Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 11e18

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Global warming potential and net power output analysis of natural gas
combined cycle power plants coupled with CO2 capture systems and
organic Rankine cycles
poles Rivera*
~ o, Fabricio Na
Gerardo Geovanni Esquivel Patin
s de Hidalgo, Morelia, Michoaca
Chemical Engineering Department, Universidad Michoacana de San Nicola n, 58060, Mexico

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The objective of this study was to analyze the environmental and energetic analysis of a natural gas
Received 19 June 2018 combined cycle (NGCC) power plant integrated with post-combustion carbon capture (PCC) and an
Received in revised form organic Rankine cycle (ORC) as an alternative to increase net power output using thermal integration
8 October 2018
between the three processes. This study consisted of the calculation of the global warming potential
Accepted 9 October 2018
(GWP) and the net power output as a function of the amount of CO2 captured. For the analysis, the base
Available online 10 October 2018
was taken as the simulation of a 453-MWe NGCC power plant with a monoethanolamine-based PCC
process and an ORC. The base case shows that the ORC could generate a considerable amount of energy
Keywords:
ngcc power plant
using a stream of hot water to evaporate the working fluid; this stream was previously extracted from the
Post-combustion carbon capture low pressure turbine and used in the stripper reboiler. Then three study cases were considered. For case 1
Organic Rankine cycle (NGCC þ PCC þ ORC), the power output is 381.2 MW with a capture of 42.43 kg/s of CO2 and a production
Global warming potential of 2.02 MW in the ORC with a GWP of 94.75 g CO2e/kWh. For case 2, exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) was
considered. For this case, the energy production is 386.52 MW, with 1.905 MW produced in the ORC. For
case 3 with PCC and NGCC thermal integration, the net power output is 391.42 MW. These three cases
were analyzed and the amount of combustive gases were varied to determine the effect on the power
output, CO2 captured, and the GWP of these processes. The results show the tradeoffs between the
considered goals and set an objective framework for policymakers to better operate these types of
systems.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The carbon capture process is a good alternative for reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions in the chemical and processing in-
dustries. This process has been studied for its application in all
types of industries such as cement production (Cormos and
Cormos, 2017), iron and steel (Cormos, 2016), power plant
(Kanniche et al., 2010), etc. However, among the challenges in
applying this technology is the energetic and economic impact
which in the case of a power plant results from matching both
technologies. Several capture technologies such as pre-, oxy-, and
post-combustion and the analysis of different materials for capture
as membranes (Khalilpour et al., 2015), ionic liquids (Valencia-
* Corresponding author.
~ o), fnapoles@
E-mail addresses: espagio_91@hotmail.com (G.G. Esquivel Patin
umich.mx (F. N
apoles Rivera).
Marquez et al., 2017), the rectisol process (Sharma et al., 2016),
calcium looping methods (Petrescu and Cormos, 2017), etc. have
been completed. Nevertheless, post-combustion carbon capture
(PCC) using chemical absorption that includes an absorber and a
stripper in which gases from power plants are treated with lean
solutions (Sreedhara et al., 2017) is among the most studied and
mature technologies (Araújo and de Medeiros, 2017). Although
different types of absorbents have been analyzed, the energetic
penalty of CO2 capture (including the energy used in the amine
regeneration process, pumps, vents and compression train) re-
mains a considerable issue affecting the electricity cost. The ener-
getic impact for the PCC could be reduced using exhaust gas
recirculation (EGR), which increases the CO2 concentration during
the absorption process and decreases the required energy (Li et al.,
2011). Despite these efforts, natural gas combined cycle (NGCC)
plant efficiency remains low in comparison to the stand-alone
plant.
The thermodynamic and economic analysis of an NGCC power

