You are on page 1of 115

Advanced Amine Solvent Formulations and Process Integration for Near-Term CO2

Capture Success

Final Report
Work Performed Under Grant No.: DE-FG02-06ER84625
Submitted June 28, 2007
to
U.S. Department of Energy
National Energy Technology Laboratory
626 Cochrans Mill Road, P.O. Box 10940
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15236-0940

by

Kevin S. Fisher, Principal Investigator
Katherine Searcy
Trimeric Corporation
P.O. Box 826
Buda, TX 78610
Dr. Gary T. Rochelle
Sepideh Ziaii
The University of Texas at Austin
1 University Station C0400
Austin, TX 787112-0231
Dr. Craig Schubert
Dow Gas Treating Services
2301 N. Brazosport Blvd., B-1605
Freeport, TX 77541-3257

TRIMERIC CORPORATION

TRIMERIC CORPORATION
DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States
Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their
employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or
responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus,
product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.
Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name,
trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,
recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The
views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the
United States Government or any agency thereof.
(End of Notice)

ii

TRIMERIC CORPORATION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy
Technology Center (DOE/NETL) under Contract No. DE-FG02-06ER84625. The authors would
like to express sincere appreciation for the support and guidance of the DOE/NETL project
manager, Jose D. Figueroa. The authors would also like to thank Luminant for its support and
advice throughout the project.

iii

These results demonstrate the potential for significant improvements in the overall economics of CO2 capture via advanced solvent formulations and process configurations. Derated capacities. Results indicated that CO2 capture increased the base cost of electricity from 5 cents/kWh to 10. 60. and 378 MWe for the MDEA / PZ double matrix. When compared to the base case. including base plant auxiliary load of 29 MWe. and 9. respectively. The MEA/PZ and MDEA/PZ cases employed an advanced “double matrix” stripper configuration. and a methyldiethanolamine (MDEA) / PZ case. and to reduce the cost of CO2 avoided by 10 to 18%. 356 MWe for the MEA/PZ double matrix. 10. and three cases were selected for detailed analysis: a monoethanolamine (MEA) base case and two “advanced” cases: an MEA/Piperazine (PZ) case. iv . The corresponding cost per metric tonne CO2 avoided was 67. The basis for calculations was a model plant with a gross capacity of 500 MWe.7 c/kWh for the MEA base case.1 c/kWh for the MEA / PZ double matrix. to reduce derating due to CO2 capture by 13 to 30%. and 55. were 339 MWe for the base case.TRIMERIC CORPORATION ABSTRACT This Phase I SBIR project investigated the economic and technical feasibility of advanced amine scrubbing systems for post-combustion CO2 capture at coal-fired power plants.19 $/tonne CO2.05 $/tonne CO2. Numerous combinations of advanced solvent formulations and process configurations were screened for energy requirements.20 $/tonne CO2.7 c/kWh for the MDEA / PZ double matrix. systems employing advanced solvent formulations and process configurations were estimated to reduce reboiler steam requirements by 20 to 44%.

22 3.............0 CONCEPTUAL APPROACH.....................................................................................................................0 PROCESS SIMULATION AND DESIGN ...............................55 4....................................................24 3................................................56 4....................2........0 EQUIPMENT SIZING AND SELECTION........7 Rich/Lean Exchanger..............1....................................15 2.............................................58 4........................................4 Report Organization...................................8 Rich/Semi-Lean Exchanger .................1 Inlet Gas Blower ......................58 v .................6 2....................................................3 Engineering and Economic Analysis Approach .............53 4.................................55 4................0 Page INTRODUCTION .............36 3.........................3........................................................3 Absorber........................................TRIMERIC CORPORATION TABLE OF CONTENTS 1...........................6 2...................1..2 Process Simulation Design Basis...........................................17 2..................1 1.........23 3................................................................2 Thermodynamic and Physical Properties Specifications.......3...................5 Filtration...............................................1...................3 1..............................................54 4........4 References (Section 1) .....1 1.............................................................................................................3 Material Balances...........................................................1.............31 3..............................................................................6 Rich Amine Booster Pump .....................................................3 Equipment Sizing........4 Rich Amine Pump...............2 Direct Contact Cooler and Water Pump ..1 Improved Solvents and Process Configurations ..........................................1 Simulation Scope ........2............54 4..........................................1 Process Simulation Approach ...............................2 Process Configurations .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................23 3...........................3......3 Key Process Simulation Specifications ............................................................................................57 4.....................................8 2.........2 Summary of Process Simulation Results .....4 1...........................2 Research Objectives..........................……..........................1 Solvents.5 2.......................................1 Background ....17 2..............................20 2...................................................31 3................39 References (Section 3) ..........................................................................2 Process Simulation Results .....23 3..................................2 Process Simulation........3 Project Participants ..........4 Economic Analysis ............................56 4.....................................................................................1 Process Simulation Flow Diagrams .....................19 2.2......26 3.............................................3........6 2..........1 Screening Study .............................1...........20 References (Section 2) ....................

.............................................15 4........2 Cost of CO2 Avoidance...........63 Compressors..........................1 Cost of Electricity ..95 5.....................................................101 References (Section 6) ........................................20 4..66 Makeup Systems ................................................................................92 5...........11 4.............................0 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS.............1 Capital Costs .104 vi ..4 Condensate Pumps ................17 4...............67 Reclaimer .....................................12 4...22 4.....................................................................2 Reboiler.......103 7.13 4.....................................9......................................3 Sensitivity to Plant Size .........24 Regeneration ...................................................................9..........101 6...............................................................................................................................64 Compressor Drivers ....16 4.................98 References (Section 5) ..........................................................................................................................80 5..........................................................61 4............................................................................................68 References (Section 4) .....................100 6....81 5............................................68 Equipment Not Included in Study....................................................................23 4..63 Surge Tank .........................................62 Lean Amine Pump .......9 4.............66 Cooling Water Systems............21 4........................................................................................................................65 Interstage Coolers .............................0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ......63 Semi-Lean Amine Cooler ...........................................................19 4......63 Lean Amine Cooler......81 5....................................................................................................................59 4...................................................99 6..............................................................................................9...............................................................2 Operating Costs......................................59 4................................................1 Stripper..................................10 4....................................................................................9.....................100 6..........62 Semi-Lean Amine Pump..............................................................................TRIMERIC CORPORATION TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 4............60 4.................................4 Annualized Cost Summary ........67 Dehydration Unit ...............................18 4....0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...........................................................14 4.........................65 Interstage Separators.............................................................3 Stripper Condenser and Accumulator...........................................................................................................................................................................................................68 Equipment Comparison for Cases .............................................................................................................3 Derating.....

...............................................................................TRIMERIC CORPORATION LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1 Figure 2-2 Figure 2-3 Figure 2-4 Figure 2-5 Figure 3-1 Figure 3-2 Figure 3-3 Figure 3-4 Page Base Case – Simplified PFD...32 Base Case – Steam System ..34 Double Matrix – Steam System PFD..........................13 Multipressure Stripping without Heat Recovery – Simplified PFD ................................................................................................................................33 Double Matrix – Detailed PD ..12 Double Matrix Vacuum with Heat Recovery – Simplified PFD .......................14 Base Case – Detailed PFD .................................................11 Double Matrix – Simplified PFD............................................................................................14 Multipressure Stripping with Heat Recovery – Simplified PFD ..............................35 vii ..........

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................91 Operating and Maintenance Cost Parameters and Values .........................90 Total Capital Requirement..........................................76 Purchased Equipment Costs for MEA Base Case................................................................................16 Inlet Flue Gas Conditions .....................19 Summary of Process Simulation Inputs (Metric Units)...................................98 Total Annual Revenue Requirement...44 Material Balance for MDEA / PZ Double Matrix .............................................................37 Process Simulation Results (English) ..............................................................................................................................................100 Cost of CO2 Avoided ................................................98 Cost of Electricity .........................................17 Cases Selected for Detailed Analysis ..................29 Process Simulation Results (Metric)................................................................40 Material Balance for MEA / PZ Double Matrix .......97 Effect of Energy Requirements on Derating.......................................................................................94 Derating Results.......27 Summary of Process Simulation Inputs (English Units) .........102 viii .....................84 Purchased Equipment Costs for MEA / PZ Double Matrix......................92 Summary of Operating and Maintenance Costs ......50 Equipment Comparison Table (Metric Units) ..............TRIMERIC CORPORATION LIST TABLES Table 2-1 Table 2-2 Table 2-3 Table 3-1 Table 3-2 Table 3-3 Table 3-4 Table 3-5 Table 3-6 Table 3-7 Table 4-1 Table 4-2 Table 5-1 Table 5-2 Table 5-3 Table 5-4 Table 5-5 Table 5-6 Table 5-7 Table 5-8 Table 5-9 Table 5-10 Table 6-1 Table 6-2 Page Design Basis – Process Inputs ...........38 Material Balance for MEA Base Case ...........................................................................86 Purchased Equipment Costs for MDEA / PZ Double Matrix.....................................................................................................72 Equipment Comparison Table (English Units)............................88 Process Plant Costs .......

The corresponding cost per metric tonne CO2 ix . Results estimated that CO2 capture increased the base cost of electricity from 5 cents/kWh to 10.1 c/kWh for the MEA / PZ double matrix. three cases were selected for detailed. Then. which employed methyldiethanolamine (MDEA) and piperazine (PZ). Amine-based scrubbing is one of the most likely near-term options for post-combustion CO2 capture.2 MPa. equipment was sized and selected. rigorous analysis: one base case and two “advanced” cases. common CO2 compression train. Next. 10. However. the energy requirements for a large array of solvents and process configurations were evaluated in a screening study. Then. Therefore. Any captured CO2 was delivered at pipeline pressure (15. First. multiple parallel amine units. The entire CO2 capture systems consisted of a single inlet gas train. Trimeric Corporation completed this project with a subcontract to the University of Texas and with in-kind assistance from the Dow Gas Treating Services Group and Luminant. The target CO2 removal was 90%. this project investigated systems employing advanced amine solvent formulations and process configurations in order to reduce capital and operating costs. and cost of avoided CO2 emissions were estimated.8 cents/kWh in 2004 dollars and material costs. operating costs. Conventional amine scrubbing with monoethanolamine (MEA) and simple absorption and stripping flow configurations can achieve 90% CO2 capture. work conducted under a previous DOE SBIR grant (DE-FG0204ER84111) estimated that amine-based CO2 capture would increase the cost of electricity by 3.7 c/kWh for the MDEA / PZ double matrix.TRIMERIC CORPORATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Phase I SBIR project investigated the economic and technical feasibility of advanced amine scrubbing systems for post-combustion CO2 capture at coal-fired power plants. rigorous process simulations with mass and energy balances were prepared. incremental cost of electricity. and 9. Cases Selected for Detailed Analysis Case Name Solvent Configuration Base Case 7 m MEA Conventional MEA / PZ double matrix 7 m MEA. The design basis for these evaluations was a 500 MW gross conventional coal-fired power plant using Illinois #6 subbituminous coal. 2200 psia). 2 m PZ Double Matrix MDEA / PZ double matrix Proprietary concentrations Double Matrix Note: “m” equals molal. capital costs. Finally. and purchased equipment costs were developed. A wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD) unit was assumed to be located upstream of the CO2 capture unit.7 c/kWh for the MEA base case. the capital and operating costs are very high. and a single.

TRIMERIC CORPORATION avoided was 67.7 % 113 102 95 67.7 10. and Cost of CO2 Avoided Description Units Gross generating capacity MWe 500 500 500 Net generating capacity without CO2 capture MWe 471 471 471 Net generating capacity with CO2 capture MWe 339 356 378 Derating due to CO2 capture MWe 132 115 93 13 30 Reduction in derating due to CO2 capture MEA Base Case % MEA / PZ Double Matrix MDEA / PZ Double Matrix Base plant cost of electricity c/kWh 5. 356 MWe for the MEA/PZ double matrix. systems employing advanced solvent formulations and process configurations were estimated to reduce reboiler steam requirements by 20 to 44%. These results. respectively.19 55.05 $/tonne CO2. and 378 MWe for the MDEA / PZ double matrix. Derated capacities. to reduce derating due to CO2 capture by 13 to 30%. Cost of Electricity. and 55.05 10 18 Increase in COE Cost of CO2 avoided Reduction in cost of CO2 avoided $/tonne % x . summarized in the table below. and to reduce the cost of CO2 avoided by 10 to 18%.20 $/tonne CO2. Summary Results of Derating. including base plant auxiliary load of 29 MWe.19 $/tonne CO2. were 339 MWe for the base case.0 5. 60. demonstrate the potential for significant improvements in the overall economics of CO2 capture via advanced solvent formulations and process configurations.0 Total COE c/kWh 10.20 60.0 5. When compared to the base case.1 9.

there is strong interest in reducing the amount of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.TRIMERIC CORPORATION 1. However.S.S. “Advanced Amine Solvent Formulations and Process Integration for Near-Term CO2 Capture Success” (DOE Grant No. Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) is supporting the development of technologies that improve the environmental soundness and economic viability of fossil fuel extraction and use. the U. any effort to reduce greenhouse gas intensity virtually must address this sector. CO2 emissions from electric power production contributes about 33% of U.0 INTRODUCTION This report documents the methodology and results of Trimeric Corporation’s Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) Phase I project. 1. Since the consequences of changes in global climate are potentially very significant. greenhouse gas intensity by 18% by 2012 (NETL. GHG emissions (DOE May 2005). Climate change science suggests that higher atmospheric GHG concentrations may cause changes in the global climate. a discussion of the research goals and objectives. These initiatives were summarized in February 2002 during President Bush’s announcement of the Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI).1 Background The United States has vast reserves of coal. President Bush committed the United States to pursuing a range of strategies. which has an overall goal of reducing U. the project participants. the use of coal in conventional coal-fired power plants emits large quantities of the greenhouse gas (GHG) carbon dioxide (CO2) . To address global warming concerns. As a result of these concerns.S. the DOE’s goal is to 1 . Therefore. and an overview of the remainder of the document. This section provides background information on the issues that are driving this type of research. 2007). Specifically. These abundant resources will play a key role in meeting our country’s near-term energy demand while maintaining economic security. DE-FG0206ER84625). the DOE’s NETL is supporting the development of technologies that capture and subsequently sequester CO2 from coal-fired power plants.

The economic analysis from the previous SBIR project indicates what areas to target for capital and operating cost savings. The technology research conducted under this contract addresses this post-combustion category and works toward the achievement of the DOE’s goals. Of these. which makes CO2 capture more difficult and increases sequestration compression costs. Trimeric and the University of Texas (UT) demonstrated that using heat integration and alternate process configurations can decrease overall monoethanolamine (MEA) scrubbing costs by nearly 10% (Fisher. post combustion capture may be the most challenging. a key practical target is a post-combustion technology that achieves the DOE’s performance and cost goals. While this was encouraging. Thus. precombustion. 2005). because the flue gas is at a low pressure and the CO2 is dilute. 2005). and oxy-fuel. 2 . The operating costs dominate the overall capture costs because CO2 capture with a conventional MEA system derates a 500 MWe gross capacity plant by an additional 173 MWe beyond the base plant auxiliary loads. further reductions in capital and operating costs are required to meet the DOE performance goals. energy requirements of the stripper reboiler and the compressor account for nearly 90% of the derating. which corresponds to a gross capacity derating of more than one third (Fisher. In a FY2005 SBIR project. the capital and operating costs are very high. However. Conventional amine scrubbing can achieve 90% CO2 capture. however. Amine-based scrubbing is one of the most likely near-term options for post-combustion CO2 capture. For a conventional MEA system. Integrating MEA Regeneration with CO2 Compression and Peaking to Reduce CO2 Capture Costs (DE-FG02-04ER84111). CO2 capture technologies are divided into three broad categories: post-combustion. Details of the analysis carried out under the previous SBIR grant may be found in the final report for that project (Fisher 2005).TRIMERIC CORPORATION achieve 90% CO2 capture with 99% storage permanence at less than a 20% increase in the cost of energy services by 2012 (DOE May 2005). Process configurations that will have the greatest impact on cost focus on lowering stripper reboiler and compressor energy costs. post-combustion technology is the only category that applies to over 98% of existing fossil power production assets. in order to meet the President’s goal of 18% reduction in GHG intensity by 2012.

Specifically. the current research leverages extensive laboratory work already conducted or scheduled for completion by a research group at the University of Texas led by Dr. the research objectives for this SBIR project included the following: • Establish the two most promising systems of solvent formulation and process scheme based on a screening of several systems. for example. residual oxygen. • Resolve how the amine and the compression systems will integrate with the power plant. where a system comprises a solvent and a process configuration. In addition. First. • Compare these economics with an “updated” baseline MEA configuration and with DOE targets. • Estimate the capital and operating costs of these top two systems. Process heat also thermally degrades amine solvents over time. and other species in the flue gas can chemically degrade the amine (Goff. the amine liquid solution can corrode process equipment and often requires corrosion inhibitors. some operational challenges impede the adoption of flue gas amine scrubbing. Alternate amine solvents can avoid these problems.TRIMERIC CORPORATION In addition to the current high cost of amine treatment. 1.2 Research Objectives This project studied improved amine-based CO2 capture system. 3 . sulfur dioxide (SO2). Rochelle. and • Select the best process configuration and solvent formulation for future pilot testing. solvents formulated with piperazine do not undergo the same thermal and chemical degradation mechanisms as the conventional monoethanolamine solvent. 2005). These technical objectives in Phase I lay the groundwork for continued commercialization efforts. Second. These systems sought to reduce stripper reboiler energy costs and reduce solvent degradation costs. Gary T.

• Section 6: Economic Analysis and Results presents the costs of the three detailed cases in terms of the DOE NETL metrics. • Section 5: Capital and Operating Costs summarizes the cost of the equipment and operations for the various cases. Craig Schubert of the Dow Gas Treating Services group provided input on industrial solvents and provided process simulations. Luminant provided input on coalfired power plant operations and integration of the CO2 capture system into an existing plant. Dr.TRIMERIC CORPORATION 1. • Section 3: Process Simulation and Design provides a description of the process modeling and results. including heat and material balances.4 Report Organization The remainder of this document presents the research performed under this project and is organized as follows: • Section 2: Conceptual Approach describes the overall design basis. The University of Texas (UT) subcontracted to Trimeric. • Section 4: Equipment Sizing and Selection discusses how the results of the process simulation were used in selecting equipment and presents the equipment details for each case that was evaluated. the screening study. and • Section 7: Summary and Conclusions presents the findings of the research. 1. 4 .3 Project Participants Trimeric Corporation (Trimeric) served as the prime contractor for this project. Dr. Gary Rochelle of the University of Texas and his research group performed the process simulations and provided general technical insight and guidance. and the cases selected for detailed analysis. cost of electricity and cost of avoided CO2 emissions.

M. K. Searcy.netl. and O2 Mass Transfer.doe. (http://www. The University of Texas at Austin. May 2005. Jassim. K. Beitler.. Inhibition. Oxidative Degradation of Monoethanolamine in CO2 Capture Processes: Iron and Copper Catalysis. June 9.." PhD Dissertation. C. “Carbon Sequestration Technology Roadmap and Program Plan – 2005”.pdf) 5 . 2005. G.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/refshelf/fact_sheets/ HowWeFit_global.S. “Integrating MEA Regeneration with CO2 Compression and Peaking to Reduce CO2 Capture Costs. Goff. S. G. and M. Rochelle.” Final Report under DOE Grant DE-FG02-04ER84111. Rueter. NETL 2007. 2005. C. O. T. Fisher.TRIMERIC CORPORATION References (Section 1) DOE NETL.

marketing these solvents. operating costs. Then. Trimeric calculated capital costs. incremental cost of electricity.1 Improved Solvents and Process Configurations 2. and providing technical services to clients with gas treating facilities.1 Solvents Monoethanolamine (MEA) is the conventional amine solvent selected for CO2 scrubbing.0 CONCEPTUAL APPROACH This section discusses the conceptual approach that was used on the project. rigorous analysis: one base case and two “advanced” cases.1. and cost of avoided CO2 emissions. Rochelle’s group include solvent components initially developed by the Dow Gas Treating Services Group. Under research programs funded by the 6 . thermal degradation. which has decades of experience developing alkanolamine solvents. Early in the project. piperazine-promoted MEA or MEA/PZ solvents.TRIMERIC CORPORATION 2. Many of the solvent formulations researched by Dr. However. The important alternative solvents include piperazinepromoted potassium carbonate (K2CO3) or “KPIP” solvents. As part of Dow’s ongoing research into amine scrubbing. the UT group performed a screening study to evaluate energy requirements for a large array of solvents and process configurations. the project team selected three cases for detailed. the company has developed the potassium carbonate/piperazine (KPIP) solvents. The following sections provide more detail on the solvents and configurations considered in the screening study. Next. The UT research group led by Dr. MEA has several disadvantages when treating flue gas: chemical degradation. the design basis. and mildly hindered amines. and corrosivity. A solvent formulation refers to a mixture of solvents with specific concentrations for each component. Gary Rochelle has studied several improved solvent formulations that seek to overcome the obstacles associated with conventional MEA. promoted tertiary amines including piperazine-promoted methyl diethanolamine (MDEA / PZ). Trimeric then sized and selected equipment and developed purchased equipment costs. and the engineering and economic analysis approach. Finally. 2. team members prepared rigorous process simulations with mass and energy balances.

optimum solvent formulation is yet to be determined and is one piece of the optimization puzzle. However. MDEA has the potential for greater CO2 capacity than MEA. MDEA promoted piperazine (MDEA / PZ) has been used commercially for a number years to remove CO2 from natural gas and hydrogen at CO2 partial pressures greater than those of flue gas. Thus. so oxidative degradation may be a major concern. The addition of piperazine significantly improves the rate of CO2 absorption. Therefore. Rochelle’s group has performed extensive laboratory. management of thermal and oxidative degradation of the MEA/PZ solvent formulation will contribute to lower operating costs. The UT research group is developing rigorous process models. Monoethanolamine promoted piperazine (MEA / PZ) should provide faster CO2 absorption rates and greater capacity for CO2. Solvent degradation and reclamation studies will indicate how the KPIP solvents are affected by other 7 . The lower heat of CO2 desorption can decrease the reboiler steam requirements. solvent reclamation. faster rates of CO2 absorption. and thermal resiliency. and pilot testing with the Dow solvents. This solvent has not been used with a high-oxygen concentration. verified by pilot testing. Through DOE cooperative agreement DE-FC26-02NT41440.TRIMERIC CORPORATION DOE (DE-FC26-02NT41440). The group is conducting pilot tests to verify the models. the capacity of 7 m MEA can be increased substantially by adding 2 m PZ. As a tertiary amine. The KPIP solvents have three main differences from MEA: lower heat of CO2 desorption. Thermal resiliency means that the KPIP solvents can operate at higher temperature and pressure without degrading at the same rate MEA would under similar conditions. for absorption and stripping of CO2 with the KPIP solvents. KPIP solvents may be more suited to process configurations such as multipressure stripping. The UT contract will also investigate solvent losses. The faster absorption kinetics can create richer solutions given the same absorber capital costs. Because piperazine is currently more expensive than MEA. bench. and corrosivity. 2007). Piperazine is less prone to thermal degradation than MEA (Rochelle. Dr.

