Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Energy Procedia 4 (2011) 1310–1316 
 
Energy Procedia 00 (2010) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/XXX

GHGT-10

The post-combustion capture pilot plant Niederaussem –

Results of the first half of the testing programme
Peter Mosera*, Sandra Schmidta, Georg Siederb, Hugo Garciab,
Torsten Stoffregenc, Veselin Stamatovc
a
RWE Power AG, New Technologies, Huyssenallee 2, 45128 Essen, Germany
b
BASF SE, E-CZA/ML – G 200, 67056 Ludwigshafen, Germany
c
Linde-KCA Dresden GmbH,Bodenbacher Str. 80, 01277 Dresden, Germany

Elsevier use only: Received date here; revised date here; accepted date here

Abstract

As part of the development cooperation of RWE Power, BASF and Linde - aiming at an advanced optimised CO2-scrubbing technology for
power plant application - the first post-combustion capture pilot plant in Germany was constructed and commissioned at the lignite-fired
1,000 MW Niederaussem power station in 2009. The pre-assembly of the pilot plant started in October 2008 and commissioning took place in
July 2009 as planned. 7.2 t of CO2 per day can be captured from a flue gas slipstream of the power plant downstream of the desulphurisation
plant (FGD). The pilot plant comprises optimised components such as a flue gas pre-scrubbing direct contact cooler unit as well as a lean liquid
cooler and an interstage cooler that both allow returning the solvent at different absorber heights. During a 6-month campaign, all aspects of the
optimised process configuration were tested using 30%-weight MEA as benchmark solvent and the performance of a new advanced amine-
based solvent developed by BASF was trialled. This paper summarises the operational experience gained and compares some of the results
obtained for MEA with those of the new amine-based solvent.

©c 2010
⃝ 2011Elsevier Ltd. by
Published All Elsevier
rights reserved
Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Keywords: Post-combustion capture; amine scrubbing; MEA; advanced solvent

1. Introduction

A prerequisite for commercial full-scale application of a new advanced post-combustion capture technology is the
comprehensive testing and investigation of a wide range of technological, economical and environmental aspects under real
power plant operating conditions. Especially the accuracy of the predictions of the process modelling tools which are used for the
design of a commercial plant can be validated by the results of detailed operating parameter variation tests. Some 250
measurements and online analysis systems that are installed at the Niederaussem pilot plant and an extensive accompanying
sampling and measurement programme allow a precise determination of the operational performance and the energy demand for
the CO2 capture of the process [1, 2]. During each test run first the optimal operating parameters for a selected solvent are
identified and then, in a second step, maintained unchanged over an extended time period. This long term test serves to
investigate the solvent’s long term stability and to measure the emissions of the capture process after a sufficient time has elapsed
for degradation products and trace elements introduced by the flue gas into the solvent to accumulate. This well proven approach
to testing process efficiency and solvent performance was replicated from a monoethanolamine (MEA) phase to the test phase
with the new BASF solvent going by the name of GUSTAV200. The testing programme using MEA started on 28th July 2009.
After some 5,000 hours of plant operation with MEA - including commissioning and start up in June and July 2009 - a

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +49-201-12-28562; fax: +49-201-12-27408.

E-mail address: peter.moser@rwe.com.

doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2011.01.188
 P. Moser et al. / Energy Procedia 4 (2011) 1310–1316 1311
Moser et al./ Energy Procedia 00 (2010) 000–000

comprehensive measurement campaign was carried out with the new optimised BASF solvent GUSTAV200 over a period of
4000 operation hours from January 2010. The Niederaussem power plant is ideally suited as a site for the post-combustion
capture pilot plant because of its operation in the base-load range. Compared with intermediate-load hard coal-fired power plants,
this offers the possibility of continuous testing and yields more conclusive results.

