES ATM MWMX 6034.0546+05 0.3889-05 2.7208+06 0.3802 0.3859 2.0 0.1954 1.0 0.9986 STREAM ID MWMX *** LIQUID PHASE *** VOLFLMX L/MIN MASSFLMX KG/HR KMX KCAL-M/HR-SQ SIGMAMX DYNE/CM MUMX CP CPMX KJ/KG-K MWMX MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING 2.0000 0.7208+06 3.0 1.6635 0.5381 3.5480 23.4489-05 0.0 0.0546+05 0.0546+05 0.4492-05 0.1372+06 4.7300+06 0.0 1.0 1.9294+04 339.0 1.0 0.0 0.2733+06 303.2185 3.0 0.7300+06 0.0546+05 0.

5421 -119.4570+04 1.0 1.9480 4.0 CO2 2396.2535 -72.9292-02 3.0 27.4549 303.0 -6.0 1551.0 0.9142+04 STATE VARIABLES: TEMP K 339.6488 DENSITY: MOL/CC 4.2526 -3.LEANSTRC MEA PRODCO2 RICH-MEA RICH-P1 --------------------------------------------------------------STREAM ID FROM: TO : LEANSTRC SOL-HEX MIXER MEA ---MIXER PRODCO2 MCOMPR ---RICH-MEA ABSORBER PUMP1 RICH-P1 PUMP1 SOL-HEX MAX CONV.0 1.0 0.0837 0.5833 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9572 0.0 VAPOR 1.0 3947.9715 -2906.0037 156 .4944-06 O2 7.7647-12 0.2612+04 MEA 7978.1500 2.0 0.9479 -1.0 0.0 0.0000 0.2614+04 7978.0 0.0 0.4454+09 -72.0470 0.0 0.0 0.1049+07 -10.0 0.0000 SFRAC 0.3134 43.0 0.0 ENTHALPY: CAL/MOL -6.0 0.0 N2 1.6834 0.0670 CAL/SEC -1.0037 24.3929+09 ENTROPY: CAL/MOL-K -62.5992 PRES ATM 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. ERROR: 1.0 0.3866 2.7208+06 L/MIN 2.0 1.4454+09 -1.3866 2.0 0.4093 -3548.0 27.5065 61.1333 313.9292-02 0.0 0.3866 2.9841 AVG MW 23.1742-02 GM/CC 0.0 0.0101 3.0 -6.0000 0.0725 0.1972 12.0 0.7899+06 3.6792 -0.5768 0.0 LIQUID 6.1972 0.9572 0.0 0.4774+04 -1060.0 27.6728 -4.0778 1.0 0.4570+04 1.1735-03 0.2614+04 7978.0 0.9162+04 3678.0 3947.4633 0.0598 1.0 0.7899+06 3.3337+04 -2136.0 LIQUID 6.0 0.9738 0.0725 VFRAC 0.2986+04 KG/HR 1.0101 -3.0 -9.0000 0.9778+04 -6.9431 0.0 0.9432 24.3998 -1.0000 0.4506 CAL/GM-K -2.1631+04 330.4633 H2S 0.4633 0.0 HS0.3259 HCO30.3343-07 TOTAL FLOW: KMOL/HR 7.8704+04 CAL/GM -2914.9777+04 -2906.0 MEA+ 0.0 LIQUID 0.3735-05 SUBSTREAM: MIXED PHASE: LIQUID COMPONENTS: KMOL/HR H2O 6.3304 7.9547 2.1843 0.0 0.1630+04 330.3304 1583.0 H3O+ 0.2483 6.3304 7.0 S-2 0.0 MEACOO0.0 0.0 LFRAC 1.0 CO3-2 0.0 0.0 OH0.4662-02 1.2445 7.0 0.0385 1.1500 148.0 0.

4079 23.5685 0.0037 1.0 0.1500 2.0546+05 0.0470 0.0037 3.7899+06 3.8735+05 0.0 0.0 1.0837 35.0 0.0470 0.0 1.1863-05 2.0 0.3469-05 0.7208+06 0.2057 46.1630+04 1.0 0.0 0.5992 2.1280+06 4.0946 2.0837 MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING 3.1333 313.0 0.7338 3.0 1.0 0.8285+04 0.1491 24.0 0.1770 3.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 0.1843 24.0 6.0 0.0598 1.2754 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.1930 74.6834 1.1500 148.0 0.9142+04 339.0 767.4549 6.5255-02 11.1333 12.2787 1.7899+06 0.1492 24.0 0.0725 23.0 0.6759 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 767.0 0.0000 0.0 0.5685 1.0 0.1630+04 330.1774 3.1931 74.0385 43.3428 2.5685 0.0 0.5900 PRODCO2 43.0 0.0 4.5768 0.4549 303.0725 61.0 1.8735+05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0037 157 .9105-10 0.0778 1.3478 0.0 6.9162+04 3678.7208+06 2.0 0.1280+06 4.0 767.0 0.7375+05 0.9738 24.0 0.0 0.7899+06 0.0 12.0 0.0037 TOTAL STREAM PROPERTIES: *** ALL PHASES *** MASSFLOW KG/HR H2O MEA H2S CO2 HCO3MEACOOMEA+ CO3-2 HSS-2 H3O+ OHN2 O2 MASSVFRA MASSSFRA MASSFLMX KG/HR VOLFLMX L/MIN TEMP K PRES ATM MWMX 1.4883 70.6834 MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING RICH-MEA RICH-P1 MISSING MISSING *** LIQUID PHASE *** VOLFLMX L/MIN MASSFLMX KG/HR KMX KCAL-M/HR-SQ SIGMAMX DYNE/CM MUMX CP CPMX KJ/KG-K MWMX 2.1280+06 4.1631+04 330.0 0.MIXED SUBSTREAM PROPERTIES: *** VAPOR PHASE *** VOLFLMX L/MIN MASSFLMX KG/HR KMX KCAL-M/HR-SQ MUMX CP CPMX KJ/KG-K STREAM ID MWMX MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING LEANSTRC MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MEA MISSING 3678.9162+04 1.4883 70.7375+05 0.8735+05 0.9142+04 1.0 0.4608-02 1.1931 74.0 0.0470 0.0 0.4024 66.0 0.7899+06 3.0 0.5768 0.0 0.0 0.8736 61.0 1.0 0.1631+04 1.0 0.

0 0.5569 4608.3807-05 1.6706+06 -38.7998+04 -3774.9884 0.0280+07 0.0 0.1500 2.5385+05 255.8328+06 -38.0 0.9572 0.0000 0.9864 9223.0 0.8079+04 -3775.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9773 -2.0 0.0 3.8429 1.3524 3.0 273.0776 1.4550 -9.1973 0.4057 1.4341 1.0 -1.6418 -2.8552 511.0037 303.1500 1.0 0.0681+04 -387.4737-02 4.8879 -2.0725 0.1175 24.0 -6.7899+06 2.0 0.4633 0.0 0.1412-02 845.5084-02 0.0000 0.8765+04 -2864.3304 255.1405 0.0 0.1140 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.9738 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0126 0.5291 313.0000 0.0 0.9923 18.0 5527.0 0.0 0.7866 4.0 0.0 0.7374 77.0 0.6407 188.7283 0.7734 -1.0 0.1562-02 0.0 0.6006+06 511.2614+04 7978.4570+04 1.8817+05 2.0341 329.2060-03 27.0000 0.0 0.5780 154.9905 18.1427 5.4244+09 -66.0 0.0 3947.0 0.0 158 .2558-02 0.0 -6.0 0.0283 -4.RICHSTPR SEPOUT TREATGAS WATER -----------------------------STREAM ID FROM: TO : RICHSTPR SOL-HEX STRIPPER SEPOUT SEP ---TREATGAS ABSORBER ---WATER ---MIXER SUBSTREAM: MIXED PHASE: MIXED LIQUID VAPOR LIQUID COMPONENTS: KMOL/HR H2O MEA H2S CO2 HCO3MEACOOMEA+ CO3-2 HSS-2 H3O+ OHN2 O2 TOTAL FLOW: KMOL/HR KG/HR L/MIN STATE VARIABLES: TEMP K PRES ATM VFRAC LFRAC SFRAC ENTHALPY: CAL/MOL CAL/GM CAL/SEC ENTROPY: CAL/MOL-K CAL/GM-K DENSITY: MOL/CC GM/CC AVG MW 375.8960-03 0.1843 1.0849 -2.0 -6.0153 7.9120 6.3866 2.5476 6835.9864 0.4925-02 0.0 0.

0 0.0 1.0799-02 1.5685 1.0 0.7375+05 0.4512 0.5780 154.0052 0.9187 77.0 0.5780 0.8429 1.0 0.0 0.6006+06 329.3256 23.0341 MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING 154.7630+06 0.5061-02 0.9738 24.0 0.5255 3.1698+04 1.2215+05 2.8817+05 2.0 1.1500 2.0 1.7374 0.0 0.6958+04 2.0 0.4267 0.0 9223.2007 31.0 0.5223+04 12.1384 1.7374 77.1280+06 4.0 0.0 1.0 0.6711 4.0 1.5385+05 375.5476 303.0 767.5291 9223.0 1.7899+06 2.8735+05 0.8817+05 2.5291 MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING STREAM ID RICHSTPR SEPOUT TREATGAS WATER *** LIQUID PHASE *** VOLFLMX L/MIN MASSFLMX KG/HR KMX KCAL-M/HR-SQ SIGMAMX DYNE/CM MUMX CP CPMX KJ/KG-K MWMX 3.1648 18.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0501 0.8129 4.8444 0.0 0.4587 71.0 0.4646 61.0 0.0 0.0 0.6006+06 1.0 0.8727 1.0725 18.0 0.1843 27.1721 18.5382 69.2684 MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING MISSING 2.0153 TOTAL STREAM PROPERTIES: *** ALL PHASES *** MASSFLOW KG/HR H2O MEA H2S CO2 HCO3MEACOOMEA+ CO3-2 HSS-2 H3O+ OHN2 O2 MASSVFRA MASSSFRA MASSFLMX KG/HR VOLFLMX L/MIN TEMP K PRES ATM MWMX 1.0 0.0 0.0000 0.0776 1.MIXED SUBSTREAM PROPERTIES: *** VAPOR PHASE *** VOLFLMX L/MIN MASSFLMX KG/HR KMX KCAL-M/HR-SQ MUMX CP CPMX KJ/KG-K MWMX 2.0341 1.0 0.4329 0.2755-02 1.7287-02 1.0 0.0 0.0 4608.0 0.9120 313.0 0.0 0.5485+05 6043.0 0.0 0.0153 159 .5476 4608.0 0.5780 0.0 0.0000 18.1500 1.8809-02 1.2047+04 0.7032 0.0 0.1930 74.0 0.0965 27.0 0.0037 4596.9120 9223.0 9.