2 Process Configurations Several process configurations were considered in this research: conventional.5 m PZ (“KPIP5”). Figure 2-1 shows a simplified process flow diagram (PFD) for the conventional MEA CO2 capture system. NOx. qualitative descriptions. Cool lean amine enters the top of the absorber. and multipressure stripping with heat recovery. The preheated rich amine then flows to the stripper. Rich amine exits the bottom of the absorber. “m” signifies molal concentration. Inlet flue gas enters the bottom of the absorber.4 m K+ / 1.2 introduces these configurations with brief. In these formulations. where CO2 desorbs from the amine solution. Through research to date. Rich amine exchanges heat with hot lean amine.4”). Warm stripper overheads flow to the stripper condenser. The amine absorbs CO2 as it flows downward and contacts the gas. 2. double matrix vacuum with heat recovery (“DMVHR”). Flue gas flows from the FGD scrubber to the CO2 capture system. where it serves as a water wash section and decreases amine losses with the sweet gas. Hot lean amine exits from bottom of the stripper and is cooled through cross exchange with the rich amine. Flue gas exits from the top of the absorber and flows to the stack.6 m PZ (“KPIP6. the UT team has prioritized the list of promising solvent formulations to two mixtures with varying concentration of piperazine (PZ) and potassium carbonate (K2CO3): 5 m K+ / 2. double matrix stripping (“double matrix” or “DM”). The remaining low-pressure CO2 vapor then flows to compression.1. where the vapor is cooled and water is condensed. vacuum pressures. Vacuum stripping is essentially the same as the conventional configuration except that the stripper is operated at lower.1. vacuum stripping.TRIMERIC CORPORATION contaminants such as SO2. Steam provides heat to the reboiler. Water enters the system at the top of the absorber. Specific values for operating conditions vary according to solvent selection. A stripper reboiler provides heat for the CO2 desorption. HCl. these data are provided for specific cases later in the report. etc. multipressure stripping without heat recovery. 8 . and 6. Section 2.

The energy required for separations in the double matrix stripper system may more closely approach the ideal energy requirements because the solvent is more isothermal. Vapors from the upper section of the LP Stripper flow to the LP Condenser. Hot. The semi-lean amine then flows to the middle of the absorber. The HP reboiler provides heat to desorb CO2 in the HP Stripper. The split between LP and HP streams is optimized according to the selected pressures and solvent formulation. the flow splits into two separate streams: one sent to the Low Pressure (LP) Stripper and one sent to the High Pressure (HP) stripper. and remaining vapor flows to the first stage of compression. Semi-lean amine exits from the bottom of the upper section of the LP Stripper. Vapor from the bottom section of the LP Stripper flow to the upper section off the LP Stripper. Rich amine exits the bottom of the absorber. Condensate from this cooler also returns to the makeup water system. The “LP” rich amine is preheated via exchange with warm semi-lean amine. The warm. The “HP” rich amine is preheated via exchange with hot lean amine. HP rich amine enters the top of the HP stripper. semi-lean amine is cooled via exchange with the LP rich amine. LP rich amine enters the top of the LP stripper upper section and contacts gas from the bottom section as the liquid falls through the packed section. Vapors exiting the top of the HP stripper combine with gas exiting the first stage of compression. Downstream of the rich amine pump. Hot LP lean amine exits from the bottom of the lower section of the LP Stripper and is cooled via exchange with HP rich amine. and the remaining vapor flows to the latter stages of compression. the LP lean amine flows to the top of the absorber. Warm.TRIMERIC CORPORATION Figure 2-2 shows a simplified PFD for the double matrix configuration. where the liquid flows down through a packed bed and contacts gas generated by the LP Reboiler. Then. Steam provides heat for both reboilers. HP lean amine exits the bottom of the HP Stripper and flows to the top of the bottom LP stripper section. A rich amine booster pump provides additional driving force to move the rich amine into the HP stripper. This configuration reduces compression work because a large portion of the CO2 is stripped at higher pressures. LP Condensate flow to the makeup water system. This combined vapor stream flows to the 1st interstage cooler. 9 .

This configuration is similar to the multipressure stripping without heat recover except that the reflux condenser is eliminated and hot outlet gas from the latter compression stages provides some heat for the reboiler. Thus the interstage cooling temperature is higher in this configuration when compared to configurations with water-cooled interstage cooling. The reboiler provides heat for the lowest pressure stripping segment. The highest pressure stripper has a reflux condenser. the liquid streams exit higher-pressure stripper segments and enter lower-pressure segments. Vapor exits this condenser and flows to the remaining stages of compression. and the heat of compression provides stripping heat for the higher-pressure segments. The PFD for multipressure stripping with heat recovery is shown in Figure 2-5. The PFD for multipressure stripping without heat recovery is shown in Figure 2-4. Steam provides the remaining heat for the HP Reboiler and all the heat for the LP Reboiler. 10 . The configuration is very similar to the double matrix except that the lower pressure stripper is run at vacuum conditions and the outlet gas from the 1st stage of compression provides some reboiler heat before mixing with the HP Stripper overheads.TRIMERIC CORPORATION Figure 2-3 shows the simplified PFD for the Double Matrix Vacuum with Heat Recovery (DMVHR) flow scheme. stripping occurs at several pressure increments. In multipressure stripping. In this configuration. The vapor streams exiting lower-pressure stripper segments are compressed and serve as the entering vapor streams to the next higher pressure stripper segment. In comparison. the matrix stripping configurations have separate reboilers for each stripper and do not compress overhead vapors from lower pressure strippers to provide vapor for higher pressure strippers. which have water-cooled interstage coolers. In this case. water cooling does supplement any interstage cooling of the CO2 after it provides heat to the reboiler.

TRIMERIC CORPORATION Figure 2-1.Simplified PFD 11 . Base Case .

Figure 2-2. Double Matrix - Simplified PFD

TRIMERIC CORPORATION

12

Figure 2-3. Double Matrix Vacuum with Heat Recovery - Simplified PFD

TRIMERIC CORPORATION

13

TRIMERIC CORPORATION

Figure 2-4. Multipressure Stripping without Heat Recovery – Simplified PFD

Figure 2-5. Multipressure Stripping with Heat Recovery – Simplified PFD

14

TRIMERIC CORPORATION 2. CO2 product specifications. The resulting flue gas composition. 15 . The primary analyses are based on a 500 MW. and conditions are shown in Table 2-2. The inlet flue gas composition was calculated using a gross heat rate of 9.2 Process Simulation Design Basis The design basis consists of power plant type. and calculations were based on the ultimate analysis provided in the NETL Systems Analysis Guidelines (DOE 2005). pulverized-coal-fired supercritical boiler with a wet FGD system. and operating parameters for the CO2 capture system. fuel. any remaining sulfur dioxide will be scrubbed with caustic in a direct-contact cooler prior to entering the CO2 capture scrubber. gross generating capacity. Table 2-1 shows the design basis. FGD type. flow rate. Sulfur dioxide is not included in this composition. CO2 removal.674 Btu/kWh and 28% excess air. The unit fires Illinois #6 subbituminous coal.

6 m PZ) kg/tonne CO2 captured 1.0 16.5 m K+.5 - High Volatile Bituminous Illinois #6 (Herrin) St Clair Co. ~30 wt%) MEA / PZ (7 m MEA.05 4.67 F psia 104.89 1.3 F F 85 110 F psia 600 160 Solvent degradation.97 60.45 14..325 7.TRIMERIC CORPORATION Table 2-1.0 111. wet FGD 80 28 Btu/kWh 90 Value 9.4 m K+. Source of steam Temperature Pressure Superheated? C kPa - Intermediate pressure steam 316 1103 superheated 16 .4 43. 2 m PZ) MDEA (~50 wt%) - KPIP 4545 (4.2 F psia F 59 14. Design Basis – Process Inputs Description SI Units General Type Gross Capacity FGD Capacity Factor Combustion excess air Gross heat rate CO2 removal MWe % % % Stream Data Solvent Solvents for Detailed Analysis: Conventional MEA Promoted MEA MDEA Solvents for Screening Study Only: Potassium Carbonate / Piperazine 1 Potassium Carbonate / Piperazine 2 English Units Value Pulverized coal-fired supercritical boiler 500 Yes. IL wt% wt% wt% wt% wt% wt% wt% wt% 7.5 m PZ) KPIP 6416 (6.90 Amine Absorber Inlet Flue Gas Temperature Pressure C kPa 40.20 Ambient air Relative humidity Temperature Pressure Wet bulb temperature % C kPa C 60 15 101. spills Coal General Data Rank Seam Sample Location Ultimate Analyses (wt%) Moisture Carbon Hydrogen Nitrogen Chlorine Sulfur Ash Oxygen (BD) Outlet CO 2 Specification Pressure Water content N2 O2 Ar Cooling water Supply temperature Return temperature Steam to Turbine (Compressor Driver) This steam will drive a turbine joined by a common crankshaft to the capture compressors.42 3. 1.25 7.07 0. 4. leaks.696 45 bar kPa Dew point (K) ppmv 152 15200 233 <300 psia Dew point (°F) 2205 -40 ppmv ppmv <40 <10 C C 29.674 MEA (7 m.

These minor changes were made to ensure that the base case is as representative of an actual MEA-based process design as possible.042 124.per train Temperature Pressure 2.3 English Value Units Value Units mol% mol% mol% mol% kmol/s kmol/s sm3/s dm3/s C kPa 70.TRIMERIC CORPORATION Table 2-2. Inlet Flue Gas Conditions SI FGD Outlet Flue Gas Composition N2 O2 CO2 H2O Flow rate .325 lbmol/h MMSCFD acfm F psia 46.719 425.38 12. • Inlet flue gas is cooled to 40°C (104°F) prior to entering the absorber. • Stripper operates at 172 kPa (25 psia) instead of 203 kPa (29.5463 5.03 4. and the engineering and economic analysis approach.65 12.94 23. the process simulations. the UT group performed a screening study to evaluate energy requirements for a large array of solvent and process configuration combinations.706 51. the project team selected three cases for detailed.696 Engineering and Economic Analysis Approach The following subsections describe in greater detail the screening study.4 156. 2. The base case has been updated with the following changes to the base case used in the previous SBIR (DE-FG02-04ER84111).2 101.1 Screening Study Early in the project. Then. The flue gas was cooled so that the absorber would 17 . rigorous analysis: one base case and two “advanced” cases. • Rich/lean amine exchanger temperature approach is reduced from 10°C (18°F) to 5°C (9°F).2 14.887 139.4 psia).total Flow rate .5 332.3.

5 m K+.2. 7 m (30wt%) MEA was also the solvent in the updated base case. • MDEA PZ (proprietary formulation).6 m PZ). 2007). and • Additional combinations thereof. • KPIP 4545 (4. The temperature approach in the rich/lean exchanger was decreased because this change was estimated to decrease the total required energy of the unit by ~12% (Oyenekan. As with the original base case. • Vacuum stripping. Total equivalent work was estimated for all screening cases and provided the basis of selection for detailed analysis.1. 1. The following process configurations were considered in the initial screening study: • Double matrix stripping. The stripper pressure was decreased slightly to be consistent with low pressure strippers in matrix configurations and thus allow easier comparison between process configurations. An advanced case uses a novel solvent and process configuration. 2 m PZ).TRIMERIC CORPORATION operate at a lower temperature and achieve a higher CO2 loading in the rich amine.5 m PZ). The screening study was based largely on material included in the 18 .4 m K+. • MEA PZ (7 m MEA. This higher loading would in turn decrease the circulation rate and reduce energy requirements in the reboiler. 4. These configurations were described earlier in Section 2. The two “advanced” cases were selected based on the screening study and input from industry advisors as described later in this section. and • KPIP 6416 (6. The following solvents were included in the screening study: • MEA (7 m MEA). • Multipressure stripping without heat recovery. • Multipresure stripping with heat recovery.

2 m PZ Double Matrix MDEA / PZ double matrix Proprietary concentrations Double Matrix 2. The best combination of solvent and process configuration was double matrix with MDEA/PZ. yet the results from this case will indicate what costs may be anticipated for the range of MDEA / PZ solvent formulations.TRIMERIC CORPORATION dissertation of Oyenekan while at the University of Texas (Oyenekan. AspenONE® and RateSep™ are commercial process modeling software supplied by Aspen Technology. The calculations use AspenONE® and RateSep™ software with advanced calculation methods developed under previous DOE funding (DE-FC2602NT41440). and gas phase heat transfer. Table 2-3. The double matrix configuration was. liquid film diffusion for reactants and products. selected as one of the configurations that warranted detailed analysis. therefore. To summarize. The concentrations of the MDEA / PZ formulation are proprietary.2 Process Simulation UT performed rigorous modeling of the CO2 absorption and stripping for the MEA base case and the MEA/PZ double matrix case. MEA/PZ is more developed than the KPIP solvent and has lower perceived risk to industry. which corresponds to ~20% savings in equivalent work over the previous MEA base case from the 2004 SBIR (DE-FG02-04ER84111) and ~15% over the revised MEA base case. The model accounts for mass transfer with fast reaction in the liquid boundary layer. Therefore. The vapor/liquid equilibrium (VLE) and solution speciation was represented in 19 .3. the cases selected for detailed analysis are shown in Table 2-3. MEA/PZ and MDEA/PZ decreased total energy requirements by at least 10% when compared to MEA for several different configurations. The double matrix screening cases generally showed the largest decrease in total energy requirements of all configurations. gas film diffusion. 7m MEA/ 2m PZ double matrix was selected as the other “advanced” case. The systems that were competitive with the MDEA/PZ double matrix were the MEA/PZ double matrix and a KPIP double matrix. Inc. 2007). thus. Cases Selected for Detailed Analysis Case Name Solvent Configuration Base Case 7 m MEA Conventional MEA / PZ double matrix 7 m MEA. this case was selected for detailed study.

Trimeric simulated the compression system and ancillary systems (e. 2.TRIMERIC CORPORATION AspenONE® with the NRTL electrolyte model regressed on the data of Cullinane (2005) by Hilliard (2005). The Peng-Robinson equation of state was the thermodynamic model used for the inlet gas blower and direct contact cooler as well as the compression unit operations.3. cooling water) using Design II WinSim (v9.4 Economic Analysis Sections 5 and 6 of this report provide greater detail on the development of capital and operating costs and the economic comparison of the different cases.3 Equipment Sizing After completing the heat and material balances.8. Trimeric prepared equipment specifications.0. Additional details on the process simulations are provided in Section 3. sized and selected equipment. Dow simulated the MDEA/PZ double matrix case using an in-house simulation package.. 2.0).g. However.33).6. ProComp (v. Using stream and unit operations reports from the various simulators.3. a commercial process simulator. Trimeric prepared overall heat and material balances for the three cases. Base case performance of MEA is calculated with the AspenONE® and RateSep™ model by Freguia (2002). certain assumptions were made about the site and type of utility operations involved. ASME steam tables were used for the steam system simulations. steam desuperheating. in developing these costs. These assumptions included the following: 20 . Sections 4 and 5 of this report provide an in-depth discussion of the methodologies used.

2 MPa (2200 psia) for transport and injection at an off-site location. were developed and are presented in Section 6. Economic metrics. 21 . • Dehydration is included for all cases. such as the cost per tonne CO2 avoided and the effect of CO2 removal systems on the cost of electricity. an 80% capacity factor was used for the economic analyses. • The CO2 removed by the MEA unit is compressed to a pipeline pressure of 15.TRIMERIC CORPORATION • The coal-fired power plant is a base-load power plant that is central to the utility’s electrical generating system rather than an intermediate (or “swing”) load unit or a peaking unit. • The CO2 capture system installation is a retrofit to an existing power plant. since this would describe the bulk of the systems that may be installed. Based on this.

2002. Thesis. Goff.D.S. “Research Results for CO2 Capture from Flue Gas by Aqueous Absorption/Stripping. J. The University of Texas at Austin. “CO2 Capture by Absorption with Potassium Carbonate.” M. Cullinane.TRIMERIC CORPORATION References (Section 2) Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL).T. 22 . Dissertation. S.. 2002. 2007. DOE Award # DE-FC26-02NT41440. et al.S.. February 25-27. Freguia. Department of Chemical Engineering.. “Thermodynamics of Aqueous Piperazine/Potassium Carbonate/Carbon Dioxide Characterized by the Electrolyte NRTL Model within Aspen Plus®. G. “Carbon Capture and Sequestration Systems Analysis Guidelines”. The University of Texas at Austin. The University of Texas at Austin (2005). Thesis.” Second Quarterly Report 2007. Hilliard. Rochelle. G.T.S.” Ph. M. Oyenekan. “Modeling of CO2 Removal from Flue Gases with Monoethanolamine.T. Note: Table 3-5 in the dissertation shows estimated energy requirements for solventconfiguration systems used in the screening study of this project.. and S.” M. April 2005. B. G. “Modeling of Strippers for CO2 Capture by Aqueous Amines. Rochelle.” Proceedings of the Laurance Reid Gas Conditioning Conference. Freguia.

The scope excluded simulations of the utility power generation system and non-CO2 pollution control equipment such as flue-gas desulfurization (FGD) units. selection.TRIMERIC CORPORATION 3.1 Simulation Scope The scope of the simulations was limited to the CO2 capture and compression equipment. to simulate the inlet gas train.and KPIP-based CO2 capture trains using Aspen Technology Inc. The goal of the process simulation work was to generate heat and material balances for the multiple stripper configurations investigated in this study. UT developed the primary process simulations for MEA.1. the thermodynamic and physical property specifications. The heat and material balances were then used as a basis for the subsequent equipment sizing. version 9. Dow used an in-house process simulator package. version 8. and the major process specifications used to build the simulations.33.0. and the steam system for all cases. ProComp. the CO2 compression train.0.0 PROCESS SIMULATION AND DESIGN This section describes the results of the process simulation and design task. The following subsections describe the scope of the simulations. and economic evaluation tasks. inlet direct contact cooler) • CO2 capture train • CO2 compression train • Steam system Trimeric used WinSim’s Design II. All of the process calculations were based on steady-state conditions at the full design capacity of the unit for each case. for the MDEA / PZ double matrix case. 3. electrostatic precipitators 23 .’s AspenOne® 2006 with the RateSep™ module for modeling the absorber and the stripper. 3.1 Process Simulation Approach Process simulations were divided into four “blocks”: • Inlet gas train (inlet gas blower.6.

The output of the inlet gas train simulation was the input for the primary CO2 capture simulations conducted by UT and Dow. The outputs from the UT and Dow simulations were used as inputs for Trimeric’s CO2 compression train simulations. The feed stream for the simulation of the inlet gas train was a flue gas stream exiting a wet FGD scrubber. as described in Section 4.2 MPa (2200 psia) and approximately 40°C (104˚F). The absorber is modeled with RadFrac™ using a RateSep™ model. The model includes the effects of liquid-phase and gas-phase diffusion resistances for both the absorber and the stripper.19/tonne CO2) in comparison with the overall cost of CO2 avoided ($67. 1994).2 Thermodynamic and Physical Properties Specifications The details of the MEA and MEA / PZ models developed by UT are described first. The stripper is a reboiled column with two equilibrium stages. associated process heat exchangers and pumps. Operating costs for the dehydration unit were estimated to be negligible ($0. These simulations included the entire amine system. followed by a description of the MDEA / PZ model. and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) units. regenerator. 3. however. which is a rate-based model framework in AspenONE®. The simulation terminated with a CO2 product delivered to the battery limits at 15.01/MCF CO2 or $0. CO2 dehydration equipment was not simulated but was included in the capital costs. which included all interstage coolers and separators. which consists of an absorber. The model represents vapor-liquid equilibrium and solution speciation with the NRTL electrolyte model regressed on the MEA data of Jou and Mather (1995).1. one of which is a reboiler The model uses instantaneous reactions in the stripper due to the high temperatures present.20 /tonne CO2 for the current base case) (Tannehill. The reactions included in the absorber RateFrac model are shown in the following seven equations: H2O + MEA+ ← ⎯→ H3O+ + MEA (1) 2 H2O ← ⎯→ H3O+ + OH- (2) 24 .TRIMERIC CORPORATION (ESPs). finite reaction rates are required to accurately model the absorber due to the lower temperatures found in that unit operation.

(1977) and was modified according to experimental data provided by Aboudheir (2002). (1971). For equations six and seven. 25 .+ H3O+ (6) MEACOO. equations four through seven are kinetic equations. 11 m MEA was used to simulate 7 m MEA / 2 m PZ. The reactions included in the stripper model are shown in the following five equations: H2O + MEA+ ← ⎯→ H3O+ + MEA (1) 2 H2O ← ⎯→ H3O+ + OH- (2) H2O + HCO3- ← ⎯→ H3O+ + CO32- (3) 2 H2O + CO2 ← ⎯→ H3O+ + HCO3- (8) H2O + MEACOO- ← ⎯→ MEA + HCO3- (9) All five equations are equilibrium equations. the rate expression began with the model of Hikita et al. Equations four and five are amine-catalyzed bicarbonate formation. these coefficients are based on a model provided by Little at al. The rate constant for carbamate formation was increased by a factor of four to represent the rate enhancement provided by 2 m piperazine. The rate coefficients are assumed equal to that of the MDEA catalyzed reaction.+ MEA+ ⎯ ⎯→ H2O + CO2 + MEA (5) H2O + CO2 + MEA ⎯ ⎯→ MEACO2.TRIMERIC CORPORATION H2O + HCO3- ← ⎯→ H3O+ + CO32- (3) H2O + CO2 + MEA ⎯ ⎯→ MEA+ + HCO3- (4) HCO3. The physical and thermodynamic property methods used are summarized below: • Vapor heat capacities – Vapor heat capacities were based on the Design Institute for Physical Properties (DIPPR) correlation for non-electrolyte species and on a polynomial form for electrolyte species. which corresponds to instantaneous reactions in the stripper. Equations one through three are common to both the absorber and the stripper. For the 7 m MEA / 2 m PZ double matrix case.+ H3O+ ⎯ ⎯→ H2O + CO2 + MEA (7) Equations one through three are equilibrium equations.

TRIMERIC CORPORATION

Heats of vaporization- Heats of vaporization were based on the DIPPR correlation for
non-electrolytes and on the Watson correlation for electrolytes.

Liquid densities – Liquid densities were based on the DIPPR correlation.

Vapor and supercritical fluid densities – Soave-Redlich-Kwong (SRK) equation of state

Diffusivities – Diffusivities used the Chapman-Enskog-Wilke-Lee model for mixtures.

Thermal conductivities – Thermal conductivities used DIPPR correlations.

Viscosities – Viscosities were based on the DIPPR model for non-electrolytes and on the
Andrade correlation with the Jones-Dole correction for electrolyte species.

Surface tension – Surface tensions were based on the DIPPR correlation.