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.098
0959-6526/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
12 G.G. Esquivel Patin poles Rivera / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 11e18
~ o, F. Na

plant with PCC has been studied to improve the plant efficiencies
(Hu et al., 2017). For example, thermal integration using the energy
in the streams of the capture process in the heat recovery steam
generator (HRSG) and in the stripper reboiler might increase the
net power output from 0.77 to 1.31% (Luo et al., 2015). ORC
implementation has been studied to reduce energy penalties
resulting from carbon capture (Romeo et al., 2011). In this study, an
ORC (consisting of a conventional Rankine cycle using R245fa as the
working instead of water) was considered; this process uses the
waste energy of the process to generate additional power (Schuster
et al., 2009).
It is known that power generation from fossil fuels results in a
considerable emission of greenhouse gases and that CO2 is the gas
emitted in a higher proportion to the environment (IPCC, 2014). For
an NGCC power plant, the CO2 emissions are approximately
190e600 kg/MW for an NGCC with a generation capacity of
approximately 390e1600 MWe (Martín-Gamboa et al., 2018), a
considerable amount that has to be reduced. The CO2 could be used
during other processes or stored; for example, it has been proposed
to use the CO2 during the methanol production process (Milani
et al., 2015).
The match of an NGCC power plant with PCC and ORC has been
previously studied (Esquivel-Patin ~ o et al., 2017). However, the
simulation parameters and the amount of CO2 captured were fixed.
In this study, the match between the three technologies was
analyzed considering the addition of the monoethanolamine (MEA)
production process. A life-cycle analysis for the integrated process
was performed and a sensitivity analysis for the simulation pa-
rameters was conducted to optimize the operational conditions.
Then a sensitivity analysis for the combustion gases sent to the
capture process was completed to determine the relationship be-
tween this variable and the simulation parameters. The simulation
of the base case was conducted for a 453-MWe NGCC power plant
with a 35 wt% MEA-based PCC process and an ORC with R245fa as
the working fluid. The global warming potential (GWP) was
calculated with the IPCC values (2017) relative to the CO2 for the
NGCC, natural gas production, and MEA production.
2. Methodology
To create a basis for comparison the following simulations were
conducted:
a) A 453-MW NGCC, PCC MEA-based process and an ORC with
R245FA as a working fluid with a fixed amount of combustion
gases.
b) A 453-MW NGCC, PCC MEA-based process, exhaust gas recir-
culation (EGR) and an ORC with R245FA as a working fluid with
a fixed amount of combustion gases.
Then, an analysis of the GWP and power output for the base
cases was performed and used to assess the performance of the
system in terms of the GWP and power output under the following
scenarios:
- Case 1: PCC þ NGCC þ ORC and a varying amount of combustion
gases during the capture process
- Case 2: PCC þ NGCC þ ORC with EGR and a varying amount of
combustion gases during the capture process
- Case 3 PCC þ NGCC þ ORC with EGR and PCC-NGCC thermal
integration and varying amount of combustion gases during the
capture process
3. ASPEN PLUS® simulation for the base case
The three processes were simulated in ASPEN PLUS® to
construct the base case and models, and results from Luo et al.
(2015), Ozdil and Segmen (2016), and the IEAGHG report (2012)
were used for the validation and comparison of the simulation
results. The simulation was separated into four sections, one for
each thermodynamic model: Peng-Robinson with Boston Mathias
modifications (PR-BM) for the gas turbine of the NGCC, STEAMNBS
for the steam turbines, ELECTNRTL for the PCC, and SRK for the ORC.
The flow chart in Fig. 1 shows all the streams and equipment for the

HP-TURB

HP-STEAM

AIR-COMP MP-TURB

AIR MP-STEAM
LP-TURB

COM-CHAM
LP-STEAM
GAS-TURB

MIX-GAS

GAS-PCC
GAS-HRSG
MIXER

Condenser
NAT-GAS HRSG
WATER

EGR

CO2-CT
GAS-TREA
CO2

L-AMINE

COMP-1 STR
COMP-2
ABS

ORC-TURB

R-AMINE

PURGE
S-1
ORC-COND MEA

R245FA STEAM-LP

Fig. 1. NGCC, PCC and ORC match flowchart.