BLOCK STATUS ---------------------**************************************************************************** * * * Calculations were completed normally * * * All Unit Operation blocks were completed normally * * * All streams were flashed normally * * * All Convergence blocks were completed normally * * * * * * **************************************************************************** 160 .

013 0 0.117 0.042 0 0.058 0.024 0 0.751 0.834 0.324 0.693 0.007 0.024 FLUE BLOW 49.054 0 0 LEAN STPR 123.706 0.024 0 0.681 0.025 404 0 2203 6704 231 0.703 0.001 Temperature C Pressure bar Mole Flow kmol/hr Mass Flow kg/hr Volume Flow m3/hr Enthalpy MMkcal/hr Mass Flow kg/hr H2O 160 1.117 0.681 0.111 0.616 0.013 9851 304996 252757 -247 12831 0 96956 187824 7385 0.324 0.9 36514 847614 828 -2419 576925 261427 9261 0 0 0.024 LEAN MEA 40 2.1 1.1 1845 33232 33 -125 33232 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1845 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 MEA 40 2.024 WATER 40 2.072 0 0.112 0.013 9851 304996 350000 -238 12831 0 96956 187824 7385 0.035 0.62 0.005 0 0 RICH MEA 59.324 0.308 0.224 0.025 404 0 2203 6704 231 0.006 0 0 LEAN P2 123.161 0 0.025 404 0 2203 6704 231 0.1 1 85 0 0 0 85 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 PROD CO2 30 150 1911 83243 277 -180 437 0 82411 360 35 0.681 0.004 0 24 0 1873 13 1 0.2 9542 299433 212907 -229 7284 0 96954 187812 7383 0.023 MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mass Frac H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mole Flow kmol/hr H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mole Frac H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 161 .098 0 0 32049 4280 2083 13 1 0.5 2 38425 930857 9211 -2641 577363 261427 91672 360 35 0.834 0.054 0 0 TREAT GAS 70.627 0.011 0 0 32024 4280 210 0 0 0.877 0.3 1.2 9542 299433 206733 -229 7284 0 96954 187812 7383 0.297 0.042 0 0. Case II.011 0 0 33870 4281 210 0 0 0.111 0.99 0.681 0.1 2.281 0.231 0.224 0.098 0 0 32049 4280 2083 13 1 0.62 0.877 0.1 38362 880953 811 -2608 610178 261513 9262 0 0 0.281 0.072 0 0.231 0.5 2 38425 930857 989 -2681 577363 261427 91672 360 35 0.024 FLUE ABS 40 1.042 0 0.023 FLUE SEP 30 1.98 0.2 38425 930857 989 -2681 577363 261427 91672 360 35 0.616 0.2 9479 249530 225450 -157 40099 86 14544 187452 7349 0.054 0 0 RICH STPR 104.627 0.029 2226 1 330 6691 230 0.5 1.318 0.013 9542 299433 237033 -230 7284 0 96954 187812 7383 0.042 0 0.834 0.098 0 0 32049 4280 2083 13 1 0.318 0.05) FLUE GAS FLUE COOL 40 1.005 0 0.703 0.024 712 0 2203 6705 231 0.883 0.011 0 0 32024 4280 210 0 0 0.235 0 0.042 0 0.024 0 0.627 0.308 0.62 0.111 0.024 712 0 2203 6705 231 0.703 0.231 0.1 36514 847614 828 -2419 576925 261427 9261 0 0 0.7 1. and Case III Aspen simulation results of MEA based CO2 absorption for Case I (CO2 recovery: 85% and lean loading: 0.281 0.Appendix B: Aspen Simulation Results For Case I.006 0 0 RICH P1 59.

11 0.836 0.627 0.012 0 0 RICH P1 59.024 712 0 2203 6705 231 0.623 0.302 0.324 0.005 0 0.703 0.224 0.10) FLUE GAS FLUE COOL 40 1.042 0 0.279 0.681 0.302 0.627 0.013 9851 304996 252757 -247 12831 0 96956 187824 7385 0.681 0.072 0 0.11 0.022 0 0 36701 4846 485 0 0 0.9 2.072 0 0.115 0.627 0.231 0.042 0 0.025 404 0 2203 6704 231 0.99 0.2 9276 245848 219604 -145 36492 69 14543 187400 7344 0.623 0.03 2026 1 330 6690 229 0.324 0.616 0.024 LEAN MEA 40 2.294 0.042 0 0.013 9851 304996 350000 -238 12831 0 96956 187824 7385 0.836 0.098 0 0 36724 4846 2358 15 1 0.1 43677 1008200 946 -2981 690795 296055 21348 0 0 0.013 9542 299433 237033 -230 7284 0 96954 187812 7383 0.9 1.703 0.042 0 0.011 0 0 RICH MEA 59.2 43943 1061780 1128 -3065 661586 295986 103759 412 40 0.Aspen simulation results of MEA based CO2 absorption for Case I (CO2 recovery: 85% and lean loading: 0.036 0.9 2 43943 1061780 10785 -3019 661586 295986 103759 412 40 0.762 0.024 0 0.873 0.042 0 0.9 1.021 0 0 38345 4847 485 0 0 0.098 0 0 36724 4846 2358 15 1 0.012 0 0.703 0.025 WATER 40 2.878 0.022 0 0 36701 4846 485 0 0 0.623 0.616 0.005 0 22 0 1873 15 1 0.024 0 0.024 712 0 2203 6705 231 0.111 0.023 H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mass Frac H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mole Flow kmol/hr H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mole Frac H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 162 .218 0 0.279 0.059 0.721 0.1 1.001 Temperature C Pressure bar Mole Flow kmol/hr Mass Flow kg/hr Volume Flow m3/hr Enthalpy MMkcal/hr Mass Flow kg/hr 160 1.98 0.676 0.279 0.024 FLUE BLOW 49.054 0 0 LEAN STPR 122.054 0 0 TREAT GAS 69.836 0.024 0 0.685 0.1 1 67 0 0 0 67 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 PROD CO2 30 150 1911 83264 276 -179 401 0 82411 412 40 0.023 FLUE SEP 30 1.1 1643 29601 30 -112 29601 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1643 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 MEA 40 2.9 2 43943 1061780 1128 -3065 661586 295986 103759 412 40 0.115 0.2 9542 299433 212907 -229 7284 0 96954 187812 7383 0.098 0 0 36724 4846 2358 15 1 0.025 404 0 2203 6704 231 0.2 9542 299433 206733 -229 7284 0 96954 187812 7383 0.873 0.231 0.025 404 0 2203 6704 231 0.324 0.11 0.054 0 0 RICH STPR 104.024 FLUE ABS 40 1.9 42032 978519 974 -2797 661185 295986 21348 0 0 0.148 0 0.231 0.318 0.676 0.3 1.318 0.008 0.224 0.1 42032 978519 974 -2797 661185 295986 21348 0 0 0.012 0 0 LEAN P2 122.

318 0.775 0.024 712 0 2203 6705 231 0.297 0.869 0.024 FLUE ABS 40 1.114 0.03 1800 1 330 6687 229 0.318 0.231 0.097 0 0 42538 5553 2704 17 1 0.Aspen simulation results of MEA based CO2 absorption for Case I (CO2 recovery: 85% and lean loading: 0.681 0.703 0.2 9048 241685 212905 -132 32423 53 14540 187332 7337 0.678 0.5 1.042 0 0.627 0.024 0 0.024 0 0.06 0.681 0.025 404 0 2203 6704 231 0.199 0 0.024 LEAN MEA 40 2.025 404 0 2203 6704 231 0.042 0 0.017 0 0 LEAN P2 122.1 48903 1141760 1156 -3268 765979 339174 36606 0 0 0.291 0.013 9851 304996 350000 -238 12831 0 96956 187824 7385 0.224 0.3 1.042 0 0.013 9542 299433 237033 -230 7284 0 96954 187812 7383 0.627 0.009 0.324 0.053 0 0 RICH STPR 104 2 50814 1225050 11388 -3492 766333 339174 119020 480 46 0.053 0 0 LEAN STPR 122.837 0.025 404 0 2203 6704 231 0.627 0.097 0 0 42538 5553 2704 17 1 0.031 0 0 43933 5553 832 0 0 0.024 FLUE BLOW 49.042 0 0.15) FLUE GAS FLUE COOL 40 1.231 0.01 0 0.837 0.1 1 84 0 0 0 84 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 PROD CO2 30 150 1911 83293 275 -179 354 0 82414 480 46 0.616 0.1 1412 25433 26 -96 25433 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1412 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 MEA 40 2.671 0.2 9542 299433 206733 -229 7284 0 96954 187812 7383 0.109 0.869 0.703 0.671 0.703 0.025 WATER 40 2.134 0 0.324 0.072 0 0.989 0.324 0.224 0.231 0.626 0.006 0.109 0.024 0 0.114 0.001 Temperature C Pressure bar Mole Flow kmol/hr Mass Flow kg/hr Volume Flow m3/hr Enthalpy MMkcal/hr Mass Flow kg/hr 160 1.001 20 0 1873 17 1 0.2 9542 299433 212907 -229 7284 0 96954 187812 7383 0.004 0 0.277 0.616 0.9 48903 1141760 1156 -3268 765979 339174 36606 0 0 0.297 0.739 0.2 50814 1225050 1301 -3543 766333 339174 119020 480 46 0.626 0.024 712 0 2203 6705 231 0.017 0 0 RICH MEA 60 1.042 0 0.626 0.053 0 0 TREAT GAS 67 1.277 0.023 H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mass Frac H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mole Flow kmol/hr H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mole Frac H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 163 .98 0.837 0.032 0 0 42518 5553 832 0 0 0.017 0 0 RICH P1 60 2 50814 1225050 1301 -3543 766333 339174 119020 480 46 0.013 9851 304996 252757 -247 12831 0 96956 187824 7385 0.072 0 0.11 0.873 0.097 0 0 42538 5553 2704 17 1 0.037 0.023 FLUE SEP 30 1.1 50319 1167300 1114 -3446 791472 339227 36605 0 0 0.109 0.5 2.277 0.032 0 0 42518 5553 832 0 0 0.