Solubility of supercritical components - Henry’s Law components included CO2, N2, and
O2.
Dow used an in-house process simulation package, ProComp v.8.0.6.0. The Dow

simulation for the MDEA / PZ case uses the Electrolyte NRTL model to calculate vapor-liquid
equilibrium. The model is regressed using data that Dow has obtained through years of
laboratory and field data and that is validated through commercial-scale production and use of
their proprietary solvent formulations. Historically, the acid gas treating systems have used low
pressure strippers. The use of higher pressure strippers does represent a departure from Dow’s
typical applications and is an area where some extrapolation from historical VLE data sets is
required. The absorber and stripper models account for the effects of mass transfer as well as
reaction kinetics. The heat transfer and mass transfer calculations are extensively supported by
commercial-scale operations. Additional details of the Dow models are proprietary and cannot
be disclosed here.

3.1.3

Key Process Simulation Specifications

Process simulation inputs are presented in Tables 3-1 (Metric units) and Table 3-2
(English units). These inputs supplement the design basis presented in Table 2-1.

26

TRIMERIC CORPORATION
Table 3-1. Summary of Process Simulation Inputs (Metric Units)
Description

Units

Base Case

MEA / PZ
Double Matrix

Equipment Data - Inlet Gas Conditioning Train (Common to all configurations)
Inlet Booster Fan
Flow rate
std m3/s
558
Pressure increase
kPa
10
Efficiency
%
75
Direct Contact Cooler
0
Outlet gas temperature
C
40
Equipment Data - CO2 Capture
Absorber
CO2 removal
%
90
Approach to flooding
%
80
Absorber maximum diameter
m
12
Packing type
CMR#2
Height of packing
m
23
Rich Amine Pump
483
Pressure increase
kPa
65
Efficiency
%
Rich Amine Carbon Filter
%
15
Slipstream fraction of rich circulation rate
Total filtration allowable pressure drop
kPa
69
Particulate Filter
%
15
Slipstream fraction of rich circulation rate
Rich Amine High Pressure Booster Pump
Pressure increase
kPa
Efficiency
%
Rich/Lean Amine Exchanger
Cold-side temperature approach
C
5
Allowable pressure drop - lean
kPa
138
Allowable pressure drop - rich
kPa
138
Rich/Semi-Lean Amine Exchanger
Cold-side temperature approach
C
Allowable pressure drop - lean
kPa
Allowable pressure drop - rich
kPa
Low Pressure Stripper
Bottom Pressure
kPa
172
Approach to flooding
%
80
Packing type
CMR#2
Total height of packing
m
2
Low Pressure Reboiler
One per stripper
Number
Low Pressure Condenser
One per stripper
Number
Process-side outlet temperature
C
40
Allowable pressure drop - process
kPa
14
Allowable pressure drop - cooling water
kPa
207
Low Pressure Condenser Accumulator
One per
condenser
Number
Low Pressure Stripper Condensate Pump
Pressure increase
kPa
207
Efficiency
%
65

MDEA / PZ
Double Matrix

=
=
=
=
=

=
=
=
=
=

=
=
=
=
=

=
=
=
Flexipac
15.2

=
=

=
=

=
=

=
=

=

=

107
65

124
65

=
=
=

=
=
=

5
138
138

5
138
138

=
=
=
5.3

=
=
Flexipac 1Y
13.7

=

=

=
=
=
=

=
=
=
=

=

=

276
=

=
=

Note: “=” indicates a value equal to the base case.

27

TRIMERIC CORPORATION
Table 3-1. Summary of Process Simulation Inputs (Metric Units, continued)
Description
Low Pressure Lean Amine Pump
Pressure increase
Efficiency
Low Pressure Semi-Lean Pump
Pressure increase
Efficiency
High Pressure Stripper
Bottom Pressure
Approach to flooding
Packing type
Height of packing

Units

Base Case

MEA / PZ
Double Matrix

MDEA / PZ
Double Matrix

kPa
%

414
65

=
=

345
=

kPa
%

-

324
65

296
65

kPa
%
m

-

279
80
CMR#2
1.5

296
80
Flexipac 1Y
12.2

High Pressure Reboiler
Number
High Pressure Stripper Condensate Pump
Pressure increase
kPa
Efficiency
%
High Pressure Lean Amine Pump - ELIMINATED
Lean Cooler
Process outlet temperature
C
Allowable process-side pressure drop
kPa
Allowable shell-side pressure drop
kPa
Semi-lean Cooler
Process outlet temperature
C
Allowable process-side pressure drop
kPa
Allowable shell-side pressure drop
kPa
Equipment Data - CO2 Compression
Compressors
Number of stages
Compressor discharge pressure
kPa
Polytropic efficiency
%
Maximum discharge temperature
C
Compressor Pump (last stage)
Discharge pressure
kPa
Efficiency
%
Compressor Interstage Coolers
Type
Process-side outlet temperature
Allowable process-side pressure drop
Allowable shell-side pressure drop
Steam Turbine - CO 2 Compressor Driver
Isentropic efficiency
Inlet temperature
Inlet pressure
Turbine discharge pressure

-

One per stripper One per stripper

-

138
65

69
65

40
69
207

=
=
=

=
=
=

-

40
69
207

40
69
207

4
9653
80
149

5
=
=
=

5
=
=
=

15200
60

=
=

=
=

C
kPa
kPa

Water-cooled
shell and tube
40
69
207

=
=
=
=

=
=
=
=

%
C
kPa
kPa

72
316
1103
239

=
=
=
=

=
=
=
308

Note: “=” indicates a value equal to the base case.

28

TRIMERIC CORPORATION Table 3-2.Inlet Gas Conditioning Train (Common to all configurations) Inlet Booster Fan Flow rate MMSCFD 1702 Pressure increase psi 2 Efficiency % 75 Direct Contact Cooler 0 Outlet gas temperature F 104 Equipment Data .lean psi Allowable pressure drop . 29 .5 65 17.CO2 Capture Absorber CO2 removal % 90 Approach to flooding % 80 Absorber maximum diameter ft 40 Packing type CMR#2 Height of packing ft 74 Rich Amine Pump 70 Pressure increase psi 65 Efficiency % Rich Amine Carbon Filter % 15 Slipstream fraction of rich circulation rate Total filtration allowable pressure drop psi 10 Particulate Filter Slipstream fraction of rich circulation rate % 15 Rich Amine High Pressure Booster Pump Pressure increase psi Efficiency % Rich/Lean Amine Exchanger Cold-side temperature approach F 9 Allowable pressure drop .2 = = Flexipac 1Y 45 = = = = = = = = = = = = 40 = = = Note: “=” indicates a value equal to the base case.rich psi 20 Rich/Semi-Lean Amine Exchanger Cold-side temperature approach F Allowable pressure drop .cooling water psi 30 Low Pressure Condenser Accumulator One per condenser Number Low Pressure Stripper Condensate Pump Pressure increase psi 30 Efficiency % 65 MDEA / PZ Double Matrix = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Flexipac 1Y 50 = = = = = = = = = = 15. Summary of Process Simulation Inputs (English Units) Description Units Base Case MEA / PZ Double Matrix Equipment Data .9 65 = = = = = = 9 20 20 9 20 20 = = = 17.rich psi Low Pressure Stripper Bottom Pressure psia 25 Approach to flooding % 80 Packing type CMR#2 Total height of packing ft 5 Low Pressure Reboiler Number One per stripper Low Pressure Condenser Number One per stripper Process-side outlet temperature F 104 Allowable pressure drop .process psi 2 Allowable pressure drop .lean psi 20 Allowable pressure drop .

5 80 = 4. 30 . continued) Description Low Pressure Lean Amine Pump Pressure increase Efficiency Low Pressure Semi-Lean Pump Pressure increase Efficiency High Pressure Stripper Bottom Pressure Approach to flooding Packing type Height of packing Base Case MEA / PZ Double Matrix MDEA / PZ Double Matrix psi % 60 65 = = 50 = psi % - 47 65 43 65 psia % CMR#2 - 40.9 80 Flexipac 1Y 40 - 0 0 - 20 65 10 65 104 10 30 = = = = = = - 104 10 30 104 10 30 4 1400 80 300 5 = = = 5 = = = 2205 60 = = = = F psi psi Water-cooled shell and tube 104 10 30 = = = = = = = = % F psia psia 72 600 160 35 = = = = = = = 45 ft High Pressure Reboiler Number High Pressure Stripper Condensate Pump Pressure increase psi Efficiency % High Pressure Lean Amine Pump .TRIMERIC CORPORATION Table 3-2.9 42. Summary of Process Simulation Inputs (English Units.ELIMINATED Lean Cooler Process outlet temperature F Allowable process-side pressure drop psi Allowable shell-side pressure drop psi Semi-lean Cooler Process outlet temperature F Allowable process-side pressure drop psi Allowable shell-side pressure drop psi Equipment Data .CO 2 Compressor Driver Isentropic efficiency Inlet temperature Inlet pressure Turbine discharge pressure Note: “=” indicates a value equal to the base case.CO2 Compression Compressors Number of stages Compressor discharge pressure psia Polytropic efficiency % Maximum discharge temperature F Compressor Pump (last stage) Discharge pressure psia Efficiency % Compressor Interstage Coolers Type Process-side outlet temperature Allowable process-side pressure drop Allowable shell-side pressure drop Steam Turbine .

interstage coolers.TRIMERIC CORPORATION 3. Similarly. 31 .2. The flow diagrams for the MEA / PZ double matrix and the MDEA / PZ double matrix are identical. 3. the MDEA / PZ double matrix case had eight parallel amine trains. The single compressor train has multiple stages.2 Process Simulation Results The process simulation flow diagrams. and separators as indicated by “n” that are not all shown on the diagram for clarity.1 Process Simulation Flow Diagrams The following two figures present process flow diagrams for the base case and the double matrix CO2 capture trains and associated steam systems. process simulation results summary. and material balances are given in the following subsections. The MEA base case and the MEA / PZ double matrix had four parallel amine trains. multiple parallel amine absorber and regenerator trains are shown as one train on the diagram.

Base Case – Detailed PFD TRIMERIC CORPORATION 32 .Figure 3-1.

Figure 3-2. Base Case – Steam System PFD TRIMERIC CORPORATION 33 .

Double Matrix – Detailed PFD TRIMERIC CORPORATION 34 .Figure 3-3.

Figure 3-4. Double Matrix – Steam System PFD TRIMERIC CORPORATION 35 .

Results for the amine train are given on a per train basis.g.TRIMERIC CORPORATION 3. circulation rates). the key simulation parameters (e. amine circulation rates. and different solvent properties. the MEA cases have four amine trains and the MDEA / PZ case has eight amine trains.2. The selection of number of trains is determined by maximum absorber size of 40 ft. Comparisons between the cases are made in Section 4 in conjunction with the equipment sizing information. reboiler duties. Several factors contribute to the difference in number and size of absorbers: different packing types. and compression power) are given.2 Summary of Process Simulation Results Key process simulation results are summarized in Table 3-3 (metric units) and 3-4 (English units). For each of the cases. The rich amine pump rate is the overall amine circulation rate.e. different correlations for flooding. 36 . liquid loading (i.

548 193.809 715.668 5 38.Ancillary Equipment Cooling Water System .5 90 11.773 steam 40.7 22.184 288.441 10.931 4.618 5 35.741 496 342 470 kPa - 279.936 0 2.795 Driver Power available from steam kW Power from electric driver kW Excess available power kW Compressor Pump (last stage) Total brake power required (total unit) kW Compressor Interstage Coolers Total cooler duty MW(therm)/unit Equipment Data .TRIMERIC CORPORATION Table 3-3.341 787 898 m3/h kW/unit - 3.369 steam 51.611 16.700 240 234.456 1.969 38.172 kW/unit 146.0 296.933 4.588 18.317 steam and electric 25.712 38.370 9.886 3.CO2 Capture Absorber CO2 removal Absorber selected diameter Height of packing Rich Amine Pump Flow rate per unit Brake power per unit Rich Amine High Pressure Booster Pump Flow rate per unit Percent of flow to HP stripper Brake power per unit Rich/Lean Amine Exchanger Duty per unit Rich/Semi-Lean Amine Exchanger Duty per unit Low Pressure Stripper Bottom Pressure Low Pressure Reboiler Duty per unit Low Pressure Condenser Duty per unit Low Pressure Lean Amine Pump Flow rate per unit Brake power per unit Low Pressure Semi-Lean Pump Flow rate per unit Flow rate per unit High Pressure Stripper Bottom Pressure High Pressure Reboiler Duty per unit Steam pressure Lean Cooler Duty per unit Semi-lean Cooler Duty per unit Equipment Data .692 82.733 8.687 35.197.199 143.999 0 1878 1879 1883 75 92 112 35732 29.CO2 Compression Compressors Number of stages Total brake power required (total unit) MEA/PZ Double MDEA/PZ Double Matrix Matrix Units Base Case - 1 4 1 1 4 1 1 8 1 % m m 90 9.692 m3/h per unit % kW/unit - 19262 84 881 6063 72 311 kW/unit 1.596 37.480 310 kW/unit 352.2 m3/h kW/unit 26.5 90 10.511 kPa 172 172 172 kW/unit 485.129 5.0 kW/unit kPa - 192. Process Simulation Results (Metric) Description Number of inlet gas trains Number of CO2 capture trains Number of CO2 compression trains Equipment Data .Utility Total m3/h-unit 37 .393 22.081 kW 4 40.707 m3/h kW/unit 25.560 kW/unit - 55.9 15.8 22.711 kW/unit - 109.633 351.

Process Simulation Results (English) Description Number of inlet gas trains Number of CO2 capture trains Number of CO2 compression trains Equipment Data .CO2 Compression Compressors Number of stages Total brake power required (total unit) Driver Power available from steam Power from electric driver Excess available power Compressor Pump (last stage) Total brake power required (total unit) Compressor Interstage Coolers Total cooler duty Equipment Data .442 1.373 73.536 5 51.347 37.9 MMBtu/h-unit psia - 658 35 800 45 MMBtu/h-unit 1.022 13.408 0 hp 2518 2520 2525 MMBtu/h-unit 256 315 381 gpm per unit 157325 130.964 6.268 gpm per unit % hp/unit - 84807 84 1.181 26696 72 416 MMBtu/h-unit 4.200 MMBtu/h-unit - 373 490 psia 25 25 25 MMBtu/h-unit 1.466 1.Ancillary Equipment Cooling Water System .0 74.481 3.087 2.895 0 3.473 665 104 630 psia - 40.043 7.230 2.153 83.657 661 120 MMBtu/h-unit 501 133 132 gpm hp/unit 114.5 42.CO2 Capture Absorber CO2 removal Absorber selected diameter Height of packing Rich Amine Pump Flow rate per unit Brake power per unit Rich Amine High Pressure Booster Pump Flow rate per unit Percent of flow to HP stripper Brake power per unit Rich/Lean Amine Exchanger Duty per unit Rich/Semi-Lean Amine Exchanger Duty per unit Low Pressure Stripper Bottom Pressure Low Pressure Reboiler Duty per unit Low Pressure Condenser Duty per unit Low Pressure Lean Amine Pump Flow rate per unit Brake power per unit Low Pressure Semi-Lean Pump Flow rate per unit Flow rate per unit High Pressure Stripper Bottom Pressure High Pressure Reboiler Duty per unit Steam pressure Lean Cooler Duty per unit Semi-lean Cooler Duty per unit Equipment Data .447 steam 54.788 5 47.948 hp hp hp 38 .0 90 35 74 90 39 50 gpm hp/unit 115.984 14.205 gpm hp/unit - 16.Utility Total MEA/PZ Double MDEA/PZ Double Matrix Matrix Units Base Case - 1 4 1 1 4 1 1 8 1 ft ft 90 32.155 4.202 985 282 MMBtu/h-unit - 190 127 hp 4 54.108 34.TRIMERIC CORPORATION Table 3-4.431 steam 68.178 6.233 100.

temperature. vapor fraction. and average molecular weight. Also.3 Material Balances Material balances for each of the three cases are given in the Tables 3-5 through 3-7. pressure.2. The stream numbers at the top of the table correspond to flow diagrams presented in Section 3. it was assumed that all amine was MDEA. flow rate. Each material balance gives the stream composition.1. the MDEA / PZ solvent formulation is proprietary.2. density.TRIMERIC CORPORATION 3. 39 . To make a mass balance.

7 6.843.859 27.881 126.771 9.974 83 12 3.8 101.2 926.824 59.794 0.58 986.242.704 28.274.643 307.862.3 27.1 59.941.4 54.16 1.425 295 601.63 974.746.448.574 408.6 15.740 1.10 79.544 46.8 561.689.5 3.331 25.665 26.472.0 387.869.6 0.788 1.6 6.093.454 4.53 25.4 54.7 9.3 62.3 46.9 109.8 3.9 Rich Amine .978 29.460 33.941.0 129.582 29.6 865.493.6 868.384 2.0 0.4 1.353.528.728.7 11 868.660 1.762 1.662.442 33.693.127 15.1 46.840.0 51.176 7.816.249 15.117.2 951.493.046.031 2.703 2.459 24.7 1 3 68.171 408.528 461.8 9.9 934.269 83 12 3.235.7 10 Table 3-5.345.267 300 601.9 24.5 3.9 42.695.493.643.9 6.0 0.943.358.448.665 26.8 1.237.8 985.9 197.0 0.3 5.2 951.360.9 Rich Amine 50.951.8 9.Molecular weight Density Stream Name Temperature Pressure Vapor fraction Component molar flow H2O CO2 MEA N2 O2 MEA+ MEACOOHCO3CO3-H3O+ OHHCOOComponent mass flow H2O CO2 MEA N2 O2 MEA+ MEACOOHCO3CO3-H3O+ OHHCOOTotal molar flow Total mass flow Total volumetric flow Stream Number kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kgmol/h kg/h m3/h m3/h std kg/kgmol kg/m3 kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h C kPa - - 2 197.0 562.007.128 10 15.56 985.8 104.8 111.933 19 2.7 1 1 1 79.5 1 4 10 10 25.4 3.253.9 10.862.871.0 Outlet Flue Gas 40.6 226.9 1.816 24.9 59.662.964.4 10.290.947 4.704 28.2 951.9 3.854.3 3.816.665 26.172 4.1 5.5 38.862.964.150 33.089.643.027.341.645 2.0 111.415.9 1.143 1.333.628 623.516 4.09 59.941.140 897.628.662.816 24. Material Balance for MEA Base Case 30 25.761 2.643.384 2.329.7 172.0 6.283.959 1.112 94.0 0.2 10.358.564.360.60 985.665 26.0 14 TRIMERIC CORPORATION 40 .677.5 10.890 126.997 4.001.5 1.Rich Amine Pump Out Filter Out 51.2 6.4 10.2 3.945 6.692 126.4 6.717 0.187 66 1.683.442 407.6 Cooled Inlet Gas 40.213.816 24.1 46.3 111.528 461.007.649 1.1 594.2 43.914.4 53.761 2.137 84.426.587.775 0.859.314 461.881 126.689.833 10 15.1 14.2 3.5 Rich Amine Warm to LP Lean Amine Strip Hot 103.4 54.137 84.7 565.714 4.2 102.471 24.862.960 868.358.662.4 662.837 1.9 Compressed Inlet Flue Gas Gas 51.271.7 1.090.129 12 25.195 302 602.272 83 12 3.837 10.290 83 12 3.049.817.7 525.1 858.27 1.360.

9 964.0 0.8 0.319.237.332 416.1 842.2 0.444.0 40.828 227 536 1 526 0 199.2 103.0 448.6 8.6 229.961 76 1.0 1 40 29.5 2.331 25.1 43.529.512.7 8.474 44.129 974.8 6.037 625.0 8.455 15.4 11.921 1.2 Compression Stripper Interstage Dense Phase Condenser CO2 1 Outlet Liquid Condensate 40.2 9.331 25.728.144.0 27.67 2.913 498.6 9.55 83 12 18.7 1.192 150.875 4.445.62 208.Lean Amine Pump Out Cool 109.3 23.518 166.3 1.6 3.496 4.0 31 24.1 586.867.0 0.47 43 11.3 41.0 452.577.7 24.Molecular weight Density Stream Name Temperature Pressure Vapor fraction Component molar flow H2O CO2 MEA N2 O2 MEA+ MEACOOHCO3CO3-H3O+ OHHCOOComponent mass flow H2O CO2 MEA N2 O2 MEA+ MEACOOHCO3CO3-H3O+ OHHCOOTotal molar flow Total mass flow Total volumetric flow Stream Number kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kgmol/h kg/h m3/h m3/h std kg/kgmol kg/m3 kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h C kPa - - 32 974.0 8.479 416.2 38.168 14 1.933.237.13 974.233 24.716 415.0 154.637 308.335 29.461 302 1 8.780.708 8.2 1 Stripper Condenser Out 40.6 208.0 0.1 Lean Amine to Absorber 40.301 27.53 25 19 24.461.398 6.0 0.0 0.026.519.2 457.6 8.452.9 548.1 1.6 3.054.684.079 1.4 8.218 1.862.462 24.2 15.461.931 24.8 9.2 Varies 9618.764.334 166.302 24.0 33 21.636 3.9 3.656 10.22 11.283.555.1 991.497.029 625.071.4 861.11 84 13 572 415.0 1.379 529 83 12 11.4 Stripper Overheads 101.295 42.933 424.780. Material Balance for MEA Base Case (continued) TRIMERIC CORPORATION 41 .999 1 83 12 536 1 526 0 51 60 18.214.75 21.0 0.096 200.334 386.529 861.0 0.5 44.685.7 0.534 43.2 707.0 40.0 154.740 9.100.4 42 41 Table 3-5.0 154.1 56.430 2.7 70.4 1.7 3.5 858.2 483.531.463.7 2.3 453.542 235.472.6 9.4 Lean Amine .5 168.9 934.948.9 971.0 379.235 24.290 113.8 Stripper Condenser Outlet Gas 40.237.933 42.305 760 224.794 4.958 26 2.4 31.6 5.564.8 9.498.150.9 41.6 15.444.176 415.

158.1 193.68 397.534 43.010 8.2 Product 40.8 9.479 416.040 1.2 54.0 111.9 586.305 710 224.0 0.446.7 10.040 1.0 101.151.530 7.77 391.7 8.2 54.9 397.444.7 1.2 62 61 18.0 111.479 416.18 572 415.444.260 7.474.9 0.0 845.0 0.0 15202.1 991.4 519.0 845.155.055.9 ESP Outlet 58.22 10.7 73 61.636 3.139 3.9 DCC Water Supply 29.052.010 8.9 194.5 101.4 292.2 1.260 8.721.530 7.732 7.5 6.1 1.175.1 509.4 3.4 82.8 9.7 82.77 391.3 90 TRIMERIC CORPORATION 42 .Molecular weight Density Stream Name Temperature Pressure Vapor fraction Component molar flow H2O CO2 MEA N2 O2 MEA+ MEACOOHCO3CO3-H3O+ OHHCOOComponent mass flow H2O CO2 MEA N2 O2 MEA+ MEACOOHCO3CO3-H3O+ OHHCOOTotal molar flow Total mass flow Total volumetric flow Stream Number kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kgmol/h kg/h m3/h m3/h std kg/kgmol kg/m3 kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h C kPa - - 43.7 71 70 18.0 839.757 7.9 9.1 72 Table 3-5.744.8 15237.341 89 1.2 54.4 8.3 DCC Water Return 40.7 219.525 90 1.5 446.636 31.4 18.247 1.9 DCC Water Supply Pump Out 29.4 0.0 26.4 572 415.1 391.341 89 1.446.1 391. Material Balance for MEA Base Case (continued) 18.4 Amine Makeup 40.304 84 13 84 13 9.052.055.156 3.0 25.732 7.3 Water Wash (Recycled from Condensate System) 40.0 25.4 31.139 3.