2. Solvent selection

The currently available solvents for the removal of CO2 from flue gases do not fulfil all the demands for a post-combustion
capture (PCC) technology. At present, the state of the art is the use of MEA. The development of better solvents than MEA is
one of the most important steps in making CCS technologies cost-effective.
At BASF’s labs, around 180 different solvents were characterised and evaluated. Details of the lab experiments are outlined
by Moser et al. in [1]. After an in-depth evaluation of the lab screening results (cf. [7]) the most promising solvent candidates
were selected for test runs in BASF’s mini plant. Then a standard experimental programme, which takes around 10 days to
characterise one solvent regarding its performance and optimal operating conditions, was developed. More information about the
mini plant experiments can be found in [2].
Figure 1 summarises the results of the mini plant experiments for one of the most promising novel BASF solvents
GUSTAV200, which was later also tested in the pilot plant in Niederaussem, in comparison to MEA. The results show that
GUSTAV200 - under mini plant conditions - needs 25% less energy for regeneration and has a lower circulation rate than MEA.
Additionally, the stability of the solvent in the presences of oxygen was tested in the mini plant for two weeks. Solvent
concentration was analyzed daily using gas chromatography. No change in the solvent composition and in the performance was
found, which is in agreement with oxygen stability tests executed in the lab.

110

105
Rel. regeneration energy [%]

100

95

90 - 25%

85

80

75
MEA
GUSTAV200
70
Circulation rate

Figure 1: Results of the mini plant experiments for MEA and GUSTAV200.

The results of the lab experiments and mini plant tests showed that GUSTAV200 has the potential to fulfil the demands for
PCC and performs much better than MEA. Nevertheless these results are based on mini plant conditions and have to be validated
in a full scale pilot plant under real gas conditions and over a longer period of time.

3. Niederaussem CO2 post-combustion capture pilot plant

At the Niederaussem pilot plant two options exist for feeding flue gas to the CO2 scrubbing pilot plant: either after the flue gas
desulphurisation plant (FGD) of the 1,000 MW unit called BoA1 or from a high performance FGD pilot plant. In addition the
flue gas properties are influenced by dry lignite co-combustion in the 1,000 MW power plant (up to 30% of the furnace thermal
rating). Dry lignite is supplied by a WTA prototype, a fluidised bed dryer with internal waste heat utilisation. This means that the
flue gas conditions are close to that of future pre-dried lignite-fired power plants.
Figure 2 shows the process diagram of the CO2 capture pilot plant and the most important measured parameters for calculation
and investigation of process performance. The basic absorber / desorber configuration is complemented by some additional
components to increase process performance. The flue gas inlet flow is cooled down by the direct contact cooler to typically
40 °C at the absorber inlet. In operation without the high-performance FGD acidic reacting trace components can be removed
from the flue gas by adding sodium hydroxide to the recirculating water flow of the cooler (pre-scrubber). The absorber is
1312 P. Moser et al. / Energy Procedia 4 (2011) 1310–1316
Moser et al./ Energy Procedia 00 (2010) 000–000

equipped with several beds and offers the option of by-passing beds to investigate the effect of different packing heights.
Additionally there is the option of interstage cooling by using different side draws.

Flue gas cooling, CO2 capture Solvent regeneration

SO2 pre-scrubbing
CO2 lean
flue gas CO /CO CO2
2
O2 O2
F, T, P CxHx F, T, P
CxHx
F

Absorber F, ǻT
F, ǻT
T, P Desorber F, ǻT, P
F
Pre-scrubber T
SO2/NO F
F
F, ǻT CO2/CO F, ǻp´s
T T
O2
H2O T-profile,
T-profile,
F, ǻT ǻp´s
ǻp´s F, ǻT
T-profile, F, ǻT, ǻp ǻp´s F, ǻT F, p
F, T, P
ǻp´s

F, T F, ǻT Index:
SO2/NO Lean solvent F Flow
CO2/CO F F, T, P T Temperature
pH
F P Pressure
Rich solvent F, T
F Online gas
analysis
T T
Sampling point
of daily solvent
samples

Figure 2: Process diagram of the Niederaussem pilot plant and online measurements for the detailed investigation of the process.