108 0.2 1.097 0 0 50211 6489 3172 20 2 0.025 404 0 2203 6704 231 0.9 1.013 9851 304996 350000 -238 12831 0 96956 187824 7385 0.112 0.022 0 0 LEAN P2 121.024 0 0.324 0.117 0 0.024 0 0.024 LEAN MEA 40 2.003 0 0.031 1536 1 330 6684 229 0.2 9542 299433 206733 -229 7284 0 96954 187812 7383 0.042 0 0.292 0.224 0.989 0.98 0.11 0.024 FLUE BLOW 49.112 0.671 0.666 0.627 0.1 57983 1357830 1396 -3891 904272 396368 57189 0 0 0.1 1149 20701 21 -78 20701 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1149 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 MEA 40 2.275 0.324 0.20) FLUE GAS FLUE COOL 40 1.628 0.022 0 0 RICH MEA 59.7 1.703 0.868 0.628 0.013 9542 299433 237033 -230 7284 0 96954 187812 7383 0.053 0 0 RICH STPR 104.008 0 0.8 2 59894 1441160 14726 -4113 904561 396368 139600 573 55 0.9 57983 1357830 1396 -3891 904272 396368 57189 0 0 0.866 0.011 0.053 0 0 TREAT GAS 64.042 0 0.681 0.318 0.175 0 0.628 0.681 0.072 0 0.097 0 0 50211 6489 3172 20 2 0.042 0 0.324 0.703 0.318 0.838 0.231 0.042 0 0 50195 6489 1299 0 0 0.001 Temperature C Pressure bar Mole Flow kmol/hr Mass Flow kg/hr Volume Flow m3/hr Enthalpy MMkcal/hr Mass Flow kg/hr 160 1.Aspen simulation results of MEA based CO2 absorption for Case I (CO2 recovery: 85% and lean loading: 0.108 0.8 2 59894 1441160 1530 -4176 904561 396368 139600 573 55 0.072 0 0.9 2.703 0.025 404 0 2203 6704 231 0.042 0 0.866 0.026 WATER 40 2.231 0.097 0 0 50211 6489 3172 20 2 0.024 712 0 2203 6705 231 0.791 0.022 0 0 RICH P1 59.2 9542 299433 212907 -229 7284 0 96954 187812 7383 0.024 712 0 2203 6705 231 0.292 0.616 0.2 59894 1441160 1530 -4176 904561 396368 139600 573 55 0.007 0.3 1.061 0.761 0.224 0.627 0.838 0.042 0 0 50195 6489 1299 0 0 0.025 404 0 2203 6704 231 0.053 0 0 LEAN STPR 121.275 0.666 0.616 0.001 16 0 1873 20 2 0.024 0 0.1 59131 1378540 1338 -4064 924948 396406 57184 0 0 0.023 FLUE SEP 30 1.023 H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mass Frac H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mole Flow kmol/hr H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mole Frac H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 164 .231 0.275 0.042 0 0.627 0.838 0.013 9851 304996 252757 -247 12831 0 96956 187824 7385 0.041 0 0 51342 6490 1299 0 0 0.2 8780 236814 204903 -117 27671 39 14538 187239 7328 0.108 0.038 0.1 1 38 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 PROD CO2 30 150 1911 83329 273 -179 289 0 82411 573 55 0.024 FLUE ABS 40 1.288 0.

072 0 0.274 0.324 0.231 0.6 1.024 712 0 2203 6705 231 0.108 0.1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 PROD CO2 30 150 1911 83385 271 -179 191 0 82411 713 69 0.097 0 0 60768 7790 3825 25 2 0.097 0 0 60768 7790 3825 25 2 0.9 70500 1656330 1728 -4750 1094570 475859 85909 0 0 0.002 0 0.287 0.009 0.806 0.6 2 72411 1739720 16362 -4975 1094760 475859 168321 713 69 0.024 FLUE BLOW 49.1 71388 1672350 1650 -4924 1110550 475883 85911 0 0 0.224 0.839 0.024 0 0.318 0.027 WATER 40 2.1 888 16005 16 -60 16005 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 888 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 MEA 40 2.063 0.025 404 0 2203 6704 231 0.2 9542 299433 212907 -229 7284 0 96954 187812 7383 0.627 0.324 0.099 0 0.681 0.025 404 0 2203 6704 231 0.627 0.042 0 0.3 1.052 0 0 60758 7790 1952 0 0 0.001 Temperature C Pressure bar Mole Flow kmol/hr Mass Flow kg/hr Volume Flow m3/hr Enthalpy MMkcal/hr Mass Flow kg/hr 160 1.013 9851 304996 350000 -238 12831 0 96956 187824 7385 0.053 0 0 RICH STPR 103.98 0.629 0.231 0.013 0.108 0.023 H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mass Frac H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mole Flow kmol/hr H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mole Frac H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 165 .681 0.2 9542 299433 206733 -229 7284 0 96954 187812 7383 0.703 0.111 0.052 0 0 60758 7790 1952 0 0 0.839 0.231 0.629 0.285 0.023 FLUE SEP 30 1.109 0.287 0.1 70500 1656330 1728 -4750 1094570 475859 85909 0 0 0.111 0.024 0 0.039 0.042 0 0.6 2 72411 1739720 1846 -5050 1094760 475859 168321 713 69 0.324 0.053 0 0 TREAT GAS 60.988 0.9 2.862 0.053 0 0 LEAN STPR 120.629 0.25) FLUE GAS FLUE COOL 40 1.318 0.2 8520 232064 196915 -103 23082 24 14545 187099 7314 0.108 0.032 1281 0 331 6679 229 0.661 0.224 0.027 0 0 RICH MEA 58.024 0 0.661 0.862 0.627 0.274 0.616 0.Aspen simulation results of MEA based CO2 absorption for Case I (CO2 recovery: 85% and lean loading: 0.024 LEAN MEA 40 2.042 0 0.274 0.051 0 0 61645 7791 1952 0 0 0.9 1.072 0 0.784 0.664 0.042 0 0.9 1.839 0.028 0 0 RICH P1 58.001 11 0 1873 25 2 0.013 9542 299433 237033 -230 7284 0 96954 187812 7383 0.703 0.616 0.024 FLUE ABS 40 1.864 0.15 0 0.025 404 0 2203 6704 231 0.024 712 0 2203 6705 231 0.703 0.028 0 0 LEAN P2 120.2 72411 1739720 1846 -5050 1094760 475859 168321 713 69 0.006 0 0.042 0 0.097 0 0 60768 7790 3825 25 2 0.013 9851 304996 252757 -247 12831 0 96956 187824 7385 0.

082 0 0.053 0 0 RICH STPR 101.627 0.63 0.2 9542 299433 206733 -229 7284 0 96954 187812 7383 0.318 0.013 9542 299433 237033 -230 7284 0 96954 187812 7383 0.1 628 11318 11 -43 11318 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 628 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 MEA 40 2.023 FLUE SEP 30 1.061 0 0 75410 9611 2887 0 0 0.808 0.231 0.2 8260 227294 188656 -89 18557 15 14540 186889 7294 0.107 0.63 0.001 Temperature C Pressure bar Mole Flow kmol/hr Mass Flow kg/hr Volume Flow m3/hr Enthalpy MMkcal/hr Mass Flow kg/hr 160 1.097 0 0 75413 9611 4759 33 3 0.042 0 0.109 0.858 0.272 0.703 0.072 0 0.655 0.033 0 0 RICH P1 56.63 0.703 0.107 0.125 0 0.681 0.013 9851 304996 350000 -238 12831 0 96956 187824 7385 0.627 0.231 0.024 0 0.224 0.024 FLUE ABS 40 1.9 1.024 712 0 2203 6705 231 0.053 0 0 TREAT GAS 56.024 0 0.681 0.655 0.657 0.283 0.616 0.1 87908 2072650 2189 -5949 1358540 587067 127044 0 0 0.9 87908 2072650 2189 -5949 1358540 587067 127044 0 0 0.023 H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mass Frac H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mole Flow kmol/hr H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mole Frac H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 166 .987 0.042 0 0.024 LEAN MEA 40 2.025 404 0 2203 6704 231 0.024 712 0 2203 6705 231 0.84 0.822 0.324 0.98 0.703 0.3 1.024 FLUE BLOW 49.616 0.097 0 0 75413 9611 4759 33 3 0.318 0.013 9851 304996 252757 -247 12831 0 96956 187824 7385 0.017 0.2 89819 2156120 2286 -6268 1358580 587067 209455 923 90 0.024 0 0.011 0.9 1.042 0 0.042 0 0.272 0.282 0.025 404 0 2203 6704 231 0.028 WATER 40 2.1 1.324 0.272 0.072 0 0.283 0.1 88536 2083980 2088 -6127 1369860 587082 127040 0 0 0.061 0 0 76039 9611 2887 0 0 0.04 0.9 2 89819 2156120 2286 -6268 1358580 587067 209455 923 90 0.858 0.107 0.231 0.001 0 0.859 0.224 0.001 2 0 1873 33 3 0.30) FLUE GAS FLUE COOL 40 1.032 1030 0 330 6671 228 0.042 0 0.Aspen simulation results of MEA based CO2 absorption for Case I (CO2 recovery: 85% and lean loading: 0.627 0.109 0.9 2 89819 2156120 18386 -6177 1358580 587067 209455 923 90 0.053 0 0 LEAN STPR 119.324 0.033 0 0 RICH MEA 56.064 0.1 0 15 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 PROD CO2 30 150 1911 83469 266 -178 44 0 82411 923 90 0.097 0 0 75413 9611 4759 33 3 0.001 0 0.109 0.84 0.033 0 0 LEAN P2 119.061 0 0 75410 9611 2887 0 0 0.84 0.1 2.025 404 0 2203 6704 231 0.2 9542 299433 212907 -229 7284 0 96954 187812 7383 0.