400 800.Stream Name Temperature Pressure Vapor fraction Total molar flow Total mass flow Total volumetric flow Molecular weight Density Stream Number C kPa kgmol/h kg/h m3/h kg/kgmol kg/m3 - 82 Condensate 40 446 0 2.400 763.000 18 1.000 18 1.000 18 4.34 83 Table 3-5.000 37 18 992 81 LP Superheated Steam 184 239 1 42.16 LP Saturated Steam 126 239 1 44.400 800.400 763.000 183. Material Balance for MEA Base Case (steam system) LP Condensate 126 239 0 44.000 663.000 853 18 938 85 TRIMERIC CORPORATION 43 .000 599.15 80 Intermediate Pressure Steam 316 1103 1 42.100 37.

6 Cooled Inlet Gas 40.3 0.786.9 59.114 3.755.13 120.396 8 1 597.540.070.9 3 2 1 68.042.432.256 3.117.621.192.520.493.09 74.0 111.007.735.593 22.1 5.9 1.256 3.253.2 60.7 0.4 Rich Amine .47 28.593 22.163.360.9 28.0 9.703 2.976 47 7 3.8 82.6 919.448.040.776 21.451.0 59.468 1.6 3.049.3 0.7 387.6 935.662.6 1.9 93.432.879 27.6 10.779.2 53.8 111.149 47 7 3.177 4.931 4 11.3 1 10.7 525.728 126.6 935.610.7 10 Table 3-6.9 79.2 619.09 59.2 6.3 101.187 119 1.160.0 6.520.662.354.4 6.50 749.405 1.734 1 1.735.639 546 614.526.0 99.289 89.7 0.964.0 1.2 60.2 28.649 883.704 28.152 89 98.137 84.943.2 3.279 5.Rich Amine .360.662.015.727 399.788 834.2 12.0 54.941 8 1 590.649 1.8 0.941.146.8 288.2 0.9 54.514.Rich Amine to Warm Rich Pump Out Filter Out LP Amine to LP 55.407 558 615.978 29.4 10.1 290.4 10.158.1 288.2 10.4 Rich Amine 54.163.313 0.053.9 1.27 1.214 47 7 3.305 5.7 1 Compressed Gas 62.881 126.964 3.118.031 2.4 53.2 60.665.8 2.663.528 461.314 461.335 0.528 461.704 28.9 8.5 3.143 1.451.345.50 119.450 556 614.5 749.830 2.384 2.761 2.8 1.384 2.2 12.7 1 Inlet Flue Gas 51.2 Outlet Flue Gas 40.360.9 197.773 0.7 1.8 0.466.1 46.357 63.761 2.112 94.941.593 22.8 101.881 126.7 1 4 4 4 28.641 133.676.931 12 13 14 28.840.486 987 0.538.448.424 619.493.7 12.007.1 594.412 5.096 398.871.486.4 10.50 749.669 1 1.9 1.938 17.4 8.6 16. Material Balance for MEA / PZ Double Matrix TRIMERIC CORPORATION 44 .6 935.756.163.7 525.0 98.941.964.6 935.0 9.16 1.4 1.662.776 21.104 17.931 11.837 10.7 0.890 126.067.4 1.158.046.645 2.8 111.Molecular weight Density Stream Name Temperature Pressure Vapor fraction Component molar flow H2O CO2 MEA N2 O2 MEA+ MEACOOHCO3CO3-H3O+ OHHCOOComponent mass flow H2O CO2 MEA N2 O2 MEA+ MEACOOHCO3CO3-H3O+ OHHCOOTotal molar flow Total mass flow Total volumetric flow Stream Number kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kgmol/h kg/h m3/h m3/h std kg/kgmol kg/m3 kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h C kPa - - 197.045 3.625.137 84.976 398.493.837 1.8 1.776 21.5 2.7 10.522.692 1.2 11.235.909.824 59.0 53.205 17.735.2 3.194 46.3 1.0 11 619.055.5 2.451.

369 335.219.5 37.2 5.2 921.Rich Amine to Pump Booster Out HP Strip 54.834.938 11.4 0.558.379.3 172.5 515.255 469 516.4 Rich Amine to Booster Rich Amine .813.402.8 10.788.1 0.594.50 9.092.9 255.129.2 107.0 46.7 525.703 4.524.886 8 2.517 18.9 59.335.210 3.741 1 557.377.553.345.0 379.005 17.5 Hot Lean LP Lean Amine Lean Amine Pump Out 107.988 12.1 10.019.1 517.1 926.977.0 242.341.0 448.821 11.884.950 29.Molecular weight Density Stream Name Temperature Pressure Vapor fraction Component molar flow H2O CO2 MEA N2 O2 MEA+ MEACOOHCO3CO3-H3O+ OHHCOOComponent mass flow H2O CO2 MEA N2 O2 MEA+ MEACOOHCO3CO3-H3O+ OHHCOOTotal molar flow Total mass flow Total volumetric flow Stream Number kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kgmol/h kg/h m3/h m3/h std kg/kgmol kg/m3 kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h C kPa - - 16 17 629.262 28.875 9.513.942.063 2.696 4 9.907 3.4 0.559.1 44.927 1.784 228.973.8 40.6 28.728 179.306.839 9.2 9.812 18.389 486.3 3.713 229.6 37.0 17.559.540 0.825.517 18.503.137.154 79.7 632.601 19.2 49.2 279.737.458 28.56 122.3 7.6 914.516.972.3 Lean Amine to Absorber 40.637.339 19.3 520.7 242.812 18.9 1.5 0.552.0 2.525.492.628.4 0.498 40 5 3.299 467 516.9 55.351.344.162 17.630 4.287.503.107 14.637.2 857.559 0.3 5.2 22.7 8.537 2.314.658 18.739 37.5 214.88 630.630.0 20 28.77 623.2 22.427.955 0.262 629.861.2 0.0 8.779.286 362.749.6 8.666 22.503.7 59.2 50.584.655 4.532.519.8 1.318.4 916.088 114.166 0.008.83 622.212.886 8 2.064.0 15 41.2 28.9 HP Lean Amine 107.328 9.1 926.79 623.903 17.439 4.5 41.115 3.198 12 2.833 0.377.088.622 3.579 40 5 3.335 4.7 44.518 9.720 0.3 31 28.2 Cool Lean Amine 60.287.550 5 9.517 18.7 494.6 5.503.274 14.5 24.887.3 2.4 62.756.725 771.166.074.2 1.752 40 5 3.689.158 17.732 97 1.944.244 3.51 4 4 28.027.339 19.517 18.1 69.1 961.447.7 39.886.555.0 32 Table 3-6.6 372.459.3 39.680 4.347 0.494.019.137.361 11 2.8 1.591.6 935.326.1 15.0 30 518.0 101.905 17.309.313 68.339 19.2 168.6 3.215.136.0 34 TRIMERIC CORPORATION 45 .6 515.0 680.0 586.28 622.412 1.6 935.4 1.3 24.6 517.0 Semi-Lean Amine to Pump 97.019.533.6 41.2 12.0 33 28.323 9 1.2 518.371 3.1 101.7 41.4 259.305.561 520.1 953.2 7.268.244 1.624 335.897 908 1.770 4.8 1.2 50.963.796 3.3 41.162 813.57 629.456.4 58. Material Balance for MEA / PZ Double Matrix (continued) 28.

0 275.3 2.9 71.4 0.85 57.651 257.2 921.0 126.69 43 3.091.0 1.675 257.245 3.130.854.740 56.1 0.7 8.666 257.7 2.831.880 6.5 1 40 34.060.391 42.758 179.662 84 8 1 3.7 101.4 6.554 857.7 275.431.6 7.4 0.741 28.1 5.038 36.4 547.36 2.2 41.059 214.650 69 148.8 LP Condenser Outlet Gas 40.447.834 51.3 370 5.8 LP LP Condenser Compressor Out Outlet Liquid 40.591.217 52 85 0 84 50.305.907 3.184 3.303 1.981 2.671 122.6 3.222 264.6 Semi-Lean Amine .831.825.431 4.6 1.775 0.510 9.6 2.4 0.1 0.400.3 0.5 3.966 904 0.2 939.2 101.47 9.0 113.7 160.6 8.907 3.5 126.0 LP Stripper Overheads 91.9 478.430 127.5 3.2 HP Stripper Overheads 100.359 33.056 315.537 0.07 8 18.20 122.672.830.201.514 874.1 1.812.391 42.4 0.4 57.067 184.044 2.1 1.2 8.200.834.8 2.3 59.946. Material Balance for MEA / PZ Double Matrix (continued) 5.752 147.515 7 136.57 562.0 271.Pump Cool SemiOut Lean Amine 97.20 1 1 28.0 126.1 1.4 62.4 1.115 813.0 1.650 44.851.985 63 0.26 26.2 2.0 1 LP Condenser Out 40.239.0 0.430 170.3 15.3 0.564 34.1 9.8 1.2 Semi-Lean to Absorber 40.0 1 370 5.0 1 45 TRIMERIC CORPORATION 46 .1 1.0 37 9.0 1.239.607 120.537 1.851.8 737.493 557.129 68.062 103 39 6 1472.211 127.666 257.5 5.5 1.3 42 41 Table 3-6.058 315.5 2.447.182 3.529 158.0 340.Molecular weight Density Stream Name Temperature Pressure Vapor fraction Component molar flow H2O CO2 MEA N2 O2 MEA+ MEACOOHCO3CO3-H3O+ OHHCOOComponent mass flow H2O CO2 MEA N2 O2 MEA+ MEACOOHCO3CO3-H3O+ OHHCOOTotal molar flow Total mass flow Total volumetric flow Stream Number kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kgmol/h kg/h m3/h m3/h std kg/kgmol kg/m3 kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h C kPa - - 36 122.222 264.219 147.644 1 564.1 991.447.0 35 28.211 72.853.972.907 3.988 101.66 8 6.602 0 8 1 85 0 84 44 6.2 946.7 1.

3 CO2 Product 40.055 48 6 535 415.2 0.7 70 TRIMERIC CORPORATION 47 .7 102. and 4) 40.45 48 6 535 415.7 274.7 1.389 39.0 0.0 4.472 416.414.441.288 448.2 1 29.5 Cool LP/HP Vapor 40.2 1.2 48 47 kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h C kPa - - 246 4.0 53.7107 9.8 3.467 1.2 9.9 547.428 39. Material Balance for MEA / PZ Double Matrix (continued) 224.547.0 245.374 43.949 415.7 0.40 48 6 48 6 104.3 3.441.840.0 15168.Molecular weight Density Stream Name Temperature Pressure Vapor fraction Component molar flow H2O CO2 MEA N2 O2 MEA+ MEACOOHCO3CO3-H3O+ OHHCOOComponent mass flow H2O CO2 MEA N2 O2 MEA+ MEACOOHCO3CO3-H3O+ OHHCOOTotal molar flow Total mass flow Total volumetric flow Stream Number 11.182 18.718 420.206 43.289 448.5 62 18.7 1.7 0.3 4.7 4.0 Varies 1.0 1.1 37.0 9618.9 15237.2 1.7 0.374 43.0 1.599 103 48 6 kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kgmol/h kg/h m3/h m3/h std kg/kgmol kg/m3 1.7 0.7 0.216 4 1.195 415.3 2.7 3.3 1.8 275.951 95.467 1.901 62 0 2.875 267.7107 9.6 9.7 11.9 585.252 64. 3.3 ESP Pump Out 58.48 33.8 4.2 9.7107 9.3 61 60 Table 3-6.629 267.440.0 0.2 1.8 145 0 142 0 63.86 LP/HP Vapor Mix 107.521 33.440.427 102.1 0.570 28.40 9.056 710 224.9 9.4 Water Wash (Recycled from Condensate System) 40.374 43.553.1 50 Cool LP/HP Liquid (1st Stage Condensate) 40.165 415.724 9.951 128.4 1 Dense Phase CO2 1 40.056 760 224.2 64.2 29.0 261.7 0.443.2 1 49 1.2 51 Interstage Condensate (Stages 2.472 416.0 261.7 0.524 95.60 48 6 535 415.7 28.7 0.1 991.472 416.0 0.0 111.9 9.440.629 230.0 261.6 Cool LP/HP Mix 40.468 18.2 0.2 29.525 1.0 1 1842.566.7 0 0 104.467 1.

5 446.3 DCC Water Supply Pump Out 29.0 101.530 7.525 90 1.77 89 1.0 26.1 DCC Water Supply 29.1 3.055.139 391.446.3 DCC Water Return 40.1 7.010 8.052.757 7.055.5 101.0 839.260 7.0 101.68 397.2 54.010 8.341 391.4 Makeup Amine 40.9 18.247 1.0 845.139 3.0 25.155.040 1.9 148.175.9 2.446.0 845.530 7.732 89 1.732 18.4 148.1 2.341 18.158.77 7.052.260 8.3 391.2 54.9 73 72 71 61.Molecular weight Density Stream Name Temperature Pressure Vapor fraction Component molar flow H2O CO2 MEA N2 O2 MEA+ MEACOOHCO3CO3-H3O+ OHHCOOComponent mass flow H2O CO2 MEA N2 O2 MEA+ MEACOOHCO3CO3-H3O+ OHHCOOTotal molar flow Total mass flow Total volumetric flow Stream Number kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kg/h kgmol/h kg/h m3/h m3/h std kg/kgmol kg/m3 kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h kgmol/h C kPa - - 391.040 1.2 54. Material Balance for MEA / PZ Double Matrix (continued) TRIMERIC CORPORATION 48 .3 90 Table 3-6.0 25.156 3.9 397.

Material Balance for MEA / PZ Double Matrix (steam system) 86 LP Condensate 2 126 239 0 17.650 318.600 29.000 18 1.000 528.650 318.34 TRIMERIC CORPORATION 49 .300 636.Stream Name Temperature Pressure Vapor fraction Total molar flow Total mass flow Total volumetric flow Molecular weight Density Stream Number C kPa kgmol/h kg/h m3/h kg/kgmol kg/m3 - 81 LP Superheated Steam 184 239 1 33.650 318.700 607.34 83 85 LP Condensate 1 126 239 0 17.000 146.700 607.000 18 4.000 18 1.16 Condensate 40 446 0 1.34 Table 3-6.000 238.000 339 18 938 85 LP Saturated Steam 2 (To HP Stripper) 126 239 1 17.000 238.15 80 Intermediate Pressure Steam 316 1103 1 33.000 29 18 992 82 LP Saturated Steam 126 239 1 35.000 339 18 938 84 LP Saturated Steam 1 (To LP Stripper) 126 239 1 17.000 18 1.000 476.000 18 1.650 318.

9 1 74.007.7 15 189.9 49.298 182.2 32 284.880 273.0 109.757.864 8.704 Outlet Flue Gas 56.458 43.840.231 6.4 517.1 30 284.231 5.542 Rich Amine to Warm Rich LP Amine to LP 49.2 1 73.3 1 84.0 20 11b 12 273.406 6.5 594.649 1.3 101.9 112.761 2.187 1.253. Material Balance for MDEA / PZ Double Matrix TRIMERIC CORPORATION 50 .063 199.7 1 79.063 199.926 Rich Amine to Booster Rich Amine .7 296.7 1 84.5 96.458 2.704 Inlet Flue Gas 51.978 Compressed Gas 62.448 1.599 85.871.0 111.501 HP Lean Amine 126.0 13 16 17 199.848.3 172.5 49. Material Balance for MDEA / PZ Double Matrix (continued) 3 2 1 Table 3-7.9 649.117.406 33.056 8.6 511.5 49.007.8 525.6 104.299 Hot Lean LP Lean Amine Lean Amine Pump Out 116.5 109.031 1.8 111.Rich Amine .Rich Amine to Pump Booster Out HP Strip 49.7 525.864 8.662 Rich Amine .936 Cool Lean Amine 54.Rich Amine Pump Out Control Out Filter Out 49.231 6.2 116.9 525.821.920 8.662 182.920 1.5 49.703 2.960 6.645 2.456 4b 14 85.9 11 Table 3-7.368 4a 10 Outlet Flue Gas (Corrected for Water Wash) Rich Amine 52.406 6.6 379.761 2.456 31 182.- C kPa kgmol/h m3/h m3/h std - C kPa kgmol/h m3/h m3/h std Stream Number Stream Name Temperature Pressure Vapor fraction Total molar flow Total volumetric flow Total volumetric flow Stream Number Stream Name Temperature Pressure Vapor fraction Total molar flow Total volumetric flow Cooled Inlet Gas 40.9 594.9 388.

916 88.183 49 226.1 1 3.649 Semi-Lean to Absorber 40.545 6.061 40 LP Condenser Out 40.269 223.0 281.0 37 LP Stripper Overheads 96.2 1 9. 3. Material Balance for MDEA / PZ Double Matrix (continued) Dense Phase CO2 1 40.8 330.731 230.819 2.381 LP/HP Vapor Mix 105.- C kPa kgmol/h m3/h m3/h std - C kPa kgmol/h m3/h m3/h std Stream Number Stream Name Temperature Pressure Vapor fraction Total molar flow Total volumetric flow Stream Number Stream Name Temperature Pressure Vapor fraction Total molar flow Total volumetric flow Semi-Lean Amine to Pump 110. and 4) 40.231 5.809 61 2.478 62.9 35 86.243 47 Cool LP/HP Mix 40.577 44 LP Compressor Out 107.5 157.0 144.357 151.381 ESP Pump Out 58.916 136.9 15237.490 762 224.483 41 45 HP Stripper Overheads 104.4 295.717 88.0 1 9.0 Varies Cool LP/HP Liquid (1st Stage Condensate) 40.733 48 Cool LP/HP Vapor 40.0 281.2 3.819 2.4 1 9.0 1 12.1 0.678 Semi-Lean Amine .0 144.3 158.478 36.6 86.827 Lean Amine to Absorber 40.8 295.819 2.0 262.2 1 9.75 12.2 0.377 123.9 1 6.0 281. Material Balance for MDEA / PZ Double Matrix (continued) 34 33 Table 3-7.9 2 Interstage Condensate (Stages 2.0 295.5 468.490 712 224.382 82.0 310.3 182.0 9618.827 86.0 1 3.966 82.809 60 LP Condenser Outlet Liquid 40.0 144.819 2.199 69 51 50 Table 3-7.438 99.899 53 43 42 TRIMERIC CORPORATION 51 .867 36 86.Pump Cool SemiOut Lean Amine 110.1 LP Condenser Outlet Gas 40.3 54.377 62.

000 301.Stream Name Temperature Pressure Vapor fraction Total molar flow Total mass flow Total volumetric flow Molecular weight Density Stream Number C kPa kgmol/h kg/h m3/h kg/kgmol kg/m3 - C kPa kgmol/h m3/h m3/h std Stream Name Temperature Pressure Vapor fraction Total molar flow Total volumetric flow 224.000 18 1.800 429.100 452.5 10.0 111.550 59.43 80 Intermediate Pressure Steam 316 1103 1 23.0 109.69 83 85 LP Condensate 1 134 308 0 12.300 23.800 423 18 931 4.800 429.800 233.0 15168.3 Water Wash (Corrected Makeup plus Recycled Condensate) 40.100 63 18 931 84 LP Saturated Steam 1 (To LP Stripper) 134 308 1 12.900 24 18 992 82 LP Saturated Steam 134 308 1 25.5 101.490 71 70 62 391.000 103.525 DCC Water Return 40.7 73 Table 3-7.16 Condensate 40 446 0 1.341 DCC Water Supply Pump Out 29.0 109. Material Balance for MDEA / PZ Double Matrix (steam system) - Stream Number Table 3-7.69 397.550 59.1 72 81 LP Superheated Steam 203 308 1 23.100 35.260 8.000 18 4.341 CO2 Product 40.5 DCC Water Supply 29.550 393.307 Makeup (Corrected for Water Wash) 40. Material Balance for MDEA / PZ Double Matrix (continued) TRIMERIC CORPORATION 52 .809 391.9 LP Saturated Steam 2 (To HP Stripper) 134 308 1 12.530 8.9 9.900 268.638.5 446.530 8.000 18 1.000 18 1.550 393.000 18 1.69 85 90 86 LP Condensate 2 134 308 0 12.

. The University of Texas at Austin.. Thesis. F. 1994. Can. 201-212. Echterhoff. 73.W. Chem.. J. “The Solubility of CO2 in a 30 Mass Percent Monoethanolamine Solution”. Proceedings of the 73rd Gas Processors Association Convention. New Orleans. and D. Tannehill. Sci. Rochelle.. F. March.” Sep. 140-147.Y. 337-357 (2003).D.TRIMERIC CORPORATION References (Section 3) Freguia. S. T. Eng. 53 . 2002. Dang H. 38(2). Modeling of CO2 Removal from Flue Gases with Monoethanolamine. C. "Cost of Conditioning Your Natural Gas for Market". A. “CO2 Absorption Rate and Solubility in MEA/PZ/H2O.E.. M. Louisiana.. Tech. Leppin. Jou.. Otto. and G...S. L. 1995.. Mather.