 G.G. Esquivel Patin poles Rivera / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 11e18
~ o, F. Na
NGCC that consists of a gas turbine and three pressure level steam
turbines; the PCC with a 35 wt% MEA-based absorber using the
kinetic data of Zhang et al. (2009); a stripper and a compression
system; and an ORC with a condenser, evaporator, and turbine. As a
result of the match between the NGCC and PCC it was observed that
the stream of the LP steam used in the stripper reboiler has an
output temperature of 120.8  C (stream S-1 in Fig. 1) and it has to be
cooled to recirculate it in the Rankine cycle to the heat recovery
steam generator (HRSG). In the IEAGHG report the stream is cooled
with the stream of gases sent to the environment from the
absorber. In this case, the stream is used as waste energy that can be
used to operate the ORC to generate more power and increase the
thermal efficiency of the NGCC.
Using this simulation, the obtained power output was
379.2 MW with a capture of 42.43 kg/s and a stripper reboiler duty
of 186.782 MW, which are near the values reported by Lue et al.
(379.85 MW, 41.11 kg/s and the 186.8 MW). The power output for
the ORC was 0.2602 MW in comparison to the 0.2604 MW of Ozdil
and Segmen.
4. Analysis of the base case
Once the simulation results are consistent with the results of the
authors previously cited, the analysis of the base case was con-
ducted considering three scenarios for the evaluation of the net
power output and GWP: first for the match of the NGCC, PCC and
ORC; second for the same match but with an EGR; and finally the
NGCC, PCC, and ORC with EGR and thermal integration (TI) per-
formed using SYNHEAT (Yee and Grossmann, 1990).
GWP
GWP
GWP
NGCC Power Plant
Natural Gas
Combustion
Gases
Water to
HRSG
Fig. 2. GWP and net power output calculation scheme.
13
Fig. 2 shows a schematic representation of the problem. The
calculation of the power output for the base case is the sum of the
gas turbine, steam turbine, and ORC turbine considering a reduc-
tion in the final power output because of the energy used for
operation of the plant, the steam extracted to regenerate the L-
amine, and the energy used in the compression train. The GWP
calculation involves three stages: the impact resulting from the
natural gas production (NGP), the emission in the NGCC process
production, and finally the MEA production (MEAP) which was
included as part of the life cycle analysis to obtain a more complete
GWP result. For emission in the NGP, it was considered that 1.4% of
the natural gas feed to the NGCC was emitted to the environment
(Harrison et al., 1997); the amount of natural gas was 16.62 kg/s
with a composition of methane of 84%. As a result, the emissions in
the NGP plant was constant and equal to 31,404 kg CO2e/h which
was used in the GWP calculation for that stage in the global process
which varies depending on the net power output obtained in each
case. For the MEAP stage, only the CO2 emission according to the
data obtained in Ecoinvent (2017) were considered; the impact of
this stage varied according to the necessary MEA and the power
output in each case study. Finally, for emissions in the NGCC in the
base case the emissions are at the exit of the absorber. For the three
stages, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
values in CO2-e grams used for GWP calculation were 21 for CH4,
310 for N2O, and 1 for CO2. For the MEAP GWP, it was considered
that 1.2% of the initial flux of the MEA has to be fed to regenerate the
lean solvent. Thus, for the GWP calculation, an approximate
quantity that includes the sum of the initial feed of the MEA as well
as the MEA needed over 1 year were used to regenerate the lean
GWP
MEA production
Compression train
CO2
MEA
R-Amine
L-Amine
LP STEAM
Hot water
ORC
14 G.G. Esquivel Patin
~ o, F. Na
solvent, and divided over 8000 h of operation.
The results of the three scenarios for the base case show that for
case 1 (NGCC þ PCC þ ORC) the power output is 381.2 MW with a
capture of 42.43 kg/s of CO2 and a production of 2.02 MW in the
ORC with a GWP of 94.75 g CO2e/kWh. In case 2, it the EGR is
386.52 MW with 1.905 MW produced in the ORC and a GWP of
92.27 g CO2e/kWh. For case 3, with the TI, it 391.42 MW were
produced with 1.73 MW produced in the ORC and a GWP of 91.11 g
CO2e/kWh For each case the number of stages was fixed at 8. All the
results of the base case are shown in Table 1. A shown in Fig. 3 the
net power output in each turbine during the process included the
gas turbine (GT) which has a diminution of 0.12% in the case with
the EGR compared to the first case and for the steam turbines (STs)
initially there is a reduction of 33.9% when the PCC is coupled.
Finally, when EGR and TI are used, it was observed that as the
necessary LP steam to desorb the CO2 decreases the power output
of the ST increases. The power output of the organic Rankine cycle
turbine (ORCT) is 2.02 MWe and it depends on the amount of hot
water at the output of the stripper reboiler; as the LP steam in the
PCC decreases, the ORCT power output decreases as well.
The GWP contribution for each stage of the process is shown in
Fig. 4. It can be seen that the GWP changed under all the scenarios
with respect to the base case. Initially, there is a reduction in the
GWP resulting from the implementation of the PCC and ORC that