7 1.231 0.703 0.054 0 0 TREAT GAS 70.324 0.98 0.117 0.098 0 0 26657 3557 1728 11 1 0.621 0.297 0.318 0.024 590 0 1825 5555 191 0.9 30370 704909 689 -2012 479864 217277 7768 0 0 0.627 0.681 0.883 0.029 1829 1 274 5544 190 0.1 1.042 0 0.231 0.324 0.035 0.013 8162 252711 290000 -197 10631 0 80335 155626 6119 0.042 0 0.024 LEAN MEA 40 2.098 0 0 26657 3557 1728 11 1 0.007 0.2 31953 773883 822 -2229 480226 217277 76053 298 29 0.693 0.024 0 0.013 7907 248102 196399 -191 6035 0 80334 155616 6118 0.024 590 0 1825 5555 191 0.054 0 0 RICH STPR 104.023 FLUE SEP 30 1.058 0.2 7907 248102 176408 -190 6035 0 80334 155616 6118 0.1 31886 732261 674 -2168 507145 217348 7769 0 0 0.3 1.99 0.025 335 0 1825 5555 191 0.627 0.308 0.281 0.011 0 0 26636 3557 177 0 0 0.703 0.024 FLUE ABS 40 1.024 0 0.111 0.098 0 0 26657 3557 1728 11 1 0.627 0.004 0 20 0 1552 11 1 0.Aspen simulation results of MEA based CO2 absorption for Case II (CO2 recovery: 85% and lean loading: 0.072 0 0.111 0.681 0.681 0.224 0.621 0.05) FLUE GAS FLUE COOL 40 1.011 0 0 26636 3557 177 0 0 0.2 7839 206480 186363 -129 32954 71 12050 155317 6089 0.011 0 0 28151 3558 177 0 0 0.054 0 0 LEAN STPR 123.6 1.013 0 0.834 0.023 MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mole Flow kmol/hr H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mole Frac H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 167 .707 0.2 7907 248102 171293 -190 6035 0 80334 155616 6118 0.318 0.042 0 0.877 0.752 0.117 0.112 0.001 Temperature C Pressure bar Mole Flow kmol/hr Mass Flow kg/hr Volume Flow m3/hr EnthalpyMMkcal/hr Mass Flow kg/hr H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mass Frac H2O 160 1.024 0 0.703 0.308 0.025 335 0 1825 5555 191 0.7 2 31953 773883 822 -2229 480226 217277 76053 298 29 0.233 0 0.006 0 0 LEAN P2 123.281 0.013 8162 252711 209428 -205 10631 0 80335 155626 6119 0.224 0.877 0.1 1 47 0 0 0 47 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 PROD CO2 30 150 1583 68974 229 -149 362 0 68285 298 29 0.281 0.042 0 0.7 2 31953 773883 7717 -2196 480226 217277 76053 298 29 0.324 0.231 0.1 1512 27247 27 -103 27247 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1512 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 MEA 40 2.025 335 0 1825 5555 191 0.005 0 0.006 0 0 RICH MEA 59.681 0.072 0 0.616 0.042 0 0.024 WATER 40 2.16 0 0.834 0.834 0.621 0.111 0.006 0 0 RICH P1 59.024 FLUE BLOW 49.1 2.616 0.1 30370 704909 689 -2012 479864 217277 7768 0 0 0.

2 7907 248102 171293 -190 6035 0 80334 155616 6118 0.9 34925 812978 809 -2324 549417 245816 17745 0 0 0.10) FLUE GAS FLUE COOL 40 1.616 0.99 0.042 0 0.021 0 0 31845 4025 403 0 0 0.623 0.042 0 0.836 0.098 0 0 30516 4024 1955 12 1 0.836 0.Aspen simulation results of MEA based CO2 absorption for Case II (CO2 recovery: 85% and lean loading: 0.025 335 0 1825 5555 191 0.722 0.023 H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mass Frac H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mole Flow kmol/hr H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mole Frac H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 168 .042 0 0.1 1348 24284 24 -92 24284 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1348 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 MEA 40 2.627 0.023 FLUE SEP 30 1.1 1 56 0 0 0 56 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 PROD CO2 30 150 1583 68992 228 -149 332 0 68285 341 33 0.1 2 36508 881969 937 -2546 549749 245816 86030 341 33 0.231 0.324 0.324 0.616 0.231 0.054 0 0 LEAN STPR 122.013 8162 252711 290000 -197 10631 0 80335 155626 6119 0.042 0 0.231 0.024 590 0 1825 5555 191 0.147 0 0.2 36508 881969 937 -2546 549749 245816 86030 341 33 0.025 WATER 40 2.98 0.279 0.005 0 0.024 0 0.115 0.098 0 0 30516 4024 1955 12 1 0.627 0.836 0.024 590 0 1825 5555 191 0.03 1665 1 274 5543 190 0.676 0.302 0.013 7907 248102 196399 -191 6035 0 80334 155616 6118 0.022 0 0 30497 4024 403 0 0 0.703 0.9 2.873 0.279 0.072 0 0.703 0.042 0 0.623 0.054 0 0 TREAT GAS 68.318 0.224 0.036 0.098 0 0 30516 4024 1955 12 1 0.685 0.2 7672 203456 181556 -120 29990 57 12050 155274 6085 0.318 0.676 0.025 335 0 1825 5555 191 0.11 0.115 0.025 335 0 1825 5555 191 0.013 8162 252711 209428 -205 10631 0 80335 155626 6119 0.279 0.1 34925 812978 809 -2324 549417 245816 17745 0 0 0.059 0.763 0.681 0.111 0.623 0.1 2 36508 881969 9006 -2508 549749 245816 86030 341 33 0.627 0.873 0.024 FLUE ABS 40 1.9 1.302 0.022 0 0 30497 4024 403 0 0 0.9 1.1 36274 837323 785 -2476 573704 245873 17746 0 0 0.681 0.294 0.054 0 0 RICH STPR 105.224 0.011 0 0 RICH MEA 60 1.024 0 0.3 1.324 0.012 0 0 LEAN P2 122.024 FLUE BLOW 49.11 0.024 LEAN MEA 40 2.005 0 18 0 1552 12 1 0.2 7907 248102 176408 -190 6035 0 80334 155616 6118 0.001 Temperature C Pressure bar Mole Flow kmol/hr Mass Flow kg/hr Volume Flow m3/hr EnthalpyMMkcal/h Mass Flow kg/hr 160 1.008 0.703 0.024 0 0.11 0.217 0 0.012 0 0.012 0 0 RICH P1 60.072 0 0.878 0.

5 2.324 0.616 0.627 0.133 0 0.017 0 0 RICH MEA 60.072 0 0.1 2 42247 1018260 10481 -2901 637280 281806 98739 398 38 0.053 0 0 LEAN STPR 122.678 0.989 0.318 0.277 0.2 7482 199984 175961 -109 26595 43 12048 155218 6079 0.2 7907 248102 176408 -190 6035 0 80334 155616 6118 0.024 0 0.98 0.097 0 0 35374 4613 2244 14 1 0.224 0.776 0.032 0 0 35358 4613 692 0 0 0.001 Temperature C Pressure bar Mole Flow kmol/hr Mass Flow kg/hr Volume Flow m3/hr EnthalpyMMkcal/h Mass Flow kg/hr 160 1.671 0.231 0.2 7907 248102 171293 -190 6035 0 80334 155616 6118 0.741 0.703 0.626 0.025 335 0 1825 5555 191 0.017 0 0 RICH P1 60.06 0.671 0.017 0 0 LEAN P2 122.004 0 0.023 H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mass Frac H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mole Flow kmol/hr H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mole Frac H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 169 .5 1.013 7907 248102 196399 -191 6035 0 80334 155616 6118 0.031 0 0 36516 4614 692 0 0 0.053 0 0 RICH STPR 105.3 1.9 40664 949248 961 -2717 636988 281806 30454 0 0 0.109 0.837 0.616 0.03 1476 1 274 5541 190 0.001 16 0 1552 14 1 0.009 0.053 0 0 TREAT GAS 66.025 335 0 1825 5555 191 0.626 0.8 1.024 LEAN MEA 40 2.627 0.113 0.037 0.Aspen simulation results of MEA based CO2 absorption for Case II (CO2 recovery: 85% and lean loading: 0.042 0 0.627 0.042 0 0.297 0.231 0.837 0.681 0.15) FLUE GAS FLUE COOL 40 1.023 FLUE SEP 30 1.042 0 0.024 590 0 1825 5555 191 0.626 0.097 0 0 35374 4613 2244 14 1 0.2 42247 1018260 1081 -2946 637280 281806 98739 398 38 0.297 0.703 0.1 1 44 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 PROD CO2 30 150 1583 69014 228 -149 293 0 68285 398 38 0.025 WATER 40 2.224 0.1 40664 949248 961 -2717 636988 281806 30454 0 0 0.318 0.025 335 0 1825 5555 191 0.837 0.013 8162 252711 290000 -197 10631 0 80335 155626 6119 0.01 0 0.097 0 0 35374 4613 2244 14 1 0.024 590 0 1825 5555 191 0.024 FLUE ABS 40 1.113 0.87 0.873 0.277 0.1 1155 20815 21 -79 20815 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1155 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 MEA 40 2.277 0.072 0 0.324 0.703 0.013 8162 252711 209428 -205 10631 0 80335 155626 6119 0.324 0.1 2 42247 1018260 1081 -2946 637280 281806 98739 398 38 0.291 0.042 0 0.11 0.1 1.032 0 0 35358 4613 692 0 0 0.006 0.024 0 0.042 0 0.87 0.197 0 0.109 0.231 0.109 0.024 FLUE BLOW 49.681 0.024 0 0.1 41822 970144 926 -2864 657841 281850 30453 0 0 0.