1 Inlet Gas Blower The inlet gas blower will increase the pressure of the flue gas to overcome pressure drop through the absorber packing. This blower is quite large and may require alloy materials of construction (e.5 psi. which yielded a power requirement of 8. Design II.TRIMERIC CORPORATION 4. The maximum pressure increase is 1. 2205). and PDQ$) were used to help size the equipment in the process. The design basis for the unit was described earlier in Section 2.7 psia). and the MDEA case had eight amine trains. ProComp..0 EQUIPMENT SIZING AND SELECTION This section describes the general approach used to size and select the equipment in the CO2 capture and compression system for this study. This is a very unusual application because of the large volume. Equipment is sized for a 500 MW unit.370 kW/unit (11.700 MMSCFD) at a nominal suction pressure of 101 kPa (14. The two MEA cases had four amine trains. common inlet gas train. A summary table comparing the size requirements and type of equipment for each case is provided at the end of this section.g. The basis of the study is a single. Some of these alternative equipment types may help reduce the overall cost of the process but do not impact the case-by-case comparison results for reducing the parasitic energy demand on the unit since the equipment selections are common to all cases. A combination of spreadsheet calculations and simulation tools (Aspen Plus.200 hp). and the design flow rate is 558 std m3/s (1. The key assumptions used to size the equipment are discussed in the subsections below. We assumed a 75% efficiency for this blower. 54 . Inconel 625. The general approach in selecting and sizing the equipment in the process was first to use equipment that is considered “standard” to most MEA unit designs and CO2 compression systems as well as to investigate the possibility of using new approaches in key areas to help reduce overall costs. The inlet gas train consists of the inlet gas booster fan and direct contact cooler. common CO2 compression train. 4. multiple parallel amine units. and a single. stream and unit operations data were provided in Section 3. AL-6XN.

but by direct contact. either axial or centrifugal blowers would be appropriate. therefore.3 Absorber The amine-based sorbent contacts the flue gas and absorbs CO2 inside the absorber vessel. Inconel 625. The cross sectional area of the absorber is determined from the flue gas flow rate. a target maximum pressure drop of 1. Water condenses from the flue gas when the appropriate water circulation rate is used. alloy materials (e.. the spray transfers momentum to the flue gas and the outlet gas is actually at a higher pressure than the inlet gas. as implied by the name. The cooler consists of a spray nozzle grid and a larger section of the duct with a sloped liquid collection area.g. The tradeoffs would be between a relaxation of materials requirements for the fan. 4. so it was not considered in sizing the inlet gas blower for this study. A maximum 55 .100 gpm). Sulfuric acid may condense in areas not wetted by the caustic solution. However.TRIMERIC CORPORATION large pressure increase. The SO2 absorbs and is neutralized by the caustic. AL-6XN. Later studies may consider the cost tradeoffs for placing the blower downstream of a direct contact cooler. and an increase in gas temperature to the amine absorber. A dedicated cooling tower provides evaporative cooling for the recirculating DCC water. the momentum transfer could reduce pressure increase requirements of the inlet gas blower. For this application. 4. and materials requirements.050 m3/h (31. 2205) may be required for the ductwork in this section. similar to horizontal FGD scrubbers. Caustic is added to maintain a pH such that SO2 absorbs and CO2 does not absorb. Absorber intercooling could also reduce the cooling requirements of the direct contact cooler.5 psi. additional water flow or lower water temperature for the direct contact cooler. and an 80% approach to flooding. Because the water sprays in the same direction as the flue gas. The DCC water cools the flue gas not by evaporation. The required water circulation rate is 7. The degree of momentum transfer is site specific.2 Direct Contact Cooler and Water Pump The direct contact cooler (DCC) sprays water concurrently and horizontally into the FGD outlet flue gas stream.

increased gas throughput.8 meters (42 feet) was chosen. 1998.8 meters (26 to 42 ft) (Rao. The pressure increase provided by rich amine pump is 483 kPa (70 psi). Chinn. A pump efficiency of 65% was used in the study with 50% sparing of equipment. and the type of filters used (Skinner. For this study. before or after the regenerator). and reduced potential for foaming. absorber diameters reported in the literature ranged from 7. For the MDEA / PZ double matrix case. to account for pressure drop through the lines. Carbon steel was selected for the vessel and stainless steel was selected for the packing (GPSA.TRIMERIC CORPORATION practical diameter of 12. Although tray absorbers have been operated successfully in the field.e. Stainless steel metal components were selected for the pump. There is considerable variation from plant to plant regarding the placement of filters (i. For the MEA cases (improved base case and MEA / PZ double matrix). The packing consists of two sections of equal height. the total height of packing was 50 ft. Flow rate per pump varies according to case.5 Filtration A filtration step is needed to minimize operating problems caused by solids and other contaminants in the amine solution. 4.4 Rich Amine Pump Rich amine solution from the bottom of the absorber is pumped to an elevated pressure to avoid acid gas breakout in the rich/lean exchanger. which was an initial best guess for the MDEA system. 4. it was assumed that a slipstream of the circulating amine (typically 15%) is filtered to remove suspended solids then sent to an activated carbon bed filter that adsorbs impurities (degradation products of MEA) and 56 . improved gas contacting efficiency. The absorber is a vertical. 2004).5 meters (74 ft) and was optimized in previous work by the University of Texas (Freguia. the height of the packing is approximately 22. the fraction of the stream routed to the filter. 2004)..9 to 12. packed column with a water wash section at the top to remove vaporized amine from the overhead stream. 2002). and to overcome the operating pressure and height requirements in the stripper. 1995). packed columns tend to allow for reduced pressure drop.

This filtration step was also assumed to occur on the dirtier rich amine stream although the difference in size and cost would not vary significantly if installed on the lean stream instead. The other specifications are similar to the rich amine pump. Pump efficiency is 65%. degradation products. the filters may need to be replaced on a monthly basis. chlorides and other soluble contaminants. Activated carbon cannot remove heat stable salts and chlorides. These filters remove iron sulfide particles. Activated carbon beds can remove hydrocarbons (if present in a utility plant setting) and high-molecular weight degradation products. the pressure increase is 124 kPa (17. down to 10-25 micron size. It was assumed that carbon steel vessels could be used with this application. The pump provides additional pressure required to transport the rich amine into the high pressure stripper.TRIMERIC CORPORATION other contaminants from the sorbent stream. More frequent replacement may be necessary if the amine is especially dirty or severe foaming is an issue. including leaf-type precoat filters.6 Rich Amine Booster Pump The rich amine booster pump is present in the double matrix configuration only. and for the MDEA / PZ double matrix case. or hydrocarbons. Over a period of time (3-6 months) the carbon bed needs to be replaced and the used bed can be sent back to the suppliers or regenerated on site depending on the plant.9 psi). The mechanical filters remove particulate matter but cannot remove heat stable salts. process-wetted materials are 316 stainless steel. In a well-running system. canister or cartridge filters. which may enter with the gas or result from corrosion within the system.5 psi). sock filters. and sparing is 50%. 57 . Carbon filters generally need at least 15 minutes of contact time and a maximum superficial velocity of four gpm per square foot (Skinner. 1995). 4. Many different types of mechanical filters are commonly used in amine systems. the pressure increase is 107 kPa (15. For the MEA / PZ double matrix case.

the rich amine is flowing to the sole stripper. The high heat transfer coefficients are developed through the effective use of pressure drop. and down-stream piping. the rich amine is preheated prior to regeneration by heat exchange with the hot lean amine flowing from the regenerator. 4. plate and frame heat exchangers were selected for the heat exchanger type. 2005). rich amine is preheated prior to entering the top of the LP stripper upper section by 58 . the plate and frame heat exchangers produce higher heat transfer coefficients for liquid flow than most other types. the materials contacted by the lean side are carbon steel. The materials contacted by the rich amine are stainless steel. the total amount of heat transferred has increased. The heat exchanger is operated at elevated pressure to prevent acid gas breakout and to prevent corrosion of the heat exchanger. In this exchanger.TRIMERIC CORPORATION 4. Because of this aggressive temperature approach. A heat transfer coefficient of 651 Btu/h-ft2-F was used for the plate and frame heat exchangers. plate and frame exchangers offer large surface areas and high heat transfer rates in a relatively small volume and at reduced cost per unit of heat transferred.8 Rich/Semi-Lean Exchanger The rich/semi-lean exchanger applies only to the double matrix flow scheme. The corresponding capital cost for the exchanger will increase.7 Rich/Lean Exchanger In the rich/lean exchanger. For large-scale applications such as the one being considered in this study. The previous work used an approach of 10°C (18°F) (Fisher. but the operating costs due to steam requirements and derating will decrease. For the double matrix flow scheme. Since the plates are generally designed to form channels giving highly turbulent flow. control valves. The allowable pressure drop is 20 psi for both sides of the exchanger. Because the approach temperature has decreased. the current study used a temperature approach of 5°C (9°F) on the “cold” end in order to reduce reboiler steam requirements. the rich amine in this exchanger is flowing to the high pressure stripper. In contrast to previous work. For the base case flow scheme.

and the allowable pressure drop for both sides is 20 psi. In the HP stripper.9 Regeneration Regeneration of the rich amine solution involves one or more stripper columns and reboiler sections. The specifications for the rich/semi-lean exchanger are similar to those of the rich/lean exchanger. Any vapor that exits the lower section of the LP stripper then flows to the base of the upper section. The base case reboiler pressure is 172 kPa (25.9. rich amine enters the top of the HP stripper and flows downward through a packed bed. For the MEA / PZ double 59 . The temperature approach is 5°C (9°F). The rich solution flows down through the stripper. This partially-stripped semi-lean amine is collected at the base of the upper LP stripper section and is pumped back to the middle of the absorber. contacting steam generated by the LP Reboiler. In the lower section of the LP stripper. 4. In the upper section of the LP stripper. In the double matrix case. Plate and frame heat exchangers were selected for this exchanger as well. Heat supplied in the HP reboiler generates steam that flows upward and strips out CO2. The LP stripper has two sections: an “upper” section and a “lower” section. the materials contacted by the rich amine are stainless steel.1 Stripper The main function of any amine stripper is to remove CO2 from rich amine solution by steam stripping. the materials contacted by the semi-lean side are carbon steel. High pressure lean amine exits from the reboiler and flows to the LP stripper. The sections may be separate vessels because of their large size. both a low pressure (LP) stripper and a high pressure (HP) stripper are present. Both sections typically contain packed beds. In the base case.TRIMERIC CORPORATION semi-lean amine that exits from the bottom of the LP stripper upper section. only one stripper is present. The absorption reactions are reversed with heat supplied by a reboiler. Steam rising up through the column strips the CO2 from the amine solution.0 psia). 4. Each of these areas is discussed below. which is typically a packed column. HP lean amine enters at the top and flows downward. rich amine flows downward and contacts vapors that have risen from the lower section.

0 psia). A heat transfer coefficient of 852 W/m2-K (150 Btu/hr-ft2°F) was used to size the reboiler tubes when steam is used as the heat source (GPSA.TRIMERIC CORPORATION matrix case. Utility steam was supplied at 20 psig for the MEA base case and MEA / PZ double matrix case. 1998). Each stripper section is sized for 80% approach to flooding in that section. the LP reboiler operates at the same pressure as the base case reboiler (172 kPa.9 psia) when compared to the MEA / PZ double matrix case.0 psia). kettles are built with a larger shell. flows on the shell side of the reboiler. and utility steam from the main power plant flows on the tube side. Vapor disengaging space is provided in the exchanger. 1998). 4. The reboiler tube bundle is stainless steel. For the MDEA / PZ double matrix case. Solution flows by gravity from the base of the stripper into the reboiler. 1998). 42. Kettle reboilers are used for this study. while bottom product is drawn from the reboiler. The stripper vessels are carbon steel. Kettle reboilers are relatively easy to control and no twophase flow or circulation rate considerations are required. two reboilers are present: one for the LP stripper and one for the HP stripper. In all cases. and all packing is stainless steel. the LP Reboiler also operates at 172 kPa (25.9. A weir maintains the liquid level in the reboiler such that the tube bundle is always submerged. the two sections of the LP stripper may have different diameters. lean amine. Because of the vapor disengagement requirement. one reboiler is present. 25. thus. The log mean temperature differences (LMTD) ranged from 13oC to 22oC (23oF to 40oF). For the base case. and the HP reboiler operates at 279 kPa (40. but the HP reboiler operates at a slightly higher pressure (296 kPa. and the shell is carbon steel (GPSA. 60 . the process fluid.2 Reboiler Heat supplied in the reboiler vaporizes part of the lean amine solution and generates steam for stripping. The vapor is piped back to the regenerator column to provide stripping vapor. utility steam was supplied at 30 psig for the MDEA / PZ double matrix case.5 psia). For the double matrix flow scheme. (GPSA.

Vapor exiting the condenser accumulator flows to the first stage of compression. 61 . ultimately. The tubes are constructed of stainless steel. Process materials flow on the tube side. For the double matrix case. Vapor from the LP condenser accumulator flows to the first stage of compression. CO2 vapor then exits the HP condenser accumulator and flows to the second stage of compression. and the shell is constructed of carbon steel. and the HP condenser accumulator is also the 1st interstage knockout.TRIMERIC CORPORATION 4. Hot gas exiting from the first stage compressor combines with HP stripper overheads and flows to the HP condenser. The HP stripper condenser is also the compressor 1st stage intercooler. Liquids from both accumulators flow to the makeup water system. the LP stripper and the HP stripper each have an overhead stripper condenser and condenser accumulator. 1998). one stripper condenser and one condenser accumulator are present. Air-cooled exchangers were considered but are not the preferred choice due to the large heat requirements for this application and resulting size of the coolers. Cooling water supply temperature is 29°C (85°F).3 Stripper Condenser and Accumulator The stripper condenser cools hot overhead vapors that exit from the top of the stripper. and then on to the HP condenser accumulator. a horizontal vessel located downstream of the condenser. are recycled via the water wash system. The stripper overhead condensers are shell and tube exchangers.9. Each stripper condenser has an associated condenser accumulator. Condensed liquids are sent to the makeup water system and. and the return temperature is 43°C (110°F). cooling water is the cooling medium. Condensed liquids are separated from the CO2 and water vapor in the stripper condenser accumulator. For the base case. Thus. A heat transfer coefficient of 454 W/m2-K (80 Btu/hr-ft2-°F) was used for the condensers (GPSA. This cooling reduces amine losses and condenses water for subsequent recycling via the absorber water wash stage. Process outlet temperature is 40°C (104°F) for all stripper condensers. and cooling water flows on the shell side.

Pumps are constructed from stainless steel. LP condensate pumps accept water from the LP condenser accumulator and increase the pressure by 40 psi. the water condensed in the LP condenser is sufficient to meet the absorber water wash requirements.9.TRIMERIC CORPORATION The condenser accumulators were sized using the Design II process simulator and assuming a horizontal vessels with minimum liquid residence time of five minutes. The accumulators were constructed from stainless steel. pressure drops in the rich/lean amine exchanger and lean amine cooler. HP condensate pumps accept water from the HP condenser accumulator (1st stage knockout) and increase the pressure by 20 psi.4 Condensate Pumps Condensate pumps transport condensed water and recovered amine from the condenser accumulators through the makeup water system and to the absorber water wash. For the base case. the lean amine pump accepts amine from the sole reboiler and the pressure increase is 414 kPa (60 psi). 4. A pump efficiency of 65% was used with 50% sparing of equipment. No other condensate or makeup water pumps are required. and have an efficiency of 65%. All condensate pumps are centrifugal. are constructed from stainless steel.10 Lean Amine Pump Lean amine solution from the bottom of the stripper is pumped to an elevated pressure to overcome line losses. 4. For the base case. and the pressure increases are 414 kPa (60 psi) for the MEA / PZ double matrix and 345 kPa (50 psi) for the MDEA / PZ double matrix. These pumps supply enough power to overcome line losses and the elevation of the absorber water wash. The condensate pump pressure increase is 30 psi. the pump accepts liquid from the LP stripper. 62 . For the double matrix case. For the double matrix cases. and the elevation at the top of the absorber.

and the pressure increases are 324 kPa (47 psi) for the MEA / PZ double matrix and 345 kPa (50 psi) for the MDEA / PZ double matrix.12 Surge Tank The surge tank for the lean amine solution was sized based on a 15-minute residence time. Higher temperatures can result in excessive amine evaporative loss and decreased acid gas absorption effectiveness.TRIMERIC CORPORATION 4.14 Semi-Lean Amine Cooler The semi-lean amine cooler is present only in the double matrix flow scheme. 4. and the elevation at the middle of the absorber.11 Semi-Lean Amine Pump Semi-lean amine solution flows from the base of the LP stripper upper section. A heat transfer coefficient of 795 W/m2-K (140 Btu/hr-ft2-°F) was used to size the exchanger (GPSA. Semi-lean amine pumps are only present in the double matrix cases. Pumps are constructed from stainless steel. and the tubes are stainless steel. 1998). Carbon steel was selected for the surge tank. The trim cooler lowers the lean amine temperature to 40oC (104oF) using cooling water in a counter-current. the pump accepts liquid from the LP stripper. the lean amine must be further cooled in a trim cooler before it is pumped back into the absorber column. As with the lean amine. A pump efficiency of 65% was used with 50% sparing of equipment. 4.13 Lean Amine Cooler After the rich/lean amine exchanger. pressure drops in the rich/semilean amine exchanger and semi-lean amine cooler. 4. shell and tube exchanger. The exchanger shell is carbon steel. For the double matrix cases. and the semi-lean amine pump provides energy to overcome line losses. the semi-lean amine requires trim cooling after cross-exchange in the rich/semi- 63 .

For both double matrix cases. 64 . After passing through an aftercooler. Axial compressors are expected to be similar in cost to centrifugals and may even be somewhat higher since they are not as widely used in industry. Then.TRIMERIC CORPORATION lean amine exchanger and prior to entering the absorber between the two packed beds. • Compression Stages for Various Cases. and the complexities of maintaining and operating different compressor types with differing maintenance schedules.2 MPa (2200 psia) • Axial versus Centrifugal Compression for First Stage.15 Compressors The CO2 compression equipment and the approach for selecting and sizing it are described below.000 acfm). A heat transfer coefficient of 795 W/m2-K (140 Btu/hr-ft2-°F) was used to size the exchanger (GPSA.6 MPa (1400 psia).780 m3/min (98. For this size range. Given the lack of any apparent cost or efficiency advantages. the CO2 is pumped with multistage centrifugal pumps to 15. the final CO2 product pressure is 15. For the MEA base case. 1998). The semi-lean cooler is water cooled with a process outlet temperature of 40oC (104oF). 4. centrifugal compressors were used in all of the cases. Process wetted materials are stainless steel. The efficiency of an axial compressor is approximately the same as that of a multistage centrifugal compressor (79.5% polytropic efficiency) for this application. The number of compression stages was determined based on a maximum temperature limit of 149oC (300oF).2 MPa (2210 psia) pipeline pressure. The CO2 from the amine unit is compressed in a single train to 8. The exchanger shell is carbon steel. there were four compression stages and the final pump stage. The compression in the double matrix cases required five stages because the compression ratio of the first stage is set by the pressure of the HP Stripper. and the tubes are stainless steel. • Compression Process Equipment. The isentropic efficiency for this type of pump is 60%. at which point the supercritical CO2 forms a dense liquid-like phase. there were five compression stages and the final pump stage. either a small axial compressor or a large centrifugal compressor could be used (GPSA 1998). The total CO2 capture flow rate for the 500 MW base case is approximately 2. The compression ratio for all of the double matrix compression stages was lower than the ratios for the base case configuration.

the second approach was taken in this analysis. The target outlet CO2 temperature is 40oC (104oF) on the tube side of the exchanger based on the availability of cooling water at 29. 4.4oC (85oF). and the tubes are constructed from stainless steel. The flow rate of steam is somewhat fixed by the heat required in the reboiler(s). the excess energy was assumed available to drive a generator. and de-rate the power generation capacity.7 psia) for the MDEA case.7 psia) for both MEA cases and 308 kPa (44. Steam condensate that exits the reboilers then returns to the main facility. In cases where the power supplied by the steam turbine exceeded the energy requirements of the compressor. The heat transfer coefficients were calculated as a function of pressure 65 . If one assumes a constant power output from the power plant. Figures 3-2 and 3-4 show the steam subsystem flow diagram for the base case and double matrix flow schemes.17 Interstage Coolers For all cases. The exchanger shell is constructed from carbon steel. water-cooled exchangers were used for interstage compression cooling.16 Compressor Drivers The decision to use steam or electric drivers for the compressors is directly related to the overall strategy for heat integration. Superheated steam is taken from the power plant at an intermediate pressure of 1103 kPa and 316˚C (160 psia and 600˚F) to provide the necessary reboiler heat for each of the cases. respectively.TRIMERIC CORPORATION 4. Cooling water flow to the intercoolers is done in parallel. This steam drives the compressor train with a steam turbine. where the steam pressure drops to 239 kPa (34. The turbine exhaust steam is superheated and must be desuperheated with condensate to provide saturated steam to the reboilers. an electric motor will provide the remaining compressor load. Because this technology is ultimately a retrofit technology. In cases where the power delivered from the steam turbine is not enough to drive the compressors. An alternate approach is to hold the heat input to the power plant constant. it is necessary to bring in new boiler capacity and power generation dedicated to the operation of the CO2 capture equipment.

Flue gas impurities (oxygen. The makeup requirement depends on a number of factors such as the reboiler temperature.19 Makeup Systems Because of vaporization losses it is usually necessary to add make-up amine and water to maintain the desired solution strength. Thus. losses of the amine solution may also occur from degradation. Although caustic in the direct contact cooler is assumed to capture much of the remaining SOx . The sizing calculations are based on general principles that take into account gravity settling for separating the liquid and gas phases and can be used as a preliminary estimate of the size requirements for the separators. For the MEA base case and the MEA / PZ double matrix case. 1998). the stripper condenser temperatures. The separators were sized with Design II as horizontal vessels with a 5minute liquid residence time. recycled interstage condensate eliminated the need for makeup water. All of the amine entering the stripper does not get regenerated. There are only minor differences in the evaporative losses among the cases since the condensate from interstage cooling is recycled back to the amine unit and the absorbers are equipped with a water wash at the top. In addition to vaporization. a water 66 . The vessels are constructed of stainless steel. The amine makeup tank was sized to hold one month’s worth of chemical and the makeup water about one day.18 Interstage Separators Separators are required to separate condensed liquids from the gas downstream of the interstage coolers. 4. A makeup amine pump was also included.5 kg amine/tonne CO2 based on a review of the literature (Rao. sulfur oxides and nitrogen dioxide) react with the amine to form heat stable salts and reduce the absorption capacity of the amine. for these two cases.TRIMERIC CORPORATION using data from the literature (GPSA. and the outlet flue gas temperature. entrainment. 2004). the nominal loss of all solvents was conservatively estimated at 1. and mechanical sources. However. the compressor interstage cooler temperatures. 4. One tank serves all four trains. values ranged from 230 W/m2-°C (40 Btu/h-ft2-°F) to 1650 W/m2-°C (290 Btu/h-ft2-°F). this study assumed that some minimal amount of SOx will slip through.