A water wash section at the top of the absorber consisting of a packed bed and a cooled water cycle is installed to reduce
possible emissions due to volatile compounds and entrainment. In the pilot plant, the treated flue gas and the captured CO2 are
fed back to the existing flue gas duct of the power plant and vented to atmosphere. Some characteristic design parameters of the
pilot plant and typical operating parameters obtained during the test campaigns with MEA and GUSTAV200 are listed in
Table 1.

Table 1: Design parameters of the Niederaussem pilot plant and typical flue gas parameters obtained in the test phases:

Design and operational parameters

Flue gas flow [mN3/h] 1,550
Flue gas temperature (after FGD) [°C] 65
CO2 content at flue gas absorber inlet [vol.-%, dry] 14.2
NOx content in flue gas (after FGD) [mg/mN3, 6% O2 corr., dry] 190
SO2 content in flue gas (after FGD) [mg/mN3, 6% O2 corr., dry] 93
O2 content in flue gas (after FGD) [vol.-%, dry] 5.0
CO2 captured (maximum) [tCO2/day] 7.2
Pilot plant availability [%] 97

In the pilot plant at Niederaussem, an electric steam generator is used to heat up and evaporate part of the solvent. A slip
stream of the solvent cycle is equipped with a mechanical and an activated carbon filter to remove possible particles (fly ash or
gypsum from the FGD) or degradation products from the solvent flow. No reclaiming unit is installed at the pilot plant because
the characteristics of the degradation products of new solvents accumulated under real power plant conditions are not known yet.
Also, the impact of the contaminants on process performance, corrosiveness and emissions should be observed undisturbed.

4. Testing programme using MEA and GUSTAV200

The primary objective of the MEA test phase was to gain some hands-on experience with the new pilot plant process on the
basis of this benchmark solvent. Comparatively good data recording regarding the physical-chemical properties of MEA allows a
 P. Moser et al. / Energy Procedia 4 (2011) 1310–1316 1313
Moser et al./ Energy Procedia 00 (2010) 000–000

distinction to be made between progress in capture technology through process optimisation and progress through better solvent
performance. Plant operation with MEA (30%-weight, no inhibitors or additives) already started during the commissioning
phase. The extensive operating parameter variation studies were launched at the end of July 2009 to determine the optimal
operating parameters in terms of energy consumption. Subsequently the long-term behaviour of the solvent under the identified
optimised operational settings was tested. In January 2010, the GUSTAV200 test phase started and was completed in July 2010.
In the first half of the GUSTAV200 campaign, the pilot plant was connected to the conventional FGD absorber and, in the
second half of the long-term test, flue gas from the high-performance FGD pilot plant was fed to the plant. This test is of interest
because different pre-treatment steps may result in different concentrations of contaminants in the flue gas. Figure 3 shows
comparatively undisturbed, continuous operation of the pilot plant during the MEA and GUSTAV200 test phases that reached an
outstanding high availability of 97%. The steplike change of the solvent flow rate reflects the systematic parameter studies for
both solvents.

MEA GUSTAV200
2000 10000

1800
Solvent flow
1600

Solvent flow [arbitrary units]

1400
Power plant output [MW]

1200
Captured CO2 [t]

1000
Pel
800

600

400
Captured CO2
200

0 -15000
09

09

09

09

09

09

10

10

10

10

10

10

10
7.

8.

9.

0.

1.

2.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.
.0

.0

.0

.1

.1

.1

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0
28

26

24

24

22

21

27

25

26

24

23

22

21

Figure 3: Pilot plant operation during the test phase with MEA and GUSTAV200 (black: captured CO2, blue: solvent flow, orange: electric output)

During the test campaigns, the standard analyses of the solvent as amine and water concentration, CO2 load, foaming
behaviour and organic acid concentration have been performed at the laboratory on site. Detailed analyses regarding organic and
inorganic trace elements have been conducted by specialised laboratories at BASF Ludwigshafen. The test programme was
accompanied by a comprehensive material testing programme and trace element measuring campaigns regarding the gaseous and
liquid inlet and outlet streams of the capture plant. Results of this part of the testing programme are described in [3].