627 0.628 0.024 0 0.025 335 0 1825 5555 191 0.9 1.003 0 0.866 0.042 0 0.3 1.171 0 0.042 0 0.031 1239 1 274 5538 190 0.023 0 0 LEAN P2 121.7 1.9 48625 1138720 1172 -3264 758226 331914 48575 0 0 0.2 7241 195611 168742 -95 22319 32 12053 155136 6071 0.275 0.666 0.9 2 50209 1207760 1282 -3500 758462 331914 116860 480 46 0.628 0.2 7907 248102 171293 -190 6035 0 80334 155616 6118 0.616 0.839 0.053 0 0 RICH STPR 104.98 0.287 0.013 8162 252711 209428 -205 10631 0 80335 155626 6119 0.062 0.1 1 42 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 PROD CO2 30 150 1583 69047 226 -148 236 0 68285 480 46 0.793 0.Aspen simulation results of MEA based CO2 absorption for Case II (CO2 recovery: 85% and lean loading: 0.043 0 0 42088 5434 1104 0 0 0.053 0 0 LEAN STPR 121.001 Temperature C Pressure bar Mole Flow kmol/hr Mass Flow kg/hr Volume Flow m3/hr Enthalpy MMkcal/hr Mass Flow kg/hr 160 1.324 0.022 0 0 RICH MEA 59.1 48625 1138720 1172 -3264 758226 331914 48575 0 0 0.112 0.291 0.023 0 0 RICH P1 59.666 0.026 WATER 40 2.072 0 0.043 0 0 42088 5434 1104 0 0 0.1 919 16548 17 -62 16548 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 919 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 MEA 40 2.703 0.9 1.011 0.042 0 0.868 0.1 49543 1155270 1122 -3406 774746 331945 48580 0 0 0.013 7907 248102 196399 -191 6035 0 80334 155616 6118 0.013 8162 252711 290000 -197 10631 0 80335 155626 6119 0.042 0 0.053 0 0 TREAT GAS 63.231 0.324 0.024 0 0.989 0.2 50209 1207760 1282 -3501 758462 331914 116860 480 46 0.024 590 0 1825 5555 191 0.097 0 0 42101 5434 2655 17 1 0.097 0 0 42101 5434 2655 17 1 0.108 0.866 0.765 0.9 2.616 0.291 0.324 0.024 FLUE ABS 40 1.628 0.20) FLUE GAS FLUE COOL 40 1.114 0 0.671 0.275 0.224 0.627 0.024 FLUE BLOW 49.024 LEAN MEA 40 2.224 0.001 13 0 1552 17 1 0.231 0.008 0 0.318 0.024 590 0 1825 5555 191 0.042 0 0.108 0.112 0.097 0 0 42101 5434 2655 17 1 0.703 0.703 0.11 0.072 0 0.023 FLUE SEP 30 1.007 0.2 7907 248102 176408 -190 6035 0 80334 155616 6118 0.839 0.231 0.023 H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mass Frac H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mole Flow kmol/hr H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mole Frac H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 170 .108 0.038 0.024 0 0.025 335 0 1825 5555 191 0.042 0 0 43005 5434 1104 0 0 0.9 2 50209 1207760 12530 -3448 758462 331914 116860 480 46 0.839 0.318 0.025 335 0 1825 5555 191 0.627 0.681 0.275 0.681 0.

109 0.224 0.024 590 0 1825 5555 191 0.627 0.148 0 0.2 7907 248102 176408 -190 6035 0 80334 155616 6118 0.988 0.627 0.839 0.042 0 0.863 0.025 335 0 1825 5555 191 0.98 0.024 0 0.273 0.231 0.028 0 0 LEAN P2 120.042 0 0.681 0.681 0.273 0.053 0 0 RICH STPR 103.028 0 0 RICH P1 58.098 0 0.024 LEAN MEA 40 2.039 0.703 0.1 0 14 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 PROD CO2 30 150 1583 69092 224 -148 157 0 68285 592 57 0.006 0 0.024 0 0.097 0 0 50510 6473 3180 21 2 0.1 58604 1376880 1437 -3949 909802 395396 71683 0 0 0.616 0.013 0.616 0.629 0.001 Temperature C Pressure bar Mole Flow kmol/hr Mass Flow kg/hr Volume Flow m3/hr Enthalpy MMkcal/hr Mass Flow kg/hr 160 1.839 0.025 335 0 1825 5555 191 0.9 58604 1376880 1437 -3949 909802 395396 71683 0 0 0.629 0.027 0 0 RICH MEA 58.1 714 12855 13 -49 12855 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 714 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 MEA 40 2.023 49.661 0.024 590 0 1825 5555 191 0.108 0.2 60187 1445970 1534 -4197 909960 395396 139968 592 57 0.629 0.2 7907 248102 171293 -190 6035 0 80334 155616 6118 0.013 8162 252711 209428 -205 10631 0 80335 155626 6119 0.053 0 0 TREAT GAS 60.013 7907 248102 196399 -191 6035 0 80334 155616 6118 0.9 1.839 0.023 FLUE SEP 30 1.8 2 60187 1445970 13837 -4135 909960 395396 139968 592 57 0.024 H 2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mass Frac H 2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mole Flow kmol/hr H 2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mole Frac H 2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 171 .664 0.9 2.052 0 0 50502 6473 1629 0 0 0.052 0 0 50502 6473 1629 0 0 0.7 1.324 0.318 0.287 0.097 0 0 50510 6473 3180 21 2 0.052 0 0 51219 6473 1629 0 0 0.8 2 60187 1445970 1534 -4197 909960 395396 139968 592 57 0.024 FLUE BLOW FLUE ABS 40 1.661 0.287 0.053 0 0 LEAN STPR 120.318 0.072 0 0.Aspen simulation results of MEA based CO2 absorption for Case II (CO2 recovery: 85% and lean loading: 0.285 0.231 0.027 WATER 40 2.6 1.1 59321 1389830 1371 -4092 922728 395417 71689 0 0 0.3 1.703 0.808 0.862 0.108 0.2 7041 191962 162598 -84 18803 21 12055 155023 6060 0.042 0 0.862 0.025 335 0 1825 5555 191 0.042 0 0.224 0.024 0 0.002 0 0.11 0.001 9 0 1552 21 2 0.627 0.032 1044 0 274 5534 189 0.703 0.097 0 0 50510 6473 3180 21 2 0.009 0.273 0.324 0.063 0.108 0.324 0.25) FLUE GAS FLUE COOL 40 1.786 0.072 0 0.042 0 0.231 0.013 8162 252711 290000 -197 10631 0 80335 155626 6119 0.11 0.

231 0.013 8162 252711 290000 -197 10631 0 80335 155626 6119 0.107 0.63 0.703 0.04 0.2 74570 1789950 1898 -5203 1128000 487354 173749 767 75 0.231 0.053 0 0 TREAT GAS 56.023 FLUE SEP 30 1.224 0.081 0 0.033 0 0 RICH P1 56.013 8162 252711 209428 -205 10631 0 80335 155626 6119 0.097 0 0 62614 7978 3948 27 2 0.703 0.859 0.318 0.283 0.001 0 0.324 0.324 0.318 0.98 0.107 0.9 2 74570 1789950 1898 -5203 1128000 487354 173749 767 75 0.84 0.001 2 0 1552 27 2 0.025 335 0 1825 5555 191 0.9 2 74570 1789950 15231 -5128 1128000 487354 173749 767 75 0.2 6835 188174 156035 -73 15223 12 12047 154848 6043 0.7 1.272 0.124 0 0.042 0 0.655 0.681 0.1 512 9224 9 -35 9224 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 512 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 MEA 40 2.024 590 0 1825 5555 191 0.097 0 0 62614 7978 3948 27 2 0.033 0 0 RICH MEA 56.616 0.Aspen simulation results of MEA based CO2 absorption for Case II (CO2 recovery: 85% and lean loading: 0.9 1.001 0 0.627 0.655 0.013 7907 248102 196399 -191 6035 0 80334 155616 6118 0.627 0.024 LEAN MEA 40 2.858 0.028 WATER 40 2.033 0 0 LEAN P2 119.272 0.001 Temperature C Pressure bar Mole Flow kmol/hr Mass Flow kg/hr Volume Flow m3/hr Enthalpy MMkcal/hr Mass Flow kg/hr 160 1.1 1.1 2.042 0 0.061 0 0 62612 7978 2396 0 0 0.072 0 0.809 0.061 0 0 62612 7978 2396 0 0 0.072 0 0.053 0 0 RICH STPR 101.681 0.9 72986 1720780 1818 -4939 1127970 487354 105464 0 0 0.109 0.107 0.042 0 0.324 0.024 0 0.032 845 0 274 5528 189 0.657 0.024 0 0.025 335 0 1825 5555 191 0.024 H 2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mass Frac H 2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mole Flow kmol/hr H 2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mole Frac H 2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 172 .63 0.061 0 0 63124 7979 2396 0 0 0.1 73499 1730020 1733 -5086 1137190 487366 105462 0 0 0.30) FLUE GAS FLUE COOL 40 1.023 49.064 0.987 0.84 0.109 0.823 0.017 0.024 FLUE BLOW FLUE ABS 40 1.231 0.283 0.84 0.053 0 0 LEAN STPR 119.011 0.024 0 0.282 0.858 0.042 0 0.1 0 12 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 PROD CO2 30 150 1583 69162 221 -148 35 0 68285 767 75 0.627 0.703 0.025 335 0 1825 5555 191 0.1 72986 1720780 1818 -4939 1127970 487354 105464 0 0 0.63 0.272 0.2 7907 248102 171293 -190 6035 0 80334 155616 6118 0.024 590 0 1825 5555 191 0.224 0.042 0 0.616 0.2 7907 248102 176408 -190 6035 0 80334 155616 6118 0.3 1.097 0 0 62614 7978 3948 27 2 0.109 0.