900 gpm) for the MDEA / PZ double matrix. etc.20 Cooling Water Systems Two separate cooling towers were included for the unit.700 m3/h (157. The utility cooling water flow rates were 35. the “DCC” system. 4. provides water to the direct contact cooler. The MDEA / PZ double matrix case did require makeup water on a regular basis. The DCC system will have different needs with regard to materials of construction. Since this cost is relatively small and the same for all of the options studied.800 m3/h (73. and 16. cooling tower chemical addition. The second system. Mechanical draft cooling towers are used with cooling water return and supply temperatures of 43oC to 29oC (110oF to 85oF). provides cooling water to all other water-cooled exchangers. The flow rate to the utility cooling towers vary depending on the case. the design and costing for both systems was conducted in a similar manner. 67 .050 m3/h (31.600 m3/h (130. One system. an allowance for the cost of a standard dehydration unit using triethylene glycol was provided for each of the cases studied.000 gpm). even though in some cases it may not be necessary to dehydrate the CO2. Therefore. the DCC cooling water flow rate was 7.000 gpm) for the MEA / PZ double matrix. 29. a detailed effort to size and select this equipment was not necessary. For all case. The makeup water tank was sized for 12 hour supply for this case. Wet bulb temperature was set at 7 oC (45 oF) per the Systems Analysis Guidelines (DOE 2005). 4.21 Dehydration Unit DOE/NETL systems analysis guidelines stipulate that studies such as this one include the cost of dehydrating the CO2. The water that circulates through this system will contain caustic and will absorb species from the gas. this water never directly contacts process material. Instead.000 gpm) for the MEA base case.TRIMERIC CORPORATION holding tank as well as makeup water pumps were included for operational reasons. the “utility” system. the two systems were isolated. However.

a small slipstream of the amine solution in circulation (0. The tables show the major equipment used in each case along with a brief description of the key sizing parameters. Generally. the inlet flue gas is at low pressure and an amine flash tank will not be needed. MEA solvents may be reclaimed by low pressure steam. this study assumed equivalent solvent reclamation costs for all three cases. For this application. though other methods are available. solution reclamation will become necessary. as is common in gas-treating applications. 68 .5 to 3%) would be routed from the reboiler to a batch distillation reclaimer. 4.TRIMERIC CORPORATION 4. (Kohl and Nielsen. For this study. In a conventional reclamation system. Table 4-1 is in metric units. Vacuum reclamation is usually conducted on a contract basis. 4.24 Equipment Comparison for Cases Tables 4-1 and 4-2 show a comparison of the equipment size requirements for the various cases in this study.22 Reclaimer As degradation products build in the system. the pressure of the rich amine is typically reduced in a flash tank causing a fraction of the absorbed hydrocarbons and acid gases to be removed from solution prior to the amine stripper. because the degradation rates and solvent losses are not well-defined.23 Equipment Not Included in Study When the absorber is operated at higher pressures. The reclaimer system would be used to remove high boiling point degradation products and sludge. and the MEA-laden steam can flow directly back into the LP stripper. 1997) However. The main differences between the cases are discussed below. amines may be thermally reclaimed. The reclaimer design and cost was assumed to be the same for all cases. the cost for a thermal reclaimer system was included. and Table 4-2 is in English units. MDEA solvents are typically reclaimed under vacuum conditions.

the MDEA / PZ double matrix case has eight amine trains. 70% of the rich amine is pumped to the HP stripper.900 m3/h (101.8 m (32 ft). The MDEA stripper diameters 69 . The hotter outlet gas carries more water. the outlet flue gas is 53 C (127 F). The MEA / PZ double matrix HP stripper might use an alternative to packing in order to achieve the one to two equilibrium stages required for that unit operation. • In the MEA / PZ double matrix. The MDEA / PZ solvent has a lower heat of desorption and a lower circulation rate.9 m (26 ft). The MEA base case stripper needs minimal packing in the stripper. The MEA base case and MEA / PZ double matrix case have four amine trains.7 m (34 ft).2 m (50 ft) of packing.0 m (13 ft) for the upper section and 6.100 m3/h (115.6 m (40 ft) in the HP stripper. and solvent properties.7 m (22 ft). The difference in circulation rate affects most unit operations in the CO2 capture trains. The MEA / PZ double matrix LP stripper diameter is 4.000 gpm). • The stripper diameters vary with case as well.1 m (20 ft) for the bottom section. the MEA / PZ double matrix is 10. • The MEA cases use a higher circulation rate and do not strip the solvent as lean as the MDEA / PZ case does. and the MDEA / PZ double matrix is 11.500 m3/h (37. just enough for one to two equilibrium stages. 5 ft) in the HP stripper. In part because the MDEA / PZ double matrix case has eight trains yet handles a similar amount of CO2 in the stripping section.5 m. The MEA base case circulation rate is 26. This is primarily due to limits on the absorber diameter. The lower circulation rate of the MDEA / PZ double matrix case cannot maintain the flue gas temperature near 40 C (104 F). the strippers are much smaller than those for the MEA / PZ double matrix. The differences in number and diameter of absorbers results from different packing types. whereas the MDEA LP stripper uses 13.7 m (45 ft) in the LP stripper and 14. The base case diameter is 7. The MEA / PZ double matrix LP stripper requires less than 6 m (<20 ft) of packing in the LP stripper and minimal packing (1. the MEA / PZ double matrix circulation rate is 12% lower at 22. and the HP stripper diameter is 6. the rich amine booster pumps send 84% of the rich amine to the HP stripper. in the MDEA / PZ double matrix.000 gpm).9 m (39 ft). • The absorbers in the two MEA cases use 22. and the MDEA absorbers use 15. flooding correlations.TRIMERIC CORPORATION Significant Equipment Differences: • The base case and double matrix configurations have different major equipment lists. An alternative to packing might be considered for this configuration in future studies.000 gpm) for the entire unit (all trains). liquid loading.5 m (75 ft) of packing. and makeup water is required to supplement condensate recycled from the interstage coolers. and the MDEA / PZ double matrix circulation rate is 67% lower at 8. The MEA base case absorber diameter is 9.

The MEA / PZ double matrix has two feed streams to the compression train. the heat transfer is evenly divided between the LP and HP reboilers for the MEA / PZ double matrix.000 std m3/h (199 MMSCFD). which is 63% of the base case flow. where the combined stream flows through the 1st stage cooler and on to the 2nd stage of compression. The 1st stage feed gas is 147. each which transfer 121. The MEA / PZ double matrix has four LP reboilers that transfer 48.000 ft2).400 kW (165 MMBtu/h) each with a LMTD of 21 C (37 F) and four HP reboilers that transfer 48. The base case has one inlet gas stream that flows from the stripper condenser accumulator to the first stage inlet. The MEA / PZ double matrix 1st stage outlet pressure is less than the base case value. which is essentially equivalent to the base case. 38.400 hp) for the MDEA / PZ double matrix. The MDEA / PZ double matrix runs the reboilers hotter and uses a higher pressure steam.700 kW (54. and there is a tradeoff between extent of stripping in the HP stripper with compression energy as a function of the 1st stage outlet pressure. the 1st stage outlet pressure is tied to the operating pressure of the HP stripper.400 kW (15 MMBtu/h) with a LMTD of 19 C (34 F) and eight HP reboilers that transfer 29. The total area of all amine cross exchangers are largest for the MEA base case (68. the amine cross exchangers duties and corresponding sizes were quite large despite the high heat transfer coefficient attained with the plate and frame heat exchangers.000 ft2) and again for the MDEA / PZ double matrix (16.200 kW (164 MMBtu/h) each with a LMTD of 22 C (40 F).000 std m3/h (125 MMSCFD). • The reboiler sizes varied significantly from case to case.400 kW (47. The MDEA / PZ double matrix LP stripper operates at a slightly higher pressure than the MEA / PZ double matrix. All strippers were sized for an 80% approach to flooding. but the MDEA / PZ double matrix transfers 87% of the total heat in the HP reboiler.600 kW (51. this reduces the 1st stage standard volumetric flow rate ~45% from 128. Because of this difference. the double matrix case must use five stages of compression instead of four in order to achieve the ESP suction pressure yet remain below the maximum interstage temperature of 149 C (300 F).800 hp) for the MEA / PZ double matrix. and the flow rate is 235.TRIMERIC CORPORATION are 3.000 std m3/h (195 MMSCFD). The base case has a single reboiler per train. All of this translates into brake power requirements of 40.000 ft2) and decrease in size for the MEA / PZ double matrix (42.200 m2 or 735.900 m2 or 461. Also.700 m2 or 180. and 35. 70 .000 kW (414 MMBtu/h) with a LMTD of 21 C (37 F).000 std m3/h (125 MMSCFD) to 62. • The compression configurations and sizes differ for each case. The MDEA / PZ double matrix has eight LP reboilers that transfer 4. and HP stripper overheads combine with the 1st stage outlet gas. For the double matrix. The combined 2nd stage inlet gas for the MEA / PZ double matrix is 230.7 m (12 ft) for the entire LP stripper and 4.6 m (15 ft) for the HP stripper. • In all cases.500 hp) for the base case. for a total of four large reboilers.300 kW (100 MMBtu/h) with a LMTD of 13 C (23 F).000 std m3/h (70 MMSCFD). the gas from the LP stripper condenser accumulator feeds the 1st stage.

700 m3/h (157.TRIMERIC CORPORATION Other: • The utility cooling water requirements (excluding the direct contact cooler) are 35. and the MDEA / PZ double matrix cases uses 53% less cooling water than the base case. The MEA / PZ double matrix uses 17% less cooling water. • Essentially the same CO2 pump size is required for each case. 71 .000 gpm) for the MEA base case.

268 4815 19262 220 881 758 6063 39 311 178.5 Rich Amine Pump Flow rate per train m3/h 6.440 15 159 1.919 Rich Amine High Pressure Booster Pump Flow rate per train m3/h per train Flow rate per unit m3/h per unit Brake power per train kW/train Brake power per unit kW/unit Rich/Lean Amine Exchanger Duty per train kW/train 299.532 Flow rate per unit m3/h 26.053 1.477 17.268 15 860 3.053 40 7.6 567 4.637 7.393 Rich Amine Carbon Filter Slipstream fraction of rich circulation rate % 15 Flow rate per train m3/h-train 980 Flow rate per unit m3/h-unit 3.039 7.053 Brake power kW/unit 1.197.3 8.2 5.183 4.919 Particulate Filter Slipstream fraction of rich circulation rate % 15 Flowrate per train m3/h-train 980 Flow rate per unit m3/h-unit 3.053 40 7.733 1.440 15 159 1.300 109.1 Area per train m2 17.199 3.TRIMERIC CORPORATION Table 4-1.619 6.057 8.053 90 10.053 85.908 715.7 22.348 Brake power per unit kW/unit 5.8 1.939 143.365 1 558 10.964 351.060 Area per unit m2 68.637 Duty to cool inlet gas kW 7.102 36.692 15 860 3.039 Cooling Water System .809 Heat transfer coefficient W/m2-C 3.524 12.039 85. Equipment Comparison Table (Metric Units) Description Number of inlet gas trains Number of CO2 capture trains Number of CO2 compression trains Units Base Case MEA/PZ Double Matrix MDEA/PZ Double Matrix - 1 4 1 1 4 1 1 8 1 1 558 10.053 Outlet gas temperature C 40 Direct Contact Cooler Water Pump Flow rate m3/h 7.195 27.9 15.711 3696 7.239 Rich/Semi-Lean Amine Exchanger Duty per train kW/train Duty per unit kW/unit Heat transfer coefficient W/m2-C LMTD C Area per train m2 Area per unit m2 - 72 .129 Brake power per train kW/train 1.3 9.931 1.696 4.5 90 11.511 3.6 1.3 8.CO2 Capture Absorber CO2 removal % 90 Absorber selected diamter m 9.456 211 1.Inlet Gas Conditioning Train (Common to all configurations) Inlet Booster Fan Quantity per unit 1 Flow rate std m3/s 558 Pressure increase kPa 10.3 Brake power kW 8.538 Equipment Data .053 Water Rates m3/h Equipment Data .409 43.637 7.696 LMTD C 5.733 22.053 1.DCC 85.365 7.633 3696 5.365 Direct Contact Cooler Water flow rate m3/h 7.8 Height of packing m 22.696 8.452 Duty per unit kW/unit 1.

2 kW/train kW/unit W/m2-C kPa C m2 - One per stripper One per stripper 48.1 3.741 124 496 353 342 59 470 kPa m m m - 279.5 8 - 172 CMR#2 4.3 m3/h per train m3/h per unit kW/train kW/unit 57 227 5.175 29.6 14. continued) Description Low Pressure Stripper Bottom Pressure Packing type Diameter Height of packing T-T height Diameter Height of packing T-T height Low Pressure Reboiler Number Duty per train Duty per unit Heat transfer coefficient Steam pressure LMTD Area Low Pressure Condenser Number Duty per train Duty per unit Heat transfer coefficient LMTD Area per train Low Pressure Condenser Accumulator Number Diameter Length Low Pressure Stripper Condensate Pump Flow rate per train Flow rate per unit Brake power per train Brake power per unit Low Pressure Lean Amine Pump Flow rate per train Flow rate per unit Brake power per train Brake power per unit Low Pressure Semi-Lean Pump Flow rate per train Flow rate per unit Brake power per train Flow rate per unit High Pressure Stripper Bottom Pressure Packing type Diameter T-T Length Height of packing High Pressure Reboiler Number Duty per train Duty per unit Heat transfer coefficient Steam pressure LMTD Area Units Base Case MEA/PZ Double Matrix MDEA/PZ Double Matrix kPa m m m m m m 172 CMR#2 7.838 146.694 73 .567 2.0 CMR#2 6.341 6.687 35.9 1.675 277 kW/train kW/unit W/m2-C C m2 One per stripper One per stripper One per stripper 36.9 7. Equipment Comparison Table (Metric Units.6 5 m3/h m3/h kW/train kW/unit 6.712 38.722 18.422 4.310 192.483 25.4 1.7 1.5 296.7 7.147 4.969 38.0 1.TRIMERIC CORPORATION Table 4-1.387 48.397 485.8 11.896 863 404 m m One per condenseOne per condenseOne per condenser 2.0 Flexipac 1Y 4.6 4.480 852 852 240 310 22 13 2.678 9.933 1.707 454 454 454 28 25 26 2.1 7 3.5 8 6.700 234.548 193.62 20 kW/train kW/unit W/m2-C kPa C m2 One per stripper One per stripper One per stripper 121.886 835 3.904 2.742 4.7 6.75 12 172 Flexipac 1Y 3.5 6 7 53 0.0 20.0 13 52 1.6 12.298 787 112 898 m3/h m3/h kW/train kW/unit - 935 3.588 4.7 13.172 852 852 852 240 240 310 21 21 19 6.2 1.

184 795 12 9.137 11.3 kW/train kW/unit W/m2-C C m2 88.731 230.380 144 88.9 % C kPa kPa 72 315.Stage 1 Inlet gas flow rate .CO2 Compression Compressors Number of stages Compressor discharge pressure Total brake power required (total unit) Inlet gas flow rate .540 72.CO2 Compressor Driver Isentropic efficiency Inlet temperature Inlet pressure Turbine discharge pressure Units Base Case MEA/PZ Double Matrix MDEA/PZ Double Matrix m3/h per unit kW/train - 28 1.Stage 2 Inlet gas pressure .653 40.9 88.046 352.183 281 steam and electric 25.7 69 1.618 127.369 62.999 0 kPa kW 15200 1878 15237 1879 15200 1883 Water-cooled shell and tube 92 Water-cooled shell and tube 112 Water-cooled shell and tube 75 MW(therm)/unit m3 51.7 m3 379 379 930 m3/h-train 23 23 78 kPa kW m3/h std m3/h kPa m3/h std m3/h kPa 4 9.236 399 5 9.7 0.370 9.317 5 9.0 88.629 230.392 126 95.624 228.773 steam 40.828 147.429 82.295 154 61.310 4.TRIMERIC CORPORATION Table 4-1.653 38.081 795 11 536 m3 1.560 1. Equipment Comparison Table (Metric Units.441 10.206 261 kW kW kW steam 51.320 82.692 795 13 6. continued) Description High Pressure Stripper Condensate Pump Flow rate per unit Brake power per train Lean Cooler Duty per train Duty per unit Heat transfer coefficient LMTD Area Semi-lean Cooler Duty per train Duty per unit Heat transfer coefficient LMTD Area Lean Surge Tank Tank capacity Makeup Amine Tank Tank volume Makeup Amine Pumps Flow rate per unit Water Tank Capacity Water Pump Flow rate per train Equipment Data .668 166.173 288.596 795 13 1.899 55.66 0.635 37.936 0 2.Stage 1 Inlet gas pressure .560 795 11 1.103 239 72 316 1103 239 72 316 1103 308 74 .190 kW/train kW/unit W/m2-C C m2 - 13.001 m3 446 462 447 m3/h-unit 0.653 35.789 10.6 1.Stage 2 Driver Power available from steam Balance of power required from electric driver Excess available power Compressor Pump (last stage) Discharge pressure Total brake power required (total unit) Compressor Interstage Coolers Type Total cooler duty Compressor Interstage Separators Total capacity Steam Turbine .542 235.

496 866 607 29.939 697 661 700 1.680 720 677 711 1.TRIMERIC CORPORATION Table 4-1. Equipment Comparison Table (Metric Units.611 2. continued) Description Equipment Data .529 420 4.Utility Water Rates Stage 1 cooler Stage 2 cooler Stage 3 cooler Stage 4 cooler Stage 5 cooler Stage 6 cooler Lean amine cooler Semi-lean amine cooler LP stripper condenser Total Units Base Case MEA/PZ Double Matrix MDEA/PZ Double Matrix m3/h m3/h m3/h m3/h m3/h m3/h m3/h per train m3/h per train m3/h per train m3/h-unit 902 836 819 1678 421 5484 2285 35732 1.795 75 .Ancillary Equipment Cooling Water System .514 421 643 289 301 16.

054 1.5 11.256 Rich Amine High Pressure Booster Pump Flow rate per train gpm per train Flow rate per unit gpm per unit Brake power per train hp/train Brake power per unit hp/unit Rich/Lean Amine Exchanger Duty per train MMBtu/h-train 1.054 Brake power hp/unit 1.218 Direct Contact Cooler Water flow rate gpm 31.5 Brake power hp 11.402 131.0 16.TRIMERIC CORPORATION Table 4-2.6 97.808 Brake power per unit hp/unit 7.145 15 698 5.393 Cooling Water System .230 284 2.2 17.786 15.761 Flow rate per unit gpm 115.Inlet Gas Conditioning Train (Common to all configurations) Inlet Booster Fan Quantity per unit Flow rate MMSCFD 1702 Pressure increase psi 1.022 Duty per unit MMBtu/h-unit 4.181 3337 26696 52 416 610 2.424 69.054 104 31.697 61 490 651 15.054 1.054 292 31.964 1.587 6.200 651 14.256 Particulate Filter Slipstream fraction of rich circulation rate Flowrate per train gpm/train 4314 Flow rate per unit gpm/unit 17.442 651 9.0 Height of packing ft 74.054 90 35 74 90 39 50 25.702 1.830 Equipment Data .241 100. Equipment Comparison Table (English Units) Description Number of inlet gas trains Number of CO2 capture trains Number of CO2 compression trains Units Base Case MEA/PZ Double Matrix MDEA/PZ Double Matrix - 1 4 1 1 4 1 1 8 1 1.268 3.5 11.515 Rich/Semi-Lean Amine Exchanger Duty per train MMBtu/h-train Duty per unit MMBtu/h-unit Heat transfer coefficient Btu/hr-ft2-F LMTD F Area per train ft2 Area per train ft2 - 76 .054 Water Rates gpm Equipment Data .218 31.2 Area per train ft2 183.233 Rich Amine Carbon Filter Slipstream fraction of rich circulation rate Flow rate per train gpm/train 4.CO2 Capture Absorber CO2 removal 90 Absorber selected diamter ft 32.043 Brake power per train hp/train 1.393 292 31.629 Area per unit ft2 734.054 104 31.054 Outlet gas temperature F 104 Direct Contact Cooler Water Pump Flow rate gpm 31.584 3786 15.219 93 373 651 8.145 15 698 5.314 Flow rate per unit gpm/unit 17.DCC 292 Duty to cool inlet gas MMBtu/h 31.0 Rich Amine Pump Flow rate per train gpm 28.702 1.945 391.393 31.104 48.218 1.779 150 1.347 4.087 Heat transfer coefficient Btu/hr-ft2-F 651 LMTD F 9.584 21202 84807 295 1.654 37.4 6.

0 48.9 15.7 26.466 151 1.3 40 12.0 4.0 65 MMBtu/h-train MMBtu/h-unit Btu/h-ft2-F psia F ft2 414.9 57 228 2. Equipment Comparison Table (English Units.178 1.0 4.153 20.120 4.0 4 16 6 24 gpm per train gpm per unit hp/train hp/unit 249 998 6.0 20.0 n/a 12.5 132 80 47 4352 ft ft 9.2 133 80 45 9292 16.632 100 800 150 45 23 28.312 165.8 6 gpm gpm hp/train hp/unit 28.545 114.0 4.2 1.9 26 20.118 16.0 MMBtu/h-train MMBtu/h-unit Btu/h-ft2-F psia F ft2 - 164 658 150 35 40 27.0 44.9 26 - 13.5 42.789 15.0 12.993 77 .0 8 29 234 0.171 33.0 38.155 1.556 104 79 630 psia - 40.9 ft ft ft - 22.473 166 665 1.657 150 35 37 74.TRIMERIC CORPORATION Table 4-2.481 27.789 83.731 3.982 MMBtu/h-train MMBtu/h-unit Btu/h-ft2/F F ft2 125 501 80 50 31.2 661 150 35 38 28.0 40.0 25.538 6. continued) Description r Low Pressure Stripper Bottom Pressure Packing type Diameter Height of packing T-T height Diameter Height of packing T-T height Low Pressure Reboiler Number Duty per train Duty per unit Heat transfer coefficient Steam pressure LMTD Area Low Pressure Condenser Number Duty per train Duty per unit Heat transfer coefficient LMTD Area per train Low Pressure Condenser Accumulator Number Diameter Length Low Pressure Stripper Condensate Pump Flow rate per train Flow rate per unit Brake power per train Brake power per unit Low Pressure Lean Amine Pump Flow rate per train Flow rate per unit Brake power per train Brake power per unit Low Pressure Semi-Lean Pump Flow rate per train Flow rate per unit Brake power per train Flow rate per unit High Pressure Stripper Bottom Pressure Packing type Diameter T-T Length Height of packing High Pressure Reboiler Number Duty per train Duty per unit Heat transfer coefficient Steam pressure LMTD Area Units Base Case MEA/PZ Double Matrix MDEA/PZ Double Matrix psia 25 25 25 ft ft ft ft ft ft 26.205 gpm gpm hp/train hp/unit - 4.0 120 150 45 34 2.

92 3.TRIMERIC CORPORATION Table 4-2.9 5 1.022 13.690 246 985 140 24 73.097 16 127 140 20 5.0 2.400 47.000 245.237 125 18 56.Stage 1 Inlet gas flow rate .400 54.467 48.475 23.8 MMBtu/h-train MMBtu/h-unit Btu/h-ft2/F F ft2 300 1.108 34.491 23.813 MMBtu/h-train MMBtu/h-unit Btu/h-ft2/F F ft2 - 47 190 140 24 14.758 121.CO2 Compression Compressors Number of stages Compressor discharge pressure Total brake power required (total unit) Inlet gas flow rate .Stage 2 Inlet gas pressure .Stage 2 Driver Power available from steam Balance of power required from electric driver Excess available power Compressor Pump (last stage) Discharge pressure Total brake power required (total unit) Compressor Interstage Coolers Type Total cooler duty Compressor Interstage Separators Total capacity Steam Turbine .945 118.050 gpm per unit 2.745 70 21 52.447 steam 54.491 F psia psia 600 160 35 600 160 35 72 600 160 45 hp hp hp 78 .773 gal 412.270 193 57.400 51.202 140 21 102.431 36.CO2 Compressor Driver Isentropic efficiency Inlet temperature Inlet pressure Turbine discharge pressure Units Base Case MEA/PZ Double Matrix MDEA/PZ Double Matrix gpm per unit hp/train - 124 2.895 0 3.775 gpm per train 100 100 341 psia hp acfm MMSCFD psia acfm MMSCFD psia 4 1.536 98.285 195 38 5 1.984 14.081 35 282 140 20 12.023 199 22.9 gal 100.788 75.073 300.408 0 psia hp 2205 2518 2210 2520 2205 2525 MMBtu/h-unit 256 315 381 gal 13.000 100.4 36.2 302 1. Equipment Comparison Table (English Units.436 gal 117.225 195 41 steam 68.Stage 1 Inlet gas pressure . continued) Description High Pressure Stripper Condensate Pump Flow rate per unit Brake power per train Lean Cooler Duty per train Duty per unit Heat transfer coefficient LMTD Area Semi-lean Cooler Duty per train Duty per unit Heat transfer coefficient LMTD Area Lean Surge Tank Tank capacity Makeup Amine Tank Tank volume Makeup Amine Pumps Flow rate per unit Water Tank Capacity Water Pump Flow rate per train Equipment Data .