reduces the CO2 emissions in the NGCC; the GWP change is
considerably higher in comparison to the GWP increment associ-
ated with the addition of the MEAP process. Then, in the case of
EGR, the GWP decreases because of the reduction in the stripper
reboiler duty and with this an increase in the power output of the
LP turbine. Finally, in the last case, the diminution in GWP is caused
by the TI between the streams in the compression train that pre-
heat the stream of the stripper reboiler, decreasing the amount of
LP steam and obtaining a higher net power output. Because of the
modification previously mentioned, the impact of the GWP during
the NGCC stage is reduced to between 3.47 and 3.53% for the three
scenarios compared to the stand-alone plant. This GWP of the NGP
stage increases because the net power output is reduced while the
natural gas consumption is the same. The MEAP stage has a lower
impact in comparison to that of the other stages because the
quantity of MEA feed to regenerate the lean-amine stream is just
2140.08 kg/h which corresponds to 0.086 CO2 kg/s emitted to the
environment according to the calculation performed using the data
of kg-CO2/kg-MEA reported by ECOINVENT.
5. Analysis of GWP and power output varying the amount of
combustion gases for case 1 of PCC þ NGCC þ ORC, case 2 of
PCC þ NGCC þ ORC with EGR and case 3 of PCC þ NGCC þ ORC
with EGR and PCC-NGCC TI
The main objective of this analysis was to determine the effect of
varying the amount of combustion gases sent to the PCC in the
Table 1
Results of the analysis in the base case.
Result NGCC þ PCC þ ORC
Gas turbine power output (MWe) 295.12
Steam turbine power output (MWe) 113.38
Steam extracted from LP turbine (kg/s) 76.382
Stripper reboiler duty (MW) 186.782
Power consumed by the compressors (MW) 13.58
ORC turbine power output (MWe) 2.02
Net power output (MWe) 381.2
GWP (g CO2e/kWh) 94.75
poles Rivera / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 11e18
main variables of the process such as power output in the ST and
ORCT, LP steam extracted, stripper reboiler duty, carbon capture,
GWP impact of the stages considered, GWP global, and net power
output. First, as can be seen in Fig. 5, a separation unit in the PCC
was used to guarantee that the combustion gases sent to the PCC
and the stream of the lean amine simultaneously varied to maintain
a desirable ratio of LCO2/GAS-PCC To achieve this, the split fraction
in the separation unit for the stream GAS-PCC was specified.
As a result of the base case, it was observed that the combined
flux of the stream of the lean amine and the combustion gases is
42.0021 kmol/s for case 1 and 30.681 for case 2. This is because the
EGR decreases the flux of the combustion gases sent to the PCC but
with nearly the same amount of CO2 because of the increment in
the CO2 concentration. The number of stages for the absorber was
10 and for the stripper 8 for both cases. Then, a sensitivity analysis
varying the combined flux and the number of stages from 2 to 15
was completed. The results of the first analysis show that for a
constant LCO2/GAS-PCC ratio the composition of the streams of
combustion gases and of the lean amine are constant It was also
observed that the simulation is infeasible when the number of
stages is less than 6, and that the quantity of CO2 does not
considerably change when the number of stages varies from 6 to 15.
Then, as a result of the first analysis, the stages of the absorber were
fixed at 10 and the number of stages in the stripper varied from 2 to
15 to observe the behavior of the stripper and the effect in the duty
of its reboiler and in carbon capture. For less than five stages, the
CO2 capture is negligible, and the reboiler duty considerably in-
creases for five stages compared that for 6 to 15 stages. For both
analyses, it was observed that the minimum combined flux of the
lean amine and combustion gases is 12 kmol/s to achieve feasible
solutions.
Finally, using the previous results, a new sensitivity analysis for
the three study cases was performed varying the GAS-MEA stream
and the stripper number of stages (5e10), taking as the response
variables the CO2 capture and the stripper reboiler duty. Once these
results were obtained, the flux of MEA, carbon emitted to the
environment; carbon captured; reboiler duty and compression
power in the PCC; LP steam that has to be extracted; LP turbine
power output; ORCT power output; and GWP of the MEAP, NEP, and
NGCC for the three study cases can be evaluated.
6. Results
From the simulations, it was found that the maximum amount
of CO2 capture for case 1 was 43.45 kg/s. but this also led to the
maximum reboiler duty required of 211.89 MW using 15 stages in
the stripper, and extraction of 86.64 kg/s of LP steam affecting the
net power output to obtain just 373.53 MWe, which compared with
the stand alone plant, corresponded to a diminution of 17.2%. This is
a considerable quantity compared to the diminution in the base
case of 15.45% with a capture of 42.43 kg. Because of this, the results
NGCC PCC þ ORC þ EGR NGCC PCC þ ORC þ EGR þ TI
294.76 294.76
116.69 121.74
72.04 65.42
176.18 176.18
13.19 13.19
1.905 1.73
386.52 391.41
92.27 91.11
 G.G. Esquivel Patin poles Rivera / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 11e18
~ o, F. Na 15