681 0.072 0 0.2 5384 142001 127881 -88 22328 49 8309 107116 4199 0.621 0.231 0.703 0.627 0.1 22097 507457 467 -1503 351466 150605 5386 0 0 0.024 0 0.681 0.23 0 0.098 0 0 18501 2465 1192 7 1 0.117 0.111 0.006 0 0 LEAN P2 123.054 0 0 LEAN STPR 123.1 1024 18442 19 -70 18442 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1024 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 MEA 40 2.324 0.1 2.011 0 0 19509 2466 122 0 0 0.054 0 0 TREAT GAS 70.013 5453 171105 135448 -131 4162 0 55403 107321 4219 0.059 0.025 231 0 1259 3831 132 0.2 5453 171105 121661 -131 4162 0 55403 107321 4219 0.024 LEAN MEA 40 2.754 0.Aspen simulation results of MEA based CO2 absorption for Case III (CO2 recovery: 85% and lean loading: 0.025 231 0 1259 3831 132 0.883 0.324 0.042 0 0.9 21074 488992 478 -1396 333050 150556 5387 0 0 0.001 Temperature C Pressure bar Mole Flow kmol/hr Mass Flow kg/hr Volume Flow m3/hr Enthalpy MMkcal/hr Mass Flow kg/hr 160 1.05) FLUE GAS FLUE COOL 40 1.006 0 0 RICH P1 60.024 WATER 40 2.035 0.112 0.2 2 22166 536560 570 -1546 333300 150556 52480 205 20 0.013 5629 174283 200000 -136 7332 0 55404 107328 4220 0.297 0.03 1239 1 189 3824 131 0.616 0.616 0.703 0.703 0.024 0 0.098 0 0 18501 2465 1192 7 1 0.231 0.013 5629 174283 144433 -141 7332 0 55404 107328 4220 0.098 0 0 18501 2465 1192 7 1 0.98 0.224 0.224 0.1 1 41 0 0 0 41 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 PROD CO2 30 150 1092 47568 158 -103 250 0 47093 205 20 0.835 0.621 0.2 22166 536560 570 -1546 333300 150556 52480 205 20 0.004 0 14 0 1070 7 1 0.308 0.006 0 0 RICH MEA 60.2 2 22166 536560 5447 -1523 333300 150556 52480 205 20 0.007 0.627 0.1 1.877 0.627 0.681 0.324 0.111 0.024 0 0.621 0.281 0.693 0.2 1.042 0 0.877 0.835 0.024 FLUE BLOW 49.023 H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mass Frac H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mole Flow kmol/hr H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mole Frac H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 173 .157 0 0.013 0 0.281 0.835 0.024 407 0 1259 3831 132 0.025 231 0 1259 3831 132 0.231 0.117 0.042 0 0.71 0.3 1.3 1.005 0 0.2 5453 171105 118133 -131 4162 0 55403 107321 4219 0.1 21074 488992 478 -1396 333050 150556 5387 0 0 0.281 0.111 0.072 0 0.318 0.042 0 0.023 FLUE SEP 30 1.99 0.011 0 0 18487 2465 122 0 0 0.011 0 0 18487 2465 122 0 0 0.308 0.024 FLUE ABS 40 1.054 0 0 RICH STPR 105.024 407 0 1259 3831 132 0.681 0.318 0.042 0 0.

012 0 0 RICH P1 60.2 25361 612388 650 -1768 382057 170589 59484 236 23 0.053 0 0 RICH STPR 105.042 0 0.302 0.624 0.024 FLUE BLOW 49.616 0.836 0.98 0.873 0.022 0 0 21195 2793 282 0 0 0.681 0.231 0.726 0.681 0.023 FLUE SEP 30 1.008 0.115 0.627 0.231 0.024 407 0 1259 3831 132 0.1 1 32 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 PROD CO2 30 150 1092 47581 158 -103 229 0 47093 236 23 0.279 0.2 5453 171105 121661 -131 4162 0 55403 107321 4219 0.111 0.224 0.318 0.231 0.703 0.294 0.4 2 25361 612388 650 -1768 382057 170589 59484 236 23 0.2 5453 171105 118133 -131 4162 0 55403 107321 4219 0.1 25177 581192 545 -1718 398172 170627 12392 0 0 0.072 0 0.1 24269 564808 562 -1615 381828 170589 12391 0 0 0.053 0 0 TREAT GAS 68.013 5629 174283 200000 -136 7332 0 55404 107328 4220 0.097 0 0 21207 2793 1352 8 1 0.025 231 0 1259 3831 132 0.6 1.024 0 0.025 WATER 40 2.873 0.11 0.097 0 0 21207 2793 1352 8 1 0.001 Temperature C Pressure bar Mole Flow kmol/hr Mass Flow kg/hr Volume Flow m3/hr Enthalpy MMkcal/hr Mass Flow kg/hr 160 1.042 0 0.836 0.224 0.005 0 0.072 0 0.676 0.053 0 0 LEAN STPR 122.1 909 16372 16 -62 16372 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 909 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 MEA 40 2.024 0 0.012 0 0.024 0 0.024 FLUE ABS 40 1.097 0 0 21207 2793 1352 8 1 0.302 0.2 5269 139908 124549 -81 20277 39 8311 107085 4196 0.024 407 0 1259 3831 132 0.279 0.324 0.836 0.025 231 0 1259 3831 132 0.765 0.318 0.685 0.013 5629 174283 144433 -141 7332 0 55404 107328 4220 0.9 24269 564808 562 -1615 381828 170589 12391 0 0 0.627 0.021 0 0 22102 2793 282 0 0 0.3 1.023 H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mass Frac H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mole Flow kmol/hr H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mole Frac H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 174 .627 0.042 0 0.4 2 25361 612388 6335 -1742 382057 170589 59484 236 23 0.042 0 0.115 0.9 2.025 231 0 1259 3831 132 0.99 0.036 0.703 0.616 0.Aspen simulation results of MEA based CO2 absorption for Case III (CO2 recovery: 85% and lean loading: 0.9 1.11 0.703 0.624 0.011 0 0 RICH MEA 60.324 0.022 0 0 21195 2793 282 0 0 0.624 0.042 0 0.145 0 0.878 0.676 0.024 LEAN MEA 40 2.324 0.059 0.012 0 0 LEAN P2 122.279 0.005 0 13 0 1070 8 1 0.11 0.10) FLUE GAS FLUE COOL 40 1.03 1126 1 189 3823 131 0.4 1.214 0 0.013 5453 171105 135448 -131 4162 0 55403 107321 4219 0.

023 H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mass Frac H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mole Flow kmol/hr H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mole Frac H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 175 .4 1.025 231 0 1259 3831 132 0.11 0.06 0.231 0.778 0.097 0 0 24557 3199 1551 10 1 0.297 0.009 0.626 0.2 5453 171105 121661 -131 4162 0 55403 107321 4219 0.013 5453 171105 135448 -131 4162 0 55403 107321 4219 0.2 5453 171105 118133 -131 4162 0 55403 107321 4219 0.627 0.9 28226 658796 667 -1886 442194 195436 21165 0 0 0.109 0.024 FLUE BLOW 49.277 0.703 0.03 998 0 189 3821 131 0.032 0 0 24546 3199 481 0 0 0.616 0.291 0.1 0 29 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 PROD CO2 30 150 1092 47596 157 -102 202 0 47093 275 27 0.024 0 0.324 0.2 29318 706392 750 -2044 442396 195436 68258 275 27 0.053 0 0 TREAT GAS 66.703 0.037 0.671 0.001 11 0 1070 10 1 0.097 0 0 24557 3199 1551 10 1 0.025 231 0 1259 3831 132 0.703 0.017 0 0 RICH P1 60.87 0.2 5139 137554 120747 -74 17977 29 8309 107046 4193 0.324 0.017 0 0 LEAN P2 122.024 407 0 1259 3831 132 0.031 0 0 25324 3200 481 0 0 0.01 0 0.3 1.224 0.231 0.109 0.025 WATER 40 2.004 0 0.024 LEAN MEA 40 2.4 2 29318 706392 750 -2044 442396 195436 68258 275 27 0.024 FLUE ABS 40 1.032 0 0 24546 3199 481 0 0 0.681 0.5 1.838 0.113 0.4 2 29318 706392 7323 -2013 442396 195436 68258 275 27 0.5 2.072 0 0.627 0.025 231 0 1259 3831 132 0.072 0 0.277 0.024 0 0.87 0.224 0.873 0.98 0.989 0.Aspen simulation results of MEA based CO2 absorption for Case III (CO2 recovery: 85% and lean loading: 0.042 0 0.042 0 0.194 0 0.109 0.042 0 0.023 FLUE SEP 30 1.324 0.838 0.042 0 0.013 5629 174283 144433 -141 7332 0 55404 107328 4220 0.131 0 0.006 0.297 0.681 0.1 28226 658796 667 -1886 442194 195436 21165 0 0 0.001 Temperature C Pressure bar Mole Flow kmol/hr Mass Flow kg/hr Volume Flow m3/hr Enthalpy MMkcal/hr Mass Flow kg/hr 160 1.5 1.053 0 0 RICH STPR 105.838 0.626 0.053 0 0 LEAN STPR 122.231 0.678 0.013 5629 174283 200000 -136 7332 0 55404 107328 4220 0.626 0.15) FLUE GAS FLUE COOL 40 1.017 0 0 RICH MEA 60.024 407 0 1259 3831 132 0.318 0.097 0 0 24557 3199 1551 10 1 0.616 0.113 0.744 0.024 0 0.318 0.627 0.042 0 0.671 0.277 0.1 778 14019 14 -53 14019 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 778 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 MEA 40 2.1 29004 672841 642 -1987 456211 195465 21165 0 0 0.

275 0.007 0.1 634 11424 12 -43 11424 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 634 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 MEA 40 2.026 WATER 40 2.1 0 21 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 PROD CO2 40 150 1092 47618 140 -102 164 0 47093 329 32 0.024 0 0.318 0.024 FLUE BLOW 49.2 5453 171105 118133 -131 4162 0 55403 107321 4219 0.024 LEAN MEA 40 2.053 0 0 RICH STPR 105 2 34513 830120 8388 -2370 521444 228282 80033 329 32 0.703 0.224 0.628 0.765 0.011 0.666 0.024 0 0.013 5629 174283 144433 -141 7332 0 55404 107328 4220 0.025 231 0 1259 3831 132 0.866 0.703 0.627 0.022 0 0 RICH P1 60 2 34513 830120 881 -2406 521444 228282 80033 329 32 0.868 0.666 0.Aspen simulation results of MEA based CO2 absorption for Case III (CO2 recovery: 85% and lean loading: 0.001 Temperature C Pressure bar Mole Flow kmol/hr Mass Flow kg/hr Volume Flow m3/hr Enthalpy MMkcal/hr Mass Flow kg/hr 160 1.839 0.062 0.108 0.628 0.024 407 0 1259 3831 132 0.11 0.023 FLUE SEP 30 1.628 0.022 0 0 LEAN P2 121.042 0 0.616 0.171 0 0.112 0.042 0 0.20) FLUE GAS FLUE COOL 40 1.793 0.3 1.025 231 0 1259 3831 132 0.324 0.096 0 0 28945 3737 1819 12 1 0.627 0.839 0.2 5453 171105 121661 -131 4162 0 55403 107321 4219 0.041 0 0 29570 3738 748 0 0 0.324 0.042 0 0.9 33421 782503 805 -2243 521280 228282 32940 0 0 0.042 0 0.616 0.288 0.096 0 0 28945 3737 1819 12 1 0.042 0 0 28935 3737 748 0 0 0.1 33421 782503 805 -2243 521280 228282 32940 0 0 0.072 0 0.031 856 0 189 3819 131 0.275 0.2 4995 134932 116431 -66 15425 21 8308 106992 4187 0.024 0 0.7 1.038 0.231 0.053 0 0 TREAT GAS 63.042 0 0 28935 3737 748 0 0 0.224 0.024 407 0 1259 3831 132 0.001 9 0 1070 12 1 0.023 H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mass Frac H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mole Flow kmol/hr H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mole Frac H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 176 .627 0.98 0.053 0 0 LEAN STPR 121.839 0.681 0.9 1.292 0.003 0 0.292 0.022 0 0 RICH MEA 59.013 5453 171105 135448 -131 4162 0 55403 107321 4219 0.231 0.096 0 0 28945 3737 1819 12 1 0.681 0.072 0 0.024 FLUE ABS 40 1.324 0.2 34513 830120 881 -2406 521444 228282 80033 329 32 0.231 0.703 0.9 2.114 0 0.318 0.013 5629 174283 200000 -136 7332 0 55404 107328 4220 0.866 0.008 0 0.9 1.671 0.989 0.025 231 0 1259 3831 132 0.108 0.042 0 0.275 0.1 34056 793948 770 -2341 532706 228303 32939 0 0 0.108 0.112 0.