981 3.672 130. Equipment Comparison Table (English Units.Ancillary Equipment Cooling Water System .908 3.Utility Water Rates Stage 1 cooler Stage 2 cooler Stage 3 cooler Stage 4 cooler Stage 5 cooler Stage 6 cooler Lean amine cooler Semi-lean amine cooler LP stripper condenser Total Units Base Case MEA/PZ Double Matrix MDEA/PZ Double Matrix gpm gpm gpm gpm gpm gpm gpm per train gpm per train gpm per train gpm per unit 3973 3681 3605 7389 1853 24147 10059 157325 7.TRIMERIC CORPORATION Table 4-2.794 3.327 73. continued) Description Equipment Data .082 6.812 2.373 12.849 19.830 1.271 1.941 3.129 6.855 2.069 2.399 3.172 2.948 79 .733 1.665 1.

Douglas. Volume I (Section 9) and Volume II (Section 21).TRIMERIC CORPORATION References (Section 4) Chinn. Engineering Data Book. Degen. Thesis at University of Texas at Austin. Kohl. “Cost Efficient Amine Plant Design for Post Combustion CO2 Capture from Powerplant Flue Gas”. April 2005. C. E. “Carbon Capture and Sequestration Systems Analysis Guidelines”. 1998. G. R. K. Canada. May. “Integrating MEA Regeneration with CO2 Compression and Peaking to Reduce CO2 Capture Costs. 7th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies. Berkenpas. Rao.” Final Report under DOE Grant DE-FG02-04ER84111. “An Integrated Modeling Framework for Carbon Management Technologies”. Gas Research Institute. Chu. June 9. Department of Energy. C. N. Toronto. U.. Beitler. 5th edition. Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). McIntush. Rueter. Choi.. 2005. M. F. “Amine-Based Sweetening and Claus Sulfur Recovery Process Chemistry and Waste Stream Survey”. 2002. Jassim. K. Rochelle. 80 . 1997. Proceedings. Gulf Publishing Company. Skinner.S. Arthur and Richard Nielson.. 2004. Searcy. and M. Fisher. and M. “Modeling of CO2 Removal from Flue Gases with Monoethanolamine”. Murff. K. Anand. D. Stefano. December 1995. Rubin. Gas Purification. Freguia. B. G. March 2004... Gas Processors Suppliers Association (GPSA).

The cost methodology is discussed first.TRIMERIC CORPORATION 5. PDQ$ for motor • Absorber and Stripper – PDQ$ • Packing for absorber and stripper – Vendor quote • Pumps (rich/lean/semi-lean. rich/semi-lean exchanger) – Vendor quote • Storage tanks (amine and water) – PDQ$ • CO2 compressors and drivers – PDQ$ and vendor estimates for select cases 81 .1 Capital Costs The purchased equipment costs for the amine unit and downstream compression train were obtained from a combination of vendor quotes and costing software using the size parameters discussed in Section 4. The list below shows the source of the purchased equipment costs by type. DCC water pump) – PDQ$ • Filtration – PDQ$ • Pressure vessels (reflux accumulator and interstage compression separators) – PDQ$ • Exchangers (reflux condenser. followed by a presentation of the results. (The costs are in November 2006 dollars. reboiler and compressor interstage coolers) – PDQ$ • Amine cross-exchangers (rich/lean exchanger. condensate. • Inlet gas blower – Vendor quote for blower. 5.) The software estimates costs for fabricated equipment and catalog items that are based on vendor information.0 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS This section describes the approach used to estimate the capital and operating costs for the CO2 capture and compression process approaches evaluated in this study. makeup water and amine. lean amine cooler. PDQ$ (Preliminary Design and Quoting Service) is a commercially available software package that estimates current purchased equipment costs for chemical process equipment.

and process contingency were then added to the total process plant cost to arrive at the total plant cost (TPC). the decrease in the steam turbine driver discharge pressure extracts more energy per pound of steam for use in driving the compressor. The process plant cost was increased by 10% to account for engineering and home office expenses per the DOE/NETL Systems Analysis Guidelines (SAG) (DOE 2005). Table 5-4 shows the total process plant cost (PPC) for the different cases. EPRI. 1991). Again. The installed costs for purchased equipment (everything but compression) were estimated using a factor methodology similar to that reported in chemical engineering literature (Peters and Timmerhaus. The major differences in cost stem from the costs of absorbers. The MEA baseline and the MEA / PZ double matrix case use high circulation rates and small CO2 loading changes in the strippers to reduce steam requirements when compared with the previous approaches. This approach transfers costs from the operating domain (derating costs due to reboiler steam requirements) to the capital domain (larger cross exchanger costs). project contingency. 82 . An interest and adjustment factor of 10% of the PPC was used to arrive at the total plant investment (TPI). and reboilers.TRIMERIC CORPORATION • CO2 pump – Vendor quote • Cooling tower system – PDQ$ Tables 5-1 through 5-3 show the major equipment list and purchased equipment costs for the three cases. amine cross exchangers. 2000). Additionally. this approach has shifted cost from the operating cost domain to the capital cost domain. A project contingency of 30% was used since the level of project definition seemed to fall in the AACE Estimate Class 3 for budget authorization (DOE 2005). Engineering/home office. PPC is equivalent to installed equipment cost. 2000). The installed cost factor for compression was based on vendor recommendations for this type of application. but this change results in lower temperature steam to the reboilers and thus larger reboilers. this factor was also similar to other EPRI work in the CO2 capture area (EPRI. A process contingency of 5% was used for all of the cases since the technology is a commercial process and this same factor was used by EPRI in other CO2 capture studies (DOE 2005.

83 .TRIMERIC CORPORATION Per the DOE/NETL SAG (DOE 2005).5% of PPC for new technology and capital charge.2). the total capital requirement (TCR) is the total of the total plant investment and: • Prepaid royalties – 0. • Startup costs – 2% of TPI. • Initial catalyst and chemical inventory – 30 days inventory. 30 days of chemical and operating labor. 7.5 days of fuel (discussed in Section 5.2). and • Land – 1960 $/acre in 2006 dollars. • Spare parts – 0. and 30 days direct expenses (discussed in Section 5. Table 5-5 shows how the total capital requirement was derived from the process plant cost as described above.5% of TPC • Working capital – 30 days of fuel and consumables. 30 days of byproduct inventory.

carbon steel vessel.500 gpm at 148 ft) 260 kPa and 149 C (38 psia and 300 F) Duty = 299 MW (1.000 Total Cost TRIMERIC CORPORATION 84 . 316SS Carbon steel with teflon gasket Carbon steel with teflon gasket Direct Contact Cooler Water Pump Absorber Rich Amine Pump Rich Amine Carbon Filter Particulate Filter Rich Amine Booster Pump Rich/Lean Amine Exchanger Semi-Lean Amine Pump LP Condenser Accumulator LP Condensate Pump Lean Amine Pump LP Condenser LP Stripper .839 n/a 502.354.893 11.350. 316SS Packed tower.882.064 367.701. 316SS packing 316 SS SS or alloy process-wetted parts Material of Construction Packed tower.256 15.471.572 44. 316SS CMR #2 packing Centrifugal.5 m (5 ft). 316SS CMR#2 packing CS vessel.020 MMBtu/h) 1140 kPa and 110 C (165 psia and 230 F) 308 kPa and 149 C (300 F and 45 psia) 6530 m3/h at 52 m head (28.568 2.528. Total packed height = 22.195 4.100 gpm at 115 ft) Design Condition (Per Train Basis) Table 5-1. 316SS packing Kettle-type shell and tube.9 m (26 ft).482.5 psi pressure increase) 7.723 29. 316SS packing CS vessel.112 4.623 456. 316SS tubes and carbon steel shell 316SS tubes and CS shell Horizontal 316SS vessel 316SS Centrifugal.8 m (32 ft).5 m (74 ft).355 n/a 2.870.3 kPa pressure increase (5. 316SS 316SS Centrifugal.Centrifugal.7 MW (125 MMBtu/h) 446 kPa and 177 C (65 psia and 350 F) 446 kPa and 177 C (65 psia and 350 F) 57 m3/h at 21 m head (249 gpm at 70 ft) 6480 m3/h at 45 m head (28.000 Cost per Train 4 4 4 4 4 4 n/a 4 4 4 4 1 1 Number of Trains 1.Lower Section LP Reboiler Rich/Semi-Lean Amine Exchanger LP Stripper .681 7. CS lean side 316SS rich side. CS semi-lean side 316SS CS with teflon gasket CS with teflon gasket 316SS CS vessel. 316SS tubes and carbon steel shell 316SS tubes and CS shell Shell and tube.824 455. 316SS rich side.008.45 MMkg/h at 10. carbon steel lean side Type Description Duty = 121 MW (414 MMBtu/h) 446 kPa and 177 C (65 psia and 350 F) Duty = 36. Diameter = 9.112 4.980 n/a 4 n/a 3.40 MMlb/h at 1. Total packed height = 1.142 551. carbon steel vessel. Purchased Equipment Costs for MEA Base Case 925.920 n/a 3.800 gpm at 170 ft) Treats 15% of rich amine flow Treats 15% of rich amine flow 2.419.350.206.380 600.095 150.050 m3/h at 35 m head (31.Upper Section Centrifugal blower.195 150.456 113. 316SS 316SS 316SS Plate and frame.780 19.493 456. Diameter = 7.780 600. SS or alloy processwetter components Inlet Gas Blower 316SS rich side.

300.050 m3/h (31.110 143.000 gpm) 225. separate 316SS line item).537 89.5 m3/h at 37 m head (20 gpm at 120 ft head) 379 m3 (100.148.100 gpm) Total duty = 75 MW (therm) (256 MMBtu/h) 5 minute residence time 446 m3 (118.560 1.786 9. 316SS Shell and tube.662 5.537 89.719.690 8.7 psia) Duty = 88.200 kPa (2205 psia) Discharge pressure = 9650 kPa.000 400.968 222.227.110 1. 316SS packing 316SS tubes and CS shell CS CS CS CS 316SS tubes and CS shell 316SS CS 316SS Centrifugal.000 1.916 5.000 gal) 4. basin.000 n/a 2. fans. 316SS tubes and carbon steel shell.099.761 n/a Cost per Train n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 11.560 m3 (412.968 222.000 gal) 23 m3/h at 31 m head (100 gpm at 100 ft head) 1.310 12.557.147 1.892 2.300.786 9.774.electric Compressor Pump (last stage) Semi-Lean Cooler Compressors Description HP Stripper HP Reboiler HP Condenser HP Condenser Accumulator HP Condensate Pump Lean Cooler 35.Fixed roof tank Surge Tank Reclaimer Cooling Water System .700 m3/h (157. 316SS tubes and carbon steel shell.000 n/a 10.603. (1400 psia) Discharge pressure = 239 kPa (34.DCC Dehydration Unit Includes cooling tower.346.000 std m3/h (190 MMSCFD) 7. and pumps Fixed roof tank Centrifugal Water Tank Water Pump Electric submersible Pump (ESP). four stages (plus pump.Utility 316SS tubes and CS shell 316SS tubes and CS shell 316SS Material of Construction CS vessel.871 669.310 12. and pumps Includes cooling tower.871 2.557.000 gal) Discharge pressure = 15.044 n/a Total Cost n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a TRIMERIC CORPORATION 85 .871 2.346.406 89.871 669.148.613.steam turbine Compressor Driver .406 89.028.568 11. water cooled 316SS horizontal vessels Fixed roof tank Centrifugal Compressor Interstage Coolers Compressor Driver . water cooled Type Shell and tube.560 1.227.0 MW (300 MMBtu/h) 791 kPa and 177 C (115 psia and 350 F) Design Condition (Per Train Basis) Table 5-1.690 8. Purchased Equipment Costs for MEA Base Case (continued) 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n/a 4 n/a Number of Trains n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 11. fans. basin.679. 316SS Compressor Interstage Separators Makeup Amine Tank Makeup Amine Pumps Cooling Water System .613.

3 MW (93 MMBtu/h) 1140 kPa and 110 C (165 psia and 230 F) 308 kPa and 149 C (300 F and 45 psia) 5730 m3/h at 53 m head (25.000 gpm at 118 ft) 260 kPa and 149 C (38 psia and 300 F) Duty = 48. CS semi-lean side 316SS rich side.3 kPa pressure increase (5.728 1.149 145. Total packed height = 3.226.Semi-Lean Amine Pump LP Condenser Accumulator LP Condensate Pump Lean Amine Pump LP Condenser LP Reboiler LP Stripper .200 gpm at 38 ft) Duty = 179 MW (610 MMBtu/h) 1140 kPa and 110 C (165 psia and 230 F) Duty = 27.5 m (74 ft). Total packed height = 1.1 m (20 ft).980 456.7 MW (33 MMBtu/h) 446 kPa and 177 C (65 psia and 350 F) 446 kPa and 177 C (65 psia and 350 F) 13 m3/h at 28 m head (57 gpm at 93 ft) 4. 316SS packing Packed tower. Diameter = 10.294.354 789.050 m3/h at 35 m head (31.116.743 259.112 4.352 1.902 5.520 552.790 23.924 1.340 779.200 gpm at 173 ft) Treats 15% of rich amine flow Treats 15% of rich amine flow 2. Diameter = 6.350.160 92.209.080 2.720 m3/h at 46 m head (20.902 145.4 MW (165 MMBtu/h) 446 kPa and 177 C (65 psia and 350 F) Duty = 9.718.100 gpm at 115 ft) Design Condition (Per Train Basis) Table 5-2.196 35.000 Cost Per Train 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 Number of Trains 314.7 m (35 ft).588 306.40 MMlb/h at 1.049 8. CS lean side CS with teflon gasket CS with teflon gasket 316SS 316 SS Centrifugal Shell and tube Horizontal vessel Centrifugal Centrifugal Kettle-type shell and tube 316SS 316SS tubes and CS shell 316SS 316SS 316SS 316SS tubes and CS shell Packed tower. 316SS packing Plate and frame Plate and frame Centrifugal Packed tower.Upper Section Rich/Semi-Lean Amine Exchanger Rich/Lean Amine Exchanger Rich Amine Carbon Filter Particulate Filter Rich Amine Booster Pump 316SS rich side. CS vessel.919 456.000 Total Cost TRIMERIC CORPORATION 86 . Purchased Equipment Costs for MEA / PZ Double Matrix 78.5 psi pressure increase) 7.932 435.696 6.608 23.350. 316SS packing Total packed height = 22.359 3.227 4.608 583.906 16.573.035.5 m (5 ft).179. CMR#2 packing CS vessel.8 m (12 ft).650 4 4 338.740.Lower Section LP Stripper .800 gpm at 148 ft) 260 kPa and 149 C (38 psia and 300 F) 4820 m3/h at 12 m head (21.971 1.596 583.355.758. CMR#2 packing CS vessel.45 MMkg/h at 10. CMR #2 packing Centrifugal 316SS Absorber Rich Amine Pump Centrifugal Direct Contact Cooler Water Pump SS or alloy process-wetted parts Centrifugal blower Inlet Gas Blower Materials of Construction Type Description 681 m3/h at 36 m head (3.338 197.112 4.600 1.039. Diameter = 4 m (13 ft).

4 MMBtu/h) 791 kPa and 177 C (115 psia and 350 F) Design Condition (Per Train Basis) 1 1 9.608.685.708 7.077.943.406 89.774.660 n/a 1.5 m (5 ft). Total CS vessel.100 gpm) Discharge pressure = 15.Fixed roof tank Centrifugal Fixed roof tank Water Tank Water Pump Surge Tank Reclaimer Cooling Water System . water cooled 316SS tubes and CS shell 316SS 316SS tubes and CS shell Type Materials of Construction Packed tower.786 89.724.050 m3/h (31.443.780 1.7 psia) 446 kPa and 177 C (65 psia and 350 F) Duty = 48.600 m3/h (130. Diameter = 6.2 MW (246 MMBtu/h) 791 kPa and 177 C (115 psia and 350 F) Duty = 13.443.921.425 8.200 kPa (2205 psia) Total duty = 92 MW (therm) (315 MMBtu/h) 5 minute residence time 462 m3 (122.088 2.2 MW (164 MMBtu/h) 446 kPa and 177 C (65 psia and 350 F) 28 m3/h at 14 m head (124 gpm at 47 ft) Duty = 72.255 4 4 1.786 89.896.177 1.DCC Dehydration Unit Total Cooling Water System . separate 316SS line item) Compressors Compressor Driver .871 669.565 Cost Per Train 4 1 4 Number of Trains Table 5-2.099.000 std m3/h (190 MMSCFD) 7.700 8. and pumps Includes cooling tower.9 MW (47.548 2.662 5.982 1. 316SS packing packed height = 1.000 gal) Discharge pressure = 9650 kPa.916 1 4 4 1 5.227. water cooled Semi-Lean Cooler CS CS CS CS 316SS tubes and CS shell 316SS CS 316SS 316SS tubes and CS shell Kettle-type shell and tube Centrifugal Shell and tube.871 8. basin.Utility Shell and tube.732 130.261 Total Cost TRIMERIC CORPORATION 87 . basin. Purchased Equipment Costs for MEA / PZ Double Matrix (continued) 9.5 m3/h at 37 m head (20 gpm at 120 ft head) 379 m3 (100.7 m (22 ft).732 1. five stages (plus pump. CMR#2 packing HP Condensate Pump Lean Cooler HP Reboiler Description HP Stripper 29.780 1.660 n/a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n/a 474.000 147.786 3.213.558.724.192 11.519.690 8.558.steam turbine Compressor Driver .871 8.786 3.020 6. fans.000 590.943.690 8.088 512. and pumps Electric submersible Pump (ESP) Centrifugal.740 10. (1400 psia) Discharge pressure = 239 kPa (34.000 gal) 23 m3/h at 31 m head (100 gpm at 100 ft head) 1.140 m3 (300.000 gpm) 225. water cooled Horizontal vessels Fixed roof tank Centrifugal Compressor Interstage Coolers Compressor Interstage Separators Makeup Amine Tank Makeup Amine Pumps Includes cooling tower.784 493.784 493.227.871 669.000 gal) 4.406 89.608.740 10.050. fans.electric Compressor Pump (last stage) Shell and tube.

728 1.112 4.690 3.266.340 gpm at 38 ft of head) Duty = 44 MW (150 MMBtu/h) 1140 kPa and 110 C (165 psia and 230 F) Duty = 18 MW (61 MMBtu/h) 1140 kPa and 110 C (165 psia and 230 F) 2.6 m (25 ft).112 4. Flexipac 1Y packing CS vessel.643.639 456.684 25.5 MMBtu/h).3 kPa pressure increase (5. Diameter = 11.8 MW (16.684 5. 446 kPa and 149 C (65 psia and 300 F) 4. 446 kPa and 149 C (65 psia and 300 F) 7m3/h at 21 m of head (29 gpm at 70 ft of head) 787 m3/h at 36 m of head (27.322.472 205.224 64.5 MMBtu/h).45 MMkg/h at 10. Diameter = 3.1 m (20 ft).472 40.8 MW (16.131 1.9 m (39 ft).080.971. Total packed height = 7.350.050 m3/h at 35 m head (31.778 8. 791 kPa and 204 C (115 psia and 400 F) 4.Upper Section Rich/Semi-Lean Amine Exchanger 316SS rich side.650 gpm at 147 ft of head) Treats 15% of rich amine flow Treats 15% of rich amine flow 758 m3/h at 12 m head (3.920 91.273 751.Centrifugal Packed tower. Flexipac 1Y Centrifugal Centrifugal Direct Contact Cooler Water Pump Absorber Rich Amine Pump Rich Amine Carbon Filter Particulate Filter Rich Amine Booster Pump Semi-Lean Amine Pump Lean Amine Pump LP Condensate Pump LP Condenser Accumulator LP Condenser LP Reboiler LP Stripper . Total packed height = 6.360 735.100 gpm at 115 ft) Design Condition (Per Train Basis) Table 5-3.826 399.060 m3/h at 45 m head (4.995 25.091 242. Flexipac 1Y packing CS vessel.7 m (12 ft). Diameter = 3. CS semi-lean side Packed tower. CS lean side CS with teflon gasket CS with teflon gasket 316SS 316SS CS vessel.350.764 209.941.391 158.40 MMlb/h at 1.336 415.000 Cost per Train 337.5 psi pressure increase) 7.704 566.096 2.088 70.180 6.712 574. 316SS packing Packed tower.960 205. 316SS packing 316 SS SS or alloy process-wetted parts Materials of Construction Centrifugal Centrifugal Centrifugal Horizontal vessel Shell and tube Kettle-type shell and tube 316SS 316SS 316SS 316SS 316SS tubes and CS shell 316SS tubes and CS shell Plate and frame 316SS rich side.Lower Section LP Stripper .214 71. Purchased Equipment Costs for MDEA / PZ Double Matrix 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 1 1 Number of Trains 42.011.7 m (12 ft). Total packed height = 15 m (50 ft).478 49.455 456.470 gpm at 104 ft of head) 260 kPa and 149 C (38 psia and 300 F) 308 kPa and 149 C (300 F and 45 psia) 1.112 1.672. 316SS packing Plate and frame Centrifugal blower Inlet Gas Blower Rich/Lean Amine Exchanger Type Description 260 kPa and 149 C (38 psia and 300 F) 4.000 Total Cost TRIMERIC CORPORATION 88 .637 371.700 gpm at 119 ft of head) 353 m3/h at 32 m of head (3.4 MW (15 MMBtu/h).