450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
NGCC + PCC NGCC + PCC NGCC + PCC +
NGCC
+ORC +ORC + EGR ORC + EGR + TI
ORCT 0 2.02 1.905 1.73
ST 171.5 113.38 116.69 121.74
GT 295.12 295.12 294.75 294.75

Fig. 3. Power generated in each turbine of the process (MWe) and for the study cases.

400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
NGCC + PCC NGCC + PCC NGCC + PCC +
NGCC
+ORC +ORC + EGR ORC + EGR + TI
MEAP 0 2.77 2.77 2.73
NGCC 348.654 9.6 8.35 8.15
NGP 69.52 82.38 81.25 80.23

Fig. 4. GWP contribution (g CO2e/kWh) for each stage of the process and for the study cases.

of the base case were taken as the upper bound. For the minimum
GAS-MEA combined flux for the first case, it was observed that the
minimum amount of CO2 that could be captured was between 11.29
and 11.49 kg/s depending on the number of stages in the stripper.
With this level of capture, the net power output had a penalty of
3.6e4.9% compared to the case when no CO2 is captured. For case 2,
the minimum capture was 14.93e15.21 kg/s This increment in
comparison to that of case 1 was because of the increase in con-
centration of the CO2 in the absorber caused by the EGR.
6.1. Case 1
The results for varying the Gas-MEA flux are shown in Fig. 6. The
number of stages was taken as 6 for a flux of 12e24, 7 for 24e36,
and 8 for 36e42 kmol/s because of the analysis in the changes in
the stripper reboiler duty and in the capture level in kg/s. The
maximum CO2 was the same of the base case with 42.43 kg/s with a
minimum of 11.35 kg/s for the 6 stages in the stripper. The energetic
and environmental results shown in Fig. 6 are as follows: stripper
16 G.G. Esquivel Patin poles Rivera / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 11e18
~ o, F. Na

CO2-E CO2-T

L-CO2 CO2

SEP ABS STR

C-2
C-1
GAS-MEA

GAS-PCC R-CO2

L-MEA

Fig. 5. Scheme of the Study cases Analysis.

250

200

150

100

50

0
12 21 30 39 42
STRQ (MW) 55.32 94.65 134.76 172.88 186.78
CTP (MW) 4.02 6.95 9.88 12.67 13.58
SE (kg/s) 22.62 38.7 55.1 70.69 76.38
STP (MW) 154.4 142.12 129.61 117.72 113.38
ORCP (MW) 0.5982 1.024 1.457 1.87 2.02
GWP MEAP (g CO2e/kWh) 0.7011 1.271 1.883 2.539 2.77
GWP NGP (g CO2e/kWh) 72.97 75.57 78.398 81.29 82.38
GWP NGCC (g CO2e/kWh) 271.05 191.94 116.8 39.29 9.6
CC (kg/s) 11.35 21.59 30.75 39.53 42.43

Fig. 6. Environmental and energetic results for the case 1.