862 0.287 0.052 0 0 34814 4461 1120 0 0 0.042 0 0.097 0 0 34821 4461 2190 15 1 0.024 0 0.108 0.839 0.028 0 0 LEAN P2 120.1 2 41487 996591 1057 -2893 627302 272468 96375 406 39 0.027 WATER 40 2.862 0.006 0 0.627 0.063 0.013 0.Aspen simulation results of MEA based CO2 absorption for Case III (CO2 recovery: 85% and lean loading: 0.79 0.097 0 0 34821 4461 2190 15 1 0.097 0 0 34821 4461 2190 15 1 0.273 0.839 0.9 2.629 0.042 0 0.052 0 0 34814 4461 1120 0 0 0.108 0.024 407 0 1259 3831 132 0.273 0.024 0 0.273 0.627 0.3 1.231 0.231 0.681 0.025 231 0 1259 3831 132 0.324 0.023 FLUE SEP 30 1.664 0.1 2 41487 996591 9805 -2850 627302 272468 96375 406 39 0.2 4833 131969 111403 -57 12553 15 8306 106915 4180 0.002 0 0.1 472 8495 9 -32 8495 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 472 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 MEA 40 2.11 0.024 FLUE BLOW 49.108 0.81 0.661 0.616 0.629 0.053 0 0 RICH STPR 104.224 0.98 0.1 40867 957455 945 -2819 635693 272483 49279 0 0 0.2 5453 171105 121661 -131 4162 0 55403 107321 4219 0.324 0.703 0.032 697 0 189 3817 131 0.028 0 0 RICH P1 59.109 0.024 FLUE ABS 40 1.013 5629 174283 144433 -141 7332 0 55404 107328 4220 0.2 5453 171105 118133 -131 4162 0 55403 107321 4219 0.25) FLUE GAS FLUE COOL 40 1.863 0.11 0.703 0.095 0 0.027 0 0 RICH MEA 59.1 1.703 0.051 0 0 35286 4461 1120 0 0 0.001 6 0 1070 15 1 0.661 0.025 231 0 1259 3831 132 0.025 231 0 1259 3831 132 0.1 40395 948942 990 -2722 627192 272468 49282 0 0 0.001 Temperature C Pressure bar Mole Flow kmol/hr Mass Flow kg/hr Volume Flow m3/hr Enthalpy MMkcal/hr Mass Flow kg/hr 160 1.287 0.042 0 0.144 0 0.009 0.839 0.988 0.013 5453 171105 135448 -131 4162 0 55403 107321 4219 0.039 0.053 0 0 LEAN STPR 120.9 40395 948942 990 -2722 627192 272468 49282 0 0 0.024 407 0 1259 3831 132 0.1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 PROD CO2 30 150 1092 47649 155 -102 110 0 47093 406 39 0.042 0 0.627 0.285 0.024 0 0.318 0.9 1.013 5629 174283 200000 -136 7332 0 55404 107328 4220 0.072 0 0.324 0.681 0.024 LEAN MEA 40 2.318 0.023 H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mass Frac H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mole Flow kmol/hr H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mole Frac H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 177 .072 0 0.053 0 0 TREAT GAS 60 1.2 41487 996591 1057 -2893 627302 272468 96375 406 39 0.616 0.042 0 0.231 0.224 0.629 0.

001 0 0.2 5453 171105 121661 -131 4162 0 55403 107321 4219 0.042 0 0.072 0 0.3 1.024 FLUE ABS 40 1.987 0.824 0.033 0 0 RICH MEA 57 1.231 0.001 1 0 1070 19 2 0.272 0.109 0.627 0.656 0.024 0 0.703 0.616 0.324 0.024 407 0 1259 3831 132 0.627 0.025 231 0 1259 3831 132 0.63 0.053 0 0 TREAT GAS 56.109 0.858 0.024 0 0.061 0 0 43142 5496 1651 0 0 0.107 0.042 0 0.84 0.2 5453 171105 118133 -131 4162 0 55403 107321 4219 0.064 0.001 Temperature C Pressure bar Mole Flow kmol/hr Mass Flow kg/hr Volume Flow m3/hr Enthalpy MMkcal/hr Mass Flow kg/hr 160 1.283 0.011 0.024 0 0.1 0 7 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 PROD CO2 30 150 1092 47697 152 -102 25 0 47093 528 51 0.024 LEAN MEA 40 2.097 0 0 43143 5496 2721 19 2 0.001 0 0.1 1.122 0 0.272 0.324 0.033 0 0 RICH P1 57 2 51381 1233300 1308 -3585 777236 335741 119745 528 51 0.656 0.81 0.023 H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mass Frac H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mole Flow kmol/hr H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 Mole Frac H2O MEA CO2 N2 O2 178 .Aspen simulation results of MEA based CO2 absorption for Case III (CO2 recovery: 85% and lean loading: 0.318 0.017 0.08 0 0.703 0.63 0.2 4706 129625 107335 -50 10346 9 8310 106793 4168 0.107 0.30) FLUE GAS FLUE COOL 40 1.013 5629 174283 200000 -136 7332 0 55404 107328 4220 0.9 50289 1185610 1252 -3403 777211 335741 72652 0 0 0.63 0.04 0.2 51381 1233300 1308 -3585 777236 335741 119745 528 51 0.023 FLUE SEP 30 1.84 0.013 5629 174283 144433 -141 7332 0 55404 107328 4220 0.681 0.681 0.224 0.98 0.024 FLUE BLOW 49.84 0.024 407 0 1259 3831 132 0.231 0.1 50634 1191820 1194 -3504 783421 335750 72652 0 0 0.231 0.272 0.028 WATER 40 2.318 0.657 0.025 231 0 1259 3831 132 0.858 0.053 0 0 LEAN STPR 119.109 0.025 231 0 1259 3831 132 0.4 1.1 50289 1185610 1252 -3403 777211 335741 72652 0 0 0.042 0 0.042 0 0.283 0.072 0 0.616 0.033 0 0 LEAN P2 119.324 0.053 0 0 RICH STPR 102 2 51381 1233300 10635 -3533 777236 335741 119745 528 51 0.107 0.042 0 0.097 0 0 43143 5496 2721 19 2 0.1 2.859 0.282 0.703 0.627 0.061 0 0 43486 5497 1651 0 0 0.224 0.1 345 6215 6 -23 6215 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 345 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 MEA 40 2.061 0 0 43142 5496 1651 0 0 0.013 5453 171105 135448 -131 4162 0 55403 107321 4219 0.097 0 0 43143 5496 2721 19 2 0.032 574 0 189 3812 130 0.

726 401.290 40.955 244.15 (Case III) Parameter Direct Costs Purchased Equipment Equipment Installation Piping Civil Steel Instrumentation Electrical Insulation Paint Other Total Direct Cost Indirect Costs Total Design.930 496.291.062 3.108 3.790 5.063.438 258.530 1.710 23.375 414.087.510 1.000 152.833.108 3.368.233.200 31.940 3.247 147.690 33.412.351.410 5.512.707 4.703 668.074 454.612 196.810.194 1.05 14.450.250.670.208.490 114.349.292 1.480.002.400 678.041 10.338.909 74.727 35.839 617.504 1.796.285.360 34.459 8.589.550.932.364.647 2.10 11.260 9.697 1.670.940 3.898 258.880 5. Procurement Cost G and A Overheads Contract Fee Contingencies Total Indirect Cost Fixed Capital Cost Working Capital Total Capital Cost (IPE) Reclaimer cost FGD Equipment cost CO2 Drying System cost Grand Total Capital Cost Annual Capital cost Salvage value Annual Salvage value Cost ($) 0.724 258.939 0.05 to 0.290 50.278 6.001 0.400 24.236 2.000 68.330.534 2.984 1.153.056.Appendix C: Sensitivity Analysis of CO2 Capture Cost to Lean Loading (Case III) Summary of capital cost for lean loading from 0.290 30.696.058 4.859.153. Eng.930 400.058.989.896 1.500 401.000 16.484.480 36.283.073.228 4.108 3.125 1.067.595 3.626 459.200 892.610 1.920 42.867.818 4.000 213.330 7.475.721.625.093 818.670.153.776 4.778 179 .821.089 6.940 3.830 152.665.316.014.000 454.15 6.

156 5.357. Procurement Cost G and A Overheads Contract Fee Contingencies Total Indirect Cost Fixed Capital Cost Working Capital Total Capital Cost (IPE) Reclaimer cost FGD Equipment cost CO2 Drying System cost Grand Total Capital Cost Annual Capital cost Salvage value Annual Salvage value Cost ($) 0.747 2.911.615 3.Summary of capital cost for lean loading from 0.990 434.996 444.711 2.057 1.835 503.355.386.500 425.312 1.992.100 12.153.736.108 3.645.547 258.835 500.20 to 0.158 2.631 399.031 2.100 13.606 1.684 414.547 0.108 3.631 1.940 3.290 26.152.467.810.467.577 124.489 2.781.825 5.108 3.350 18.714 2.153.440 0.290 28.150 267.665 78.670.550.437.808 29.347 64. Eng.500 346.339.396.25 5.856 435.580 414.177 2.273.643 5.400 54.760 4.828 1.228.600.600 68.624.940 3.380 19.153.385 2.851 3.401.940 3.061.016.210 4.632 637.527 66.500 53.327.20 6.777 558.100 15.885 2.390 282.343 28.422.200 361.839 258.885 999.087.909.307 399.670.144.030 21.464 454.718 28.877.835 127.483 493.040.101 180 .822 3.840 5.30 (Case III) Parameter Direct Costs Purchased Equipment Equipment Installation Piping Civil Steel Instrumentation Electrical Insulation Paint Other Total Direct Cost Indirect Costs Total Design.670.406 141.30 5.207.290 25.798.693 258.888.347.733.