5. Results of the pilot plant tests using MEA and GUSTAV200

The pilot plant in Niederaussem is equipped with around 250 measuring points which provide the information needed for the
evaluation of the experiments. For each set of conditions, a time frame of at least 1 hour (normally 2 hours) of steady-state
operation was selected and the relevant data uploaded into an Excel sheet, where the analysis of the experimental values was
carried out. To guarantee the quality of the results, a maximum deviation of 5% was selected for the global mass- and energy
balances. In addition, the margin for deviation between the amount of captured CO2 calculated on the basis of online gas analysis
and solvent analysis was set to 5%. The average values of these deviations are shown in Table 2 for about 40 experiments with
MEA and 40 runs with GUSTAV200.

Besides the verification of the balances, some tests were carried out at the beginning of each solvent test phase to confirm the
reproducibility and plausibility of the experimental values. For constant flue gas conditions, CO2 content, flow rate and also for a
given pressure at the desorber, the circulation rate was varied until the optimal operating point was found in terms of energy
demand for regeneration.
The results of these hysteresis tests show that, at less than 2% deviation, the reproducibility of the energy values is better than
the average deviation in the plant’s energy balance (Figure 4). Additionally, the typical shape for the energy vs. circulation rate
curve can be clearly recognised and the effect of the pressure on the energy demand is as expected for MEA.
1314 P. Moser et al. / Energy Procedia 4 (2011) 1310–1316
Moser et al./ Energy Procedia 00 (2010) 000–000

Table 2: Average errors for the heat and mass balance of the pilot plant test runs with MEA and GUSTAV200

Control parameters MEA GUSTAV200

Global mass balance [%] 0.7 1.5
CO2 balance [%] 4.0 1.9
Energy balance [%] 1.9 2.7

3900 100

3850 90

80
3800
Regeneration energy [MJ/tCO 2]

70

CO2 removal rate [%]

3750
pDesorber = 1.5 bara 60
3700
50
3650
40
3600
30
pDesorber = 1.75bara
3550
20

3500 10

3450 0
Circulation rate [kg/h]
, Regeneration energy , Removal rate

Figure 4: Pilot plant results regarding energy demand for regeneration (for MEA and 90% CO2 removal rate) and different circulation rates

Based on the information presented here, it can be concluded that the experimental results of the pilot plant in Niederaussem
are highly reliable and that the pilot plant offers excellent options for studying the CO2 removal from flue gases using amine-
based solvents.

5.1. Comparison between MEA and GUSTAV200

For the comparison of two different solvents, many experiments have to be performed in order to find the optimal operating
conditions in terms of energy demand for each of them. Only upon completion of these experiments may the results of two
different solvents be compared. Variations in desorber pressure, lean solvent temperature and feed position, interstage cooler
position and temperature, flue gas temperature, removal rate etc. were systematically tested under real flue gas conditions. At the
same time, the solvent circulation rate was varied until the minimum energy requirement for a set of given conditions was found.
Some results of these variations for MEA and GUSTAV200 are being presented in this paper.

5.2. Variation of the desorber pressure

In these experiments, the pressure at the desorber top was varied from 1.5 bara to 2.0 bara. For each pressure the solvent
circulation rate was varied until the minimum energy requirement was identified at a removal rate of 90%. The results for a
pressure of 1.75 bara are presented in Figure 5. Under these conditions, GUSTAV200 had an energy demand of about
2,800 MJ/tCO2, which is 20% below that of MEA. Moreover, the circulation rate of GUSTAV200 is lower than that of
monoethanolamine.
The results of the energy demand for the optimal circulation rate at a given pressure are summarised in Table 3. The results
show no dependence of the energy demand for GUSTAV200 on regeneration pressure (differences are within the measurement
uncertainty). For MEA a difference of about 4% was measured between 1.50 bara and 1.75 bara but no significant difference was
found between 1.75 bara and 1.90 bara.
 P. Moser et al. / Energy Procedia 4 (2011) 1310–1316 1315
Moser et al./ Energy Procedia 00 (2010) 000–000