reboiler duty (STRQ), necessary power in the compression train
(CTP), LP steam extracted (SE), steam turbine power output (STP),
ORC power output (ORCP), GWP potential contribution during the
MEA production stage (GWP MEAP), GWP potential contribution
during the NGP stage (GWP NGP), GWP potential contribution in
the natural gas combined cycle stage (GWP NGCC), and level of
carbon captured (CC).
As can be seen in Fig. 6 if the combustion gases sent to the
absorber decrease, the LP turbine power increases because the LP
steam extracted is reduced as is the contribution of the GWP during
the NGCC stage as a result of more CO2 emissions. The GWP in the
MEAP and in the NGP decrease because the net power output in-
creases from the maximum point to the minimum caused by the
diminution of the stripper reboiler duty, which has an effect on the
LP steam, LP power output, and ORC power output.
6.2. Case 2
As the combined flux Gas-MEA changes in the second case
because of the EGR of the results shown in Fig. 7 by varying the Gas-
MEA flux, the level of capture for the three central points in case 1
remained constant for comparison to this case. In addition, the
number of stages was the same for each point as in case 1. For case
2, the maximum CO2 was the same as that of the base case of
41.205 kg/s with a minimum of 15.06 kg/s. The results of Case 2
showed a similar trend as those of case 1 including the following
observations:
 The maximum level of capture for this case is less than that of
case 1, which is compensated for by the stripper reboiler duty
decrease.
 The minimum level of capture is greater compared to that of
case 1 because the CO2 concentration is higher because of the
EGR.
 The LP steam was reduced approximately 2e5% in the compa-
rable points owing to the EGR.
 The GWP of each stage is nearly the same in the two cases
because of the small changes in the net power output and in the
lean amine fed in the absorber.
 G.G. Esquivel Patin poles Rivera / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 11e18
~ o, F. Na 17

250

200

150

100

50

0
12 16.262 22.705 29.372 30.681
STRQ (MW) 70.657 95.159 131.864 169.373 176.18
CTP (MW) 5.266 7.084 9.858 12.648 13.185
SE (kg/s) 28.892 38.91 53.919 69.257 72.041
STP (MW) 149.61 141.966 130.513 118.811 116.686
ORC2 (MW) 0.7641 1.029 1.426 1.832 1.905
GWP MEAP (g CO2e/kWh) 0.9814 1.358 1.961 2.63 2.77
GWP NGP (g CO2e/kWh) 73.679 75.3 77.89 80.71 81.25
GWP NGCC (g CO2e/kWh) 244.19 193.13 117.98 41.1 8.25
CC (kg/s) 15.06 21.59 30.75 39.53 41.205

Fig. 7. Environmental and energetic results for the case 2.