069.000 230.915.203.814.10 0.517 CO2 capture cost for lean loading from 0.Summary of operating cost for lean loading from 0.000 230.05 to 0.897 640.766.229.139.278 147.139 37.001 72.939 39.728.438.000 4.441 1.645.744 115 0.510 866.511 39.560 22.000 1.581.) 0.318 43.069.017 376.851.041 244.069.15 (Case III) Parameters Annual Capital Cost Annual Salvage value Annual Operating Cost Total Annual Cost ($) Total Annual CO2 Captured (tonne) $ / tonne of CO2 Captured 0.158 32.463 77.000 230.637.369 27.810.15 727.463 648.578.065.000 19.510 866.255.581.769 70.838 376.139.000 280.859.062 25.500 1.494 54.744 205 0.002 640.000 387.511 27.510 866.053.15 (Case III) Parameters Manufacturing Costs Direct Production Costs Raw material cost Utility cost Operating Labor cost Operating Supervision cost Maintenance and Repair cost Operating Supplies and Laboratory charge (25% of Operating labor costs) Total Direct Production Cost Plant Overhead Cost (50% of Operating Labor and maintenance cost) General and Administrative cost Operating cost (at second year) Annual Operating Cost (over 20 years) Baghouse.721.459 196.503 376.002 653.500 2.05 4.511 72.000 29.166.000 759.318 644.05 to 0.553.897 980.715 18.000 280.633.496 1.517 29.15 2.297 1.778 27.744 79 181 .000 280.872 61.10 3.040.553.617.480 640.058.05 Cost ($/yr. FGD Scrubber chemical cost MEA make-up cost from degradation Total Annual Operating Cost 0.480 839.000 56.

965 17.562 629.000 1.30 (Case III) Parameters Annual Capital Cost Annual Salvage value Annual Operating Cost Total Annual Cost ($) Total Annual CO2 Captured (tonne) $ / tonne of CO2 Captured 0.000 280.665 577.069.200 11.177.113.072.000 280.547 14.581 1.657 376.048.000 230.485 13.591.547 18.273.155.602 20.511 21.198.510 866.511 18.000 280.295.000 230.401.744 55 0.356.069.000 338.069.000 12.500 1.554. FGD Scrubber chemical cost MEA make-up cost from degradation Total Annual Operating Cost 0.643 141.30 594.) 0.000 12.838 640.385 16.101 18.510 866.156 124.986 14.510 866.000 15.20 Cost ($/yr.25 2.000 284.602 CO2 capture cost for lean loading from 0.644 1.25 0.744 64 0.390.829 640.478 24.825 127.838 602.681 376.830.490.20 to 0.744 54 182 .665 20.000 230.504.000 297.511 18.467.20 to 0.736.315 16.113.655.591.30 2.440 21.807.490.20 2.942 11.Summary of operating cost for lean loading from 0.485.943 376.186.457 1.829 608.803.527 19.000 1.562 640.070.30 (Case III) Parameters Manufacturing Costs Direct Production Costs Raw material cost Utility cost Operating Labor cost Operating Supervision cost Maintenance and Repair cost Operating Supplies and Laboratory charge (25% of Operating labor costs) Total Direct Production Cost Plant Overhead Cost (50% of Operating Labor and maintenance cost) General and Administrative cost Operating cost (at second year) Annual Operating Cost (over 20 years) Baghouse.478 582.

9 kmol CH4/h 2.02 kmol O2/h KILN nt kmol/h n1 kmol CO2/h n2 kmol H2O/h n3 kmol N2/h n4 kmol O2/h na kmol air/h @ 20% excess 0.03 kmol i-C4H10/h 0.79 N2 Combustion Reactions CH 4 + 2O2 → CO2 + 2 H 2 O 7 C 2 H 6 + O2 → 2CO2 + 3H 2 O 2 C 3 H 8 + 5O2 → 3CO2 + 4 H 2 O C 4 H 10 + 13 O2 → 4CO2 + 5 H 2 O 2 C 5 H 12 + 8O2 → 5CO2 + 6 H 2 O C 6 H 14 + 19 O2 → 6CO2 + 7 H 2 O 2 Calcinations Reaction CaCO3 → CaO + CO2 183 .70 kmol CO2/h 0.01 kmol C6H14 1.50 kmol C2H6/h 0.01 kmol n-C5H12/h 0.Appendix D: Results of Switching to a Lower Carbon Content Fuel at Average Plant Load (Case II) Basis: 100 kmol NG/h 94.01 kmol i-C5H12/h 0.21 O2 0.03 kmol n-C4H10/h 0.20 kmol C3H8/h 0.60 kmol N2/h 0.

195 kmol O 2 1 kmol air 1.97 . CO2 Balance: n1 kmol CO 2 = h (0.5 kmol O 2 + + h 1 kmol C 2 H 6 h 1 kmol CH 4 (0.0006) (100) kmol C 4 H10 6.0006) (100) kmol C 4 H 10 4 kmol CO 2 + + h 1 kmol C 3 H 8 h 1 kmol C 4 H 10 (0.0002) (100) kmol C 5 H12 8 kmol O 2 (0.949) (100) kmol CH 4 2 kmol O 2 (0.21 kmol O 2 1 kmol air kmol air h Air feed rate. n a = = 1143.002) (100) kmol C 3 H 8 5 kmol O 2 (0.025) (100) kmol C 2 H 6 3.0001) (100) kmol C 6 H14 9.5 kmol O 2 + h 1 kmol C 5 H12 h 1 kmol C 6 H14 = 200.025) (100) kmol C 2 H 6 2 kmol CO 2 + + 1 kmol C 2 H 6 h 1 kmol CH 4 h (0.20 kmol air h 0.Basis: 100 kmol Natural Gas per hour Theoretical O2 required : (0.0001) (100) kmol C 6 H 14 6 kmol CO 2 + + h 1 kmol C 5 H 12 h 1 kmol C 6 H 14 ⎡ (0.5 kmolO 2 + + h 1 kmol C 3 H 8 h 1 kmol C 4 H10 (0.007) (100) kmol CO 2 ⎤ ⎢ ⎥ h ⎣ ⎦ in n1 = 101.949) (100) kmol CH 4 1 kmol CO 2 (0.002) (100) kmol C 3 H 8 3 kmol CO 2 (0.0002) (100) kmol C 5 H 12 5 kmol CO 2 (0.6 kmol CO2 h 184 .195 kmol O2 h 200.

59 + 905.254 Total.6 + 198.0006) (100) kmol C 4 H 10 5 kmol H 2 O + + h 1 kmol C 3 H 8 h 1 kmol C 4 H 10 (0.97) kmol air 0.016 kmol N 2 ⎤ kmol N 2 = ⎢ +⎢ h h 1 kmol air ⎥ h 1 kmol fuel ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦ kmol N 2 h n 3 = 905.79 kmol N 2 ⎤ ⎡ (100) kmol fuel 0.59 kmol H 2 O h N2 Balance: n3 ⎡ (1143.254 = 1445.0002) (100) kmol C 5 H 12 6 kmol H 2 O (0.781 kmol h 185 .0002 kmol O 2 ⎤ kmol O 2 = ⎢ +⎢ h h 1 kmol air ⎥ h 1 kmol fuel ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦ kmol O 2 h n 4 = 240.337 + 240.97) kmol air 0.002) (100) kmol C 3 H 8 4 kmol H 2 O (0.0001) (100) kmol C 6 H 14 7 kmol H 2 O + h 1 kmol C 5 H 12 h 1 kmol C 6 H 14 n 2 = 198.337 O2 Balance: n4 ⎡ (1143.H2O Balance: n2 kmol H 2 O (0. n t = n 1 + n 2 + n 3 + n 4 = 101.21 kmol O 2 ⎤ ⎡ (100) kmol fuel 0.949) (100) kmol CH 4 2 kmol H 2 O (0.025) (100) kmol C 2 H 6 3 kmol H 2 O = + + h h 1 kmol CH 4 h 1 kmol C 2 H 6 (0.

2 tonne clinker 10 3 kg clinker 790.59) (3.6777) N 2 : (905.263 h kg H 2 O ≈ 13156.6777 Natural Gas Required = 367.472 kmol O 2 h kmol O 2 h kg O 2 ≈ 28271.6) (3.724 Scale Factor (SF) = 3.21 h kmol CO 2 h kmol CO 2 = 373.254) (3.6777) = 883.104 h 186 .558 h H 2 O : (198.578 kcal ≈ 8237 SCMH 8237 m 3 ( STP ) 1 kmol 10 3 liters ≈ h 22.00 kcal m 3 (STP) h 1 tonne clinker kg clinker 9034.578 3 m (STP) For Case II (average plant load) : Clinker Production Rate = 94.6777) kmol H 2 O h kmol H 2 O = 730.2 tonne per hour Natural Gas Consumption = 94.4 x 10 3 liters ( STP ) 1 m 3 ≈ 367.8 = MJ m (STP) 3 37.337) (3.142 h kg N 2 ≈ 93282.6777) O 2 : (240.444 h kmol N 2 h kmol N 2 = 3329.724 kmol h kmol Air Flow Required = 4207.8 x 10 6 J 0.23901 cal 1 kcal 1J m3 10 3 cal kcal = 9034.00 kcal kg clinker produced Natural Gas heating value = 37.Kiln Thermal Efficiency = 790.607 h kg CO 2 ≈ 16442.418 h kmol h CO 2 : (101.

0 + 16442.0 ≈ 18.444) x 100 80335.444 kg CO 2 h kg CO2 h Case II : For Petcoke.CO 2 Generation from Calcination = 94.55 187 .444) ≈ 14909.0 kg CO2 h kg CO 2 h Percent CO2 emissions reduced = (80335.0 − 65426. and coal fines Fuel : kg CO 2 Total CO 2 generation = 80335 h CO 2 emissions reduced = (80335.52 kg CO 2 h 1 tonne clinker 1 kg clinker ≈ 48984.2 tonne clinker 10 3 kg clinker 0.0 − 65426.0 kg CO 2 h For Natural Gas Fuel : Total CO 2 generation = [48984.444] ≈ 65426. coke.