271 Total Cost TRIMERIC CORPORATION 89 .628 11.095 712.417 138.700 8.060.979 6.800 m3/h (73.505 1.662 4.782 7.483. and pumps Electric submersible Pump (ESP) Compressor Driver . Purchased Equipment Costs for MDEA / PZ Double Matrix (continued) 5.400 gal) Discharge pressure = 15. Diameter = 4.936 512.8 MMBtu/h) 791 kPa and 177 C (115 psia and 350 F) Design Condition (Per Train Basis) 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 8 1 8 8 Number of Trains Table 5-3.059. water cooled Compressor Interstage Coolers Includes cooling tower.483. Total CS vessel.760 5.800.560.698.690 5.597. separate 316SS line item) Compressors CS CS CS CS 316SS CS 316SS tubes and CS shell 316SS 316SS tubes and CS shell Shell and tube.227.984 3.320 1.000 gal) 4.2 MMBtu/h) 791 kPa and 177 C (115 psia and 350 F) 4.560.616.406 127.701.417 1.227. (1400 psia) 446 kPa and 149 C (65 psia and 300 F) 29 MW (100 MMBtu/h).Horizontal vessels Fixed roof tank Centrifugal Fixed roof tank Centrifugal Fixed roof tank Compressor Interstage Separators Makeup Amine Tank Makeup Amine Pumps Water Tank Water Pump Surge Tank Reclaimer Cooling Water System .094 31.757 493.757 493.680 12.121 1.050 m3/h (31. water cooled Semi-Lean Cooler 316SS 316SS tubes and CS shell 316SS tubes and CS shell Centrifugal Shell and tube.3 MW (35.782 7. Flexipac 1Y packing Lean Cooler HP Condensate Pump HP Reboiler Description HP Stripper 16.936 64.680 1.700 8.498 442.6 m (15 ft).938. five stages (plus pump.701. 316SS packing packed height = 12 m (40 ft).100 gpm) Total duty = 112 MW (therm) (381 MMBtu/h) 5 minute residence time 447 m3 (118.938.690 5. basin.871 670.099. and pumps Includes cooling tower.786 89.979 6.000 257.000 gal) 78 m3/h (341 gpm) 183 m3 (48.5 m3/h at 37 m head (20 gpm at 120 ft head) 930 m3 (246.060.024 11.200 kPa (2205 psia) Discharge pressure = 9650 kPa.000 2.406 127.094 31.DCC Dehydration Unit Total Cooling Water System .Utility Shell and tube. basin. fans.871 670.541.458 4.6 MW (15.steam turbine Compressor Driver .800. 791 kPa and 204 C (115 psia and 400 F) 69 m3/h at 8 m of head (302 gpm at 27 ft of head) 10.387.900 gpm) 7. water cooled Kettle-type shell and tube Type Materials of Construction Packed tower.776.284 Cost per Train 5. fans.320 1.electric Compressor Pump (last stage) Centrifugal.786 89.968 11.

217.000 29.000 MEA Base Case $ $ 180 $ $ $ Units % of compression PEC Installation CO2 compression installed equipment costs 104 Value $ % of capture PEC Units 306.000 109.125.089.000 241.000 123.310.000 52.000 105.341.000 24.424.000 136.434.909. Process Plant Costs TRIMERIC CORPORATION 90 .437.688.993.000 $ Process Plant Cost (PPC) 44.000 237.000 MEA / PZ MDEA / PZ Double Matrix Double Matrix Costs CO2 compression purchased equipment costs Total installation CO2 capture installed equipment costs CO2 capture purchased equipment costs Installation Process Plant Cost (PPC) Description Factors Table 5-4.000 24.441.540.000 118.074.773.000 81.000 132.000 327.449.438.528.000 68.000 246.886.415.990.360.000 69.000 43.

000 1.000 310.540.000 616.315.642.000 $ $ 871.000 32.000 525.527.000 30.918.886.000 1.000 2.642.000 2.30 2 30 7.000 39.000 31.5 30 30 30 $/acre acres % of TPI days chemicals and operating labor days fuel inventory % of TPC days fuel and consumables days byproduct inventory days direct expenses 1960 20 Component 1 Component 2 Total Capital Requirement Component 3 Land Component 3 Spare parts Working Capital Component 2 Initial catalyst and chemical inventory Startup Costs Component 1 Prepaid royalties days inventory 10 10 5 30 Value 0.927.000 557.366.000 98.000 15.5 0.000 31.000 MEA Base Case 490.789.639.000 641.000 9.000 39.000 571.000 93.000 481.222.000 306.154.000 623.054.000 9.000 859.000 599.499.532.164.251.424.789.000 30.000 1.000 450.000 327.054.000 10.435.000 600.000 508.000 919. Total Capital Requirement TRIMERIC CORPORATION 91 .000 444.321.000 15.5 % of PPC % of PPC % of PPC % of PPC Units % of PPC Total Capital Requirement (TCR) Interest and Inflation Factor Total Plant Investment Total Plant Investment (TPI) Total Plant Cost (TPC) Engineering cost Process Contingency Project Contingency Total Plant Cost (TPC) Process Plant Cost (PPC) Description Factors 497.377.509.000 475.394.000 634.337.553.957.000 39.000 474.000 16.000 2.000 91.223.283.000 32.162.000 MEA / PZ MDEA / PZ Double Matrix Double Matrix Costs $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Units Table 5-5.627.000 592.

Operating and Maintenance Cost Parameters and Values Consumables O&M Cost Components Value Units Solvent cost 1200 $/tonne Water cost 0. This process does not have byproduct credits. Solvent losses were estimated assuming a factor of 1. maintenance costs. The variable O&M costs were specific to the operation of the CO2 capture and compression system and depend on the capacity factor (or load factor) of the plant. A capacity factor of 80% was used as recommended in the Systems Analysis Guidelines. Therefore. Quantifying solvent degradation losses is still a major technical unknown for these systems.5 kg MEA/tonne CO2 based on a review of the literature (Rao.TRIMERIC CORPORATION 5.92 $/1000 gal Solid waste disposal cost 175 $/tonne Maintenance Costs Total maintenance cost 2.2 Operating Costs The major operating and maintenance (O&M) costs for the CO2 capture and compression process include consumables. utilities. The operating costs are based on a generic site location and should represent a reasonable average of those in various regions of the country. similar degradation rates and solvent unit costs were assumed for all solvents. and services used. The variable O&M components include costs of chemicals consumed. Table 5-6.2 % of total plant cost Labor Costs Maintenance cost allocated to labor 12 % of maintenance costs Administration and support labor cost 30 % of operating labor Operating labor 1 # operators The O&M cost factors. The solid waste disposal cost includes such items as 92 . except for operating labor. and byproduct credits as shown in Table 5-6. This includes vaporization losses and degradation of the solvent for electric utility type operations. were obtained from the Systems Analysis Guidelines (DOE 2005). 2004). plant labor.

The total annual cost for each item is calculated by multiplying the unit cost by the total annual quantity used or consumed and the hours per year. A cooling water system is included in the capital costs and so only makeup water requirements are considered as an operating expense. 2004). The O&M costs are shown in Table 5-7. 2004). usually every 3-6 months at an estimated consumption rate of about 0.92/1000 gallons (Rao.075 kg C/tonne CO2 and the cost for solid waste disposal is $175/tonne waste (Rao. given the plant capacity factor. These carbon beds need to be replaced. The estimated cost of makeup water is $0.TRIMERIC CORPORATION activated carbon replacement. 93 . An activated carbon bed in the amine circulation path removes some of the compounds formed from the degenerated amine.

026.000 % of operating labor $/year % of maintenance costs $/year $/year 30 24.548.841.000 % of TPC $/year 2.000 = 24.277.000 0 7.775.000 = 9.496.000 = 10.000 = = 38.2 9.000 1.000 $/tonne $/year 0 0 = 0 = 0 $/year 18.255.000 80.000 1.075 218 38.000 $/1000 gal gpm $/year $/year 0.173.CO2 Capture Maintenance Costs Factor Total maintenance costs Plant Labor Operating labor Supervisory and clerical labor Component 1 Component 2 Total labor costs Total Operating Costs Byproduct Credits Unit price for CO2 Total byproduct credits Net Operating Cost .906.328.000 Description Total Operating Costs (TOC) Consumables (1 year at capacity factor) Chemicals Solvent unit cost Solvent usage Solvent cost per year .000 0 = 4915 1.000 695 5. Summary of Operating and Maintenance Costs Units MEA Base Case MEA / PZ Double Matrix MDEA / PZ Double Matrix $/tonne kg/h $/year 1.901.000 12 1.460.CO2 Capture ”=” indicates equal to the base case.916.000 661 5.000 18.000 1.000 1.000 = = 3433 1.000 0 7.CO2 capture Water Water unit cost Makeup water rate Water cost per year .293.026.261.000 18. 94 .417.000 1 operator/year 80.207.000 $/year 18.717.000 0 7.359.92 5845 2.000 1.000 19.548.TRIMERIC CORPORATION Table 5-7.000 = = 38.000 19.CO2 capture Mercury removal (activated carbon) Waste disposal Fuel Total consumables .916.200 644 5.556.189.000 = 24.000 80.000 = $/tonne kg waste/ tonne CO2 captured tonne/year $/year $/year $/year 175 = = 0.

This approach is the same as that used when describing the operating costs for a utility power plant without CO2 capture. 44. must be converted into electrical derating by calculating the amount of electrical generating capacity that the steam would have supplied to the main power facility had the steam not been diverted to the CO2 capture system. therefore.7 psia).3 Derating The energy requirements to operate the main facility and the CO2 capture unit are withdrawn from the main power facility output either through electricity or steam. therefore.TRIMERIC CORPORATION The amine CO2 capture unit and downstream compression also require electricity and steam to operate. The energy provided by the CO2 capture steam turbine exceeded the energy requirements to drive the CO2 compressors.7 psia). The derating factor used for this study was 70 W derating for every 1 lb/h of steam diverted from the LP turbine of the main facility (145 W/(kg/h) ). 95 . no explicit cost is associated with them. The MDEA / PZ double matrix case required 30 psig steam (308 kPa. the cost of electricity includes the fuel costs for the utility boiler but does not explicitly include a cost for the high-pressure steam that is produced in the boiler. Energy requirements that are supplied using steam. Table 5-8 summarizes the energy requirements for the three cases and then shows the electrical derating that results from each of the energy requirements. Power requirements of electric motors translate directly to electrical derating (a decrease in MWe). they derate the plant. Table 5-8 shows the net generating capacity for the 500 MWe gross plant with and without CO2 capture. These energy draws decrease the net electrical output of the plant. However. The next section describes the derating calculations. such as the heat requirements for the reboilers. these utilities are taken into account with the derating of the power plant and. 34. 5. a supplemental electrical motor was included for this case. The energy supplied by the CO2 capture steam turbine was not enough to drive the compressors. This energy was added back to the net generating capacity. Table 5-9 lists how the various energy demands correlate to electrical derating. Finally. The MEA base case and the MEA / PZ double matrix case both use 20 psig steam (239 kPa. That is.

when compared to the MEA base case. With CO2 capture. Thus.0 MWe to 115.0 MWe to 93. and the MDEA / PZ double matrix decreases the derating due to CO2 capture by an estimated 30% (from 132. 96 . the MEA / PZ double matrix decreases the derating due to CO2 capture by an estimated 13% (from 132. so the net capacity without capture is 471 MWe. the MEA base case net capacity is 339 MWe. and the MDEA / PZ double matrix is 378 MWe.TRIMERIC CORPORATION The base plant has auxiliary power requirements of ~29 MW. the MEA / PZ double matrix net generating capacity is 356 MWe.2 MWe).0 MWe).

9 485.4 14.1 8.7 14.9 573.8 0.5 13.0 161.5 38.1 1.4 1.3 115.5 13.7 143.9 11.7 47.9 -10.1 0.3 0.0 27.7 29.9 3.ESP Note 1 Heat Exchangers Lean cooler Semi-lean cooler Rich-lean exchanger Rich/semi-lean exchanger LP stripper condenser Stg 1 cooler Stg 2 cooler Stg 3 cooler Stg 4 cooler Stg 5 cooler ESP cooler HP reboiler LP reboiler Note 1 Subtotals Inlet blower work Total pump work Total compressor work CO2 pump work Total cooling water duty Total reboiler heat duty Auxiliary Loads Base plant.7 386.7 0.9 -2.2 10.6 11.1 4. See Table 5-9.TRIMERIC CORPORATION Table 5-8.6 1.0 1.0 485.6 37.8 Note 1: These MW values are not all directly related to MWe derating.4 8.1 8.9 0.6 38. 97 .9 1.0 500.0 471 339 93.0 29.2 39.6 109.2 MW MW MW MW MW MW 8.4 13.3 9.4 14.4 24.1 8.2 10.0 93.4 1.9 270.0 0.2 144.0 0.1 8.2 7.1 471 378 6.1 8.4 1.2nd Stage Compression .4 6.0 5.6 35.4 13.1 11.8 192.8 8.0 4.1 351.5 288.5 9.5 8.4 6.9 475.1 8.0 0.8 146.6 715.7 0.7 82.7 11.0 1.0 269.0 29.9 3.4 4.8 0.5 - 8.8 234.0 0. PC FGD system ESP SCR Main facility derating Inlet blower work (direct electricity usage) Pump work (direct electricity usage) Reboiler heat (steam derating) Compressor work (supplemental electric driver) CO2 pump work Excess energy from turbine CO2 capture derating Total derating Plant Net Electrical Capacity .6 MWe MWe MWe MWe MWe MWe MWe MWe 117.1 0.6 10.0 500.without capture Plant Net Electrical Capacity .0 1.7 40.5 35.9 9.3 471 356 66.0 122.7 1.0 0.3 11.0 6.5th Stage Compression .1 0.3 24.7 MWe MWe MWe MWe MWe MWe MWe 29.7 55.7 193.8 132.with capture MEA Base Case MEA / PZ Double Matrix MDEA / PZ Double Matrix 500.4 1.7 10.9 - MW MW MW MW MW MW MW 3.0 MW MW MW MW MW MW MW 8. Derating Results Description Units Base Plant Gross Capacity Note 1 Pumps and Compressors Inlet gas blower Direct contact water cooler pump Rich amine pump Rich amine booster pump LP lean amine pump LP semi-lean pump HP lean pump MWe Cooling tower pumps Compression .4th Stage Compression .2 10.9 2.7 1.0 29.9 1.7 0.6 29.3rd Stage Compression .4 6.2 1197.6 6.0 0.1st Stage Compression .0 1.6 - 8.9 MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW 352.1 27.3 0.

5 98 . Total annual revenue requirement. TRR ($/yr) = (TCR * CRF) + TOM where. Table 5-10.TRIMERIC CORPORATION Table 5-9.6 MEA / PZ Double Matrix 14 68. the differences in net generating capacity will affect the final economic analysis based on cost of electricity and cost of avoided CO2 emissions. The MEA base case and MEA / PZ double matrix only differ by a few percent.7 18. Total Annual Revenue Requirement Description Levelized capital charge factor Annual CO2 capture capital costs Annual CO2 capture operating costs Total Annual CO2 capture Revenue Requirement Units % / year MM$/yr MM$/yr MM$/yr MEA Base Case 14 69. Table 5-10 shows how these parameters vary for the different cases. A capital recovery factor of 14% is used in the analysis for the cases as recommended by the DOE/NETL SAG (DOE 2005). and the MDEA / PZ double matrix annual revenue requirement is less than 5% greater than the baseline.3 MDEA / PZ Double Matrix 14 73.4 Type of Energy Electricity Electricity Steam driver Electricity Cooling water Steam Effect on Derating Directly related to derate Directly related to derate Must be converted Directly related to derate Does not derate Must be converted Annualized Cost Summary Once the total capital requirement (TCR) and the total O&M costs are known. $ and CRF = capital recovery factor (fraction).5 19. However.9 88. as will be discussed in Section 6. TCR =total capital requirement of the power plant. the total annualized cost of the power plant was estimated as follows.7 18.0 92.5 87. Effect of Energy Requirements on Derating Equipment Inlet blower work Total pump work Total compressor work CO2 pump work Total cooling water duty Total reboiler heat duty 5.

Department of Energy. Peters and Timmerhaus. MD and U.S. U. 99 . “An Integrated Modeling Framework for Carbon Management Technologies”. Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers. Anand. Rao. E. Palo Alto. Germantown. April 2005. Chapter 5. 1991. CA. Department of Energy – Office of Fossil Energy. Rubin. Evaluation of Innovative Fossil Fuel Power Plants with CO2 Removal.S. 4th Edition. Pittsburgh. PA: 2000. EPRI.TRIMERIC CORPORATION References (Section 5) Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). Berkenpas. 1000316.S. Department of Energy/NETL. “Carbon Capture and Sequestration Systems Analysis Guidelines”. M. U. March 2004.

0 87.3 10.0 92.0 165.0 165.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND RESULTS This section utilizes the annualized cost summary from Section 5 to compare the cost of electricity and the cost of CO2 avoidance for the three cases.3 252. The base plant cost of electricity is assumed as 5 cents/kWh. the cost of electricity is highest (10. For the MEA / PZ double matrix.5 257. 100 . The increase in cost of electricity for the base case is estimated at 113%.6 253. The basis for these costs was previously presented in Section 5. the estimated increase in cost of electricity for the MDEA / PZ double matrix is 95%.0 165.7 113 5. Cost of Electricity Description Units Gross generating capacity Net generating capacity without CO2 capture Net generating capacity with CO2 capture Base plant cost of electricity Annual base plant costs Total annual CO2 capture costs Total annual costs with CO2 capture Total COE Increase in COE MWe MWe 500 471 MWe 339 356 378 5. 6.6 9. which is the smallest increase of the three cases.7 c/kWh) for the MEA base case. Finally.7 95 c/kWh MM$/yr MM$/yr MM$/yr c/kWh % MEA Base Case MEA / PZ Double Matrix 500 471 MDEA / PZ Double Matrix 500 471 As shown in the table. the estimated increase is 102%.1 Cost of Electricity Table 6-1 presents the cost of electricity with and without CO2 capture for the three cases.0 88. addition of these CO2 capture systems doubles the cost of electricity. Table 6-1. Generally speaking.1 102 5.6 10.TRIMERIC CORPORATION 6.

).3 Sensitivity to Plant Size The DOE Systems Analysis Guidelines suggest that technologies and their costs be evaluated for different base plant sizes ranging from 200 MW to 1000 MW (DOE 2005).2 $/tonne CO2. which represents a savings of 18% in cost of avoided CO2 emissions. The cost of CO2 avoided is calculated as follows: Cost of CO 2 avoided = (COE with capture − COE without capture ) (CO 2 emissions with capture . absorbers.g.0 $/tonne CO2 . The MDEA / PZ double matrix cost of CO2 avoidance is 55. The size of these amine units is so large that multiple parallel trains are required due to size limitations for individual pieces of equipment (e. Therefore.2 Cost of CO2 Avoidance Table 6-2 illustrates the cost of CO2 avoidance for the three cases. 101 . which represents a 10% decrease in cost of avoided CO2 emissions. the base case cost of CO2 avoidance is 67. The MEA / PZ double matrix cost of CO2 avoidance is 60. heat exchangers.CO 2 emissions without capture) 1$ cents 1000 kW × × $ 1 MW 100 cents [=] kWh tonne CO 2 tonne CO 2 MWh As shown in the table. pumps.TRIMERIC CORPORATION 6. etc. The capital and operating costs scale linearly with respect to gross generating capacity in the range of 200 to 1.2 $/tonne CO2. smaller and larger plants would use additional or fewer amine trains and increase or decrease the pieces of equipment in equipment banks.000 MW. 6. Thus the range of cost savings achieved through use of the advanced solvent formulations and process configurations studied in this effort range from 10 to 18%.

4 471 5.with capture Description Plant Net Electrical Capacity . Cost of CO2 Avoided 471 5.1 46 0.0 462 0.20 MEA Base Case 10.0 462 0.0 462 0.98 339 10.98 378 9.Note: “=” indicates a value equal to the MEA base case.without capture CO2 emitted .14 67.98 No Capture Table 6-2.1 471 5.with capture CO2 emitted .without capture % Units MWe c/kWh tonne/h tonne/MWh MWe c/kWh tonne/h tonne/MWh $/tonne 471 5.05 MDEA / PZ Double Matrix TRIMERIC CORPORATION 102 .without capture Cost of electricity . Percent reduction in cost of CO2 avoided Cost of CO2 avoided Plant Net Electrical Capacity .98 356 10.7 46 0.7 46 0.12 55.19 MEA / PZ Double Matrix 18.0 462 0.with capture Cost of electricity .13 60.

TRIMERIC CORPORATION References (Section 6) Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). April 2005. “Carbon Capture and Sequestration Systems Analysis Guidelines”. 103 .

0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This section summarizes the work completed under this Phase I SBIR project and presents the major findings and conclusions. equipment was sized and selected based on the simulation output. Then.TRIMERIC CORPORATION 7. First. amine units. Third. The specific technical objectives for Phase I of this SBIR project include the following: • Establish the two most promising systems of solvent formulation and process scheme. • Compare these economics with baseline MEA configuration and with Office of Fossil Energy (OFE) targets. and compression trains in order to prepare heat and material balances. Input from industry sponsors was used to make appropriate assumptions and calculations for integrating the CO2 capture system with the main power facility. cost of electricity and cost of avoided CO2 emissions were calculated in order to compare the two advanced cases with the updated base case. • Estimate the capital and operating costs of these top two systems. This project furthers previous work done by Trimeric and the University of Texas at Austin that proposed novel solvent formulations and process configurations. • Resolve how the amine and compression systems will integrate with the power plant. simulations were prepared for the inlet gas train. Finally. Second. a process screening study selected the two most promising advanced systems based on the calculated energy requirements for numerous combinations of solvent formulations and process configurations. capital and operating costs were estimated. and • Select the best process configuration and solvent formulation for pilot testing in Phase II. These novel systems could theoretically reduce energy costs of amine-based CO2 capture at coal-fired power plants by 5% to 20% when compared to conventional systems employing monoethanolamine (MEA). The Phase I work plan included six tasks to achieve the above technical objectives. 104 .

• The configuration with the lowest estimated cost per tonne avoided was the MDEA / PZ double matrix (55. this Phase I report marks the end of this particular SBIR research project.TRIMERIC CORPORATION An updated base case and two advanced cases were evaluated in detail: Case Name Solvent Configuration Base Case 7 m MEA Conventional MEA / PZ double matrix 7 m MEA. The design basis for these evaluations was a 500 MW gross conventional coal-fired power plant using Illinois #6 subbituminous coal. A wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD) unit was assumed to be located upstream of the CO2 capture unit.05 $/tonne CO2 avoided). 105 . Consequently. The base electricity cost used in this study was 5 cents/kWh. the results do not meet the DOE’s goal of achieving CO2 capture with less than a 20 % increase in the cost of electricity.2 MPa. and 95% for the MDEA / PZ double matrix. and • Estimated reboiler steam requirements were reduced by 20 to 44 percent. however. The target CO2 removal is 90%. which is desirable from the utility operating perspective though the capital costs to achieve these changes are large. • The derating due to CO2 capture could be reduced by an estimated 13 to 30% (17 to 39 MWe) by employing advanced solvent formulations and process configurations. Any captured CO2 is delivered at pipeline pressure (15. 102% for the MEA / PZ double matrix. These results represent improvements in the economics. • Estimates for increases in the cost of electricity were 113% for the MEA base case. 2 m PZ Double Matrix MDEA / PZ double matrix Proprietary concentrations Double Matrix Note: “m” equals molal. 2200 psia). The major conclusions of this work are summarized in the following paragraphs: • Estimates for the reductions in the cost of CO2 capture ($/tonne CO2 avoided) when compared to the base case MEA system ranged from 10 to 18 percent among the cases.