6.3. Case 3 and 3 as a result of the greater use of LP steam.

In the points where the level of capture is the same for the three
For this case, the results depended only on the reduction of the cases, it was observed that the power output increases as the
LP steam necessary in the stripper reboiler caused by the imple- capture of CO2 increases. In addition, the implementation of TI has a
mentation of the TI between the streams of the compression train positive impact on the power output. For the GWP, case 2 has a
and the stream in the stripper reboiler. The carbon capture level, higher level than that of case 1 because with EGR and flux of MEA
stripper reboiler duty, and compression train power were the same the absorber increases in case 3, and the GWP decreases owing to
as those in case 2, and the GWP contribution per stage showed the power output generated.
slight variation compared to that of case 2. In the TI completed for The energetic penalty of the implementation of the PCC for the
the base case, the reduction in the steam was from 72.04 to base case was a reduction of 16.1% in the net power output
65.42 kg/s comparing the EGR case to the TI case, a reduction of compared to that of the stand-alone NGCC power plant. For the first
9.19%. case, the reduction is approximately 4.7e15.6%, with the ORC
As shown in Table 2 the net power output for the minimum implementation and the reduction in the carbon capture level. For
capture level point is higher for Case 1 compared to that of Cases 2 case 2, the reduction is 5.58e14.44%, and finally for case 3 it is
5.21e13.4%.
Environmentally, the lower GWP was obtained in case 3 at a
Table 2 maximum capture level of 91.11 g CO2e/kWh, which corresponds to
Results of GWP and net power output for the three study cases.
a reduction of 78.21% compared to the GWP of the stand-alone
Result Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 NGCC plant.
MIN CO2 captured (11.35 kg/s case 1, 15.05 kg/s case 2 and 3) Figs. 8e10 show how the GWP and the NP changes as the
Net power output (MWe) 430.36 426.24 428.19 amount of CO2 captured is varied, decreasing as the percentage of
GWP (g CO2e/kWh) 344.72 318.85 317.39 capture is increasing which would have a positive impact envi-
21.59 kg/s CO2 captured
ronmentally by decreasing the amount of emissions of this gas for
Net power output (MWe) 415.58 417.04 419.67
GWP (g CO2e/kWh) 268.78 269.80 268.10 each kWh that is produced. However, it would also have an eco-
30.75 kg/s CO2 captured nomic impact that would result in an increase in the cost of electric
Net power output (MWe) 400.57 403.21 406.86 power by increasing the production costs via the implementation
GWP (g CO2e/kWh) 197.08 197.83 196.05 of the capture technology. In the graphs the GWP vs. NP tradeoffs
39.53 kg/s CO2 captured
Net power output (MWe) 386.30 389.12 393.81
are shown. For each one of the case studies, there is similar
GWP (g CO2e/kWh) 123.12 124.43 122.95 behavior; however, it can be seen that the GWP and the NP are
MAX CO2 captured (42.43 kg/s case 1, 41.205 kg/s case 2 and 3) favored as the different alternatives of each case are implemented.
Net power output (MWe) 381.2 386.52 391.41 It can be observed that the stand-alone plant produces a GWP of
GWP (g CO2e/kWh) 94.75 92.27 91.11
418.174 g CO2e/kWh that can be reduced up to 78.21% for case 3
18 G.G. Esquivel Patin poles Rivera / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 11e18
~ o, F. Na
Fig. 8. Graphics of Percentage of CO2 captured vs GWP and NP and NP vs GWP for case
1.
Fig. 9. Graphics of Percentage of CO2 captured vs GWP and NP and NP vs GWP for case
2.
Fig. 10. Graphics of Percentage of CO2 captured vs GWP and NP and NP vs GWP for case
3.
with a minimum GWP. Each of the points of the GWP vs. NP charts
represent a single solution that can be implemented in the NGCC as
a measure of the best environmental aspect.
7. Conclusions
In this study, NGCC coupling with PCC and ORC was analyzed by
varying the stream of combustion gases sent to the absorption
process and adding EGR and TI in three study cases. It was found, in
the base case with the ORC, that the energetic penalty could be
reduced owing to the power generated in the ORC turbine using the
stream of hot water at the output of the stripper reboiler, as for the
maximum power generated in the first study case of 2.02 MWe. In
case 2, with a high level of capture, the EGR has a considerable
impact on the reduction of the stripper reboiler duty, but as the
level of capture decreases this reduction decreases as well. The
maximum reduction in the energetic penalty for the energy pro-
duced in the NGCC plant without EGR and TI was 4.7% and corre-
sponded to the first case with a capture level of 11.35 kg/s and a
GWP of 344.72 g CO2e/kWh, producing a net power output of
430.36 MWe. This capture level is a reduction of 74.1% of the total
carbon emitted during the NGCC stage which over 1 year would be
a reduction of 326.88 kt of CO2. In addition, reducing the capture
level would also affect the reduction of the PCC equipment cost and
in turn also all aid in reducing the increment in the cost of energy
induced by carbon sequestration. The maximum reduction of the
GWP is that of the third case with a level of capture of 41.205 kg/s
and a GWP of 91.11 g CO2e/kWh, producing a net power output of
391.41 MWe.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the financial support of CONACYT,
Mexico, Project SEP-CONACyT e CB-2015-01-255588 and CIC 2018-
2019 and the Faculty of Chemical Engineering at the Universidad
Michoacana de San Nicolas de Hidalgo.
References
Araújo, O.Q.F., de Medeiros, J.L., 2017. Carbon capture and storage technologies:
present scenario and drivers of innovation. Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng. 17, 22e34.
Cormos, C.C., 2016. Evaluation of reactive absorption and adsorption systems for
post-combustion CO2 capture applied to iron and steel industry. Appl. Therm.
Eng. 105, 56e64.
Cormos, A.M., Cormos, C.C., 2017. Reducing the carbon footprint of cement industry
by post-combustion CO2 capture: techno-economic and environmental
assessment of a CCS project in Romania. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 123, 230e239.
Ecoinvent, 2017. 3.3 Dataset Documentation. Ethanolamine Production. GLO.
Esquivel-Patin ~ o, G.G., Serna-Gonz poles-Rivera, F., 2017. Thermal inte-
alez, M., Na
gration of natural gas combined cycle power plants with CO2 capture systems
and organic Rankine cycles. Energy Convers. Manag. 151, 334e342.
Harrison, M.R., Shires, T.M., Wessels, J.K., Cowgill, R.M., 1997. Methane Emissions
from the Natural Gas Industry. Project Summary. United States Environmental
Protection Agency. National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Research
Triangle Park, NC. Report #600/SR-96/080.
Hu, Y., Xu, G., Xu, C., Yang, Y., 2017. Thermodynamic analysis and techno-economic
evaluation of an integrated natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) power plant
with post-combustion CO2 capture. Appl. Therm. Eng. 111, 308e316.
IEAGHG, 2012. CO2 Capture at Gas Fired Power Plants. International Energy Agency.
IPCC, 2014. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC's Fifth Assessment
Report. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom.
IPCC, 2017. https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-2.
html. (Accessed 20 August 2017).
Kanniche, M., Gros-Bonnivard, R., Jaud, P., Valle-Marcos, J., Amann, J.M., Bouallou, C.,
2010. Pre-combustion, post-combustion and oxy-combustion in thermal power
plant for CO2 capture. Appl. Therm. Eng. 30, 53e62.
Khalilpour, R., Mumford, K., Zhai, H., Abbas, A., Stevens, G., Rubin, E.S., 2015.
Membrane-based carbon capture from flue gas: a review. J. Clean. Prod. 103,
286e300.
Li, H., Ditaranto, M., Berstad, D., 2011. Technologies for increasing CO2 concentration
in exhaust gas from natural gas-fired power production with post-combustion,
amine-based CO2 capture. Energy 36, 1124e1133.
Luo, X., Wang, M., Chen, J., 2015. Heat integration of natural gas combined cycle
power plant integrated with post-combustion CO2 capture and compression.
Fuel 151, 110e117.
Martín-Gamboa, M., Iribarren, D., Dufour, J., 2018. Environmental impact efficiency
of natural gas combined cycle power plants: a combined life cycle assessment
and dynamic data envelopment analysis approach. Sci. Total Environ. 615,
29e37.
Milani, D., Khalilpour, R., Zahedi, G., Abbas, A., 2015. A model-based analysis of CO2
utilization in methanol synthesis plant. Biochem. Pharmacol. 10, 12e22.
Ozdil, N.F.T., Segmen, M.R., 2016. Investigation of the effect of the water phase in the
evaporator inlet on economic performance for an Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC)
based on industrial data. Appl. Therm. Eng. 100, 1042e1051.
Petrescu, L., Cormos, C.C., 2017. Environmental assessment of IGCC power plants
with pre-combustion CO2 capture by chemical & calcium looping methods.
J. Clean. Prod. 158, 233e244.
Romeo, L.M., Lara, Y., Gonz alez, A., 2011. Reducing energy penalties in carbon
capture with organic Rankine cycles. Appl. Therm. Eng. 31, 2928e2935.
Schuster, Karellas, S., Kakaras, E., Spliethoff, H., 2009. Energetic and economic
investigation of organic Rankine cycle applications. Appl. Therm. Eng. 29,
1809e1817.
Sharma, I., Hoadley, A.F.A., Mahajani, S.M., Ganesh, A., 2016. Multi-objective opti-
mization of a Rectisol™ process for carbon capture. J. Clean. Prod. 119, 196e206.
Sreedhara, I., Nahar, Tanisha, Venugopal, A., Srinivas, B., 2017. Carbon capture by
absorption-Path covered and ahead. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 76, 1080e1107.
Valencia-Marquez, D., Flores-Tlacuahuac, A., Vasquez-Medrano, R., 2017. An opti-
mization approach for CO2 capture using ionic liquids. J. Clean. Prod. 168,
1652e1667.
Yee, T.F., Grossmann, I.E., 1990. Simultaneous optimization models for heat
integration-II. Heat exchanger network synthesis. Comput. Chem. Eng. 14,
1165e1185.
Zhang, Y., Chen, H., Chen, C.C., Plaza, J.M., Dugas, R., Rochelle, G.T., 2009. Rate-based
process modeling study of CO2 capture with aqueous monoethanolamine so-
lution. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 48, 9233e9246.