4000

3800
Regeneration energy [MJ/tCO 2]

3600

3400 Optimum MEA

3200

3000

2800

Optimum GUSTAV200
2600
MEA
GUSTAV200
2400
Circulation rate
Figure 5: Pilot plant results regarding the energy demand for regeneration of MEA (blue) and GUSTAV200 (orange) at 90 % CO2 removal rate and different
solvent circulation rates

Table 3: Energy demand for regeneration of MEA and GUSTAV200 for different desorber pressures

Desorber pressure [bara] Regeneration demand [MJ/tCO2]

MEA GUSTAV200
1.5 3,640 2,760
1.75 3,480 2,770
1.90 / 2.00 3,520 2,790

It is well known that the energy demand for regeneration can be divided into four main contributions [4]. The steam ratio and
the energy required for heating the condensate reflux and the solvent normally decrease when the pressure goes up while the CO2
heat of absorption/desorption increases with growing pressure due to the rising regeneration temperature. These two opposite
effects could be the reason for the fact that the dependence of GUSTAV200’s energy demand on the regeneration pressure was
not measurable. To confirm this thesis the absorption enthalpy for GUSTAV200 was estimated based on an energy balance
around the desorber and compared with the MEA values, which were calculated using BASF’s equilibrium model for MEA. This
comparison shows a higher dependence of the heat of absorption/desorption for GUSTAV200 than MEA, which corroborates the
postulated thesis (Table 4).

Table 4: Relative comparison of the heat of desorption for MEA and GUSTAV200 at different temperatures

Heat of desorption related to 115 °C [%]

Temperature [°C] MEA GUSTAV200
115 100 100
120 101 103
125 102 106

Based on these results the regeneration of GUSTAV200 seems to be possible at a lower temperature than MEA without
raising reboiler duty. The evaluation of these results has to take account of the integration of the CO2 capture process into the
power plant. On the one hand a lower regeneration temperature is an advantage since lower-quality steam can be used to run the
process, on the other, power consumption for CO2 compression will increase.
1316 P. Moser et al. / Energy Procedia 4 (2011) 1310–1316
Moser et al./ Energy Procedia 00 (2010) 000–000

5.3. Effect of interstage cooling

Interstage cooling is a well-known technique used in acid gas removal [5, 6]. In the pilot plant at Niederaussem, it is possible
to test the benefits offered by interstage cooling for process performance and the optimisation of the cooling temperature and
cooling position in the column.
The experiments were carried out at a constant flue gas temperature and flow, and a removal rate of 90 %. The circulation rate
was varied until the optimal operating point in terms of the regeneration energy was found. The effects of interstage cooling at a
desorber pressure of 1.75 bara and two different interstage cooling temperatures are shown in Table 5.

Table 5: Effect of interstage cooling (ISC) on the energy demand for a temperature of T1 and T1 – 10 K in the interstage cooler

Regeneration demand [MJ/tCO2]

MEA GUSTAV200
Without ISC, flue gas (T1) 3,590 2,890
With ISC (T1), flue gas (T1) 3,480 2,770
With ISC (T1-10 K), flue gas (T1) 3,500 2,760

The difference in energy demand between the process configurations with and without interstage cooling for a given flue gas
temperature and interstage cooling of T1 is about 4% for GUSTAV200 and about 3% for MEA. An additional temperature
reduction in the interstage cooler of about 10 K did not show any significant effect for MEA and GUSTAV200. Based on these
results it can be said that the interstage cooler is a cost-effective way to reduce the energy demand of the process.

6. Conclusion

After the successful accomplishment of the first half of the testing programme it can be concluded that the solvent and process
performance can be precisely evaluated at the Niederaussem pilot plant. Due to the design of the pilot plant that allows highly
flexible and extensive process parameter variation studies, the comprehensive measurement equipment and the extremely high
operational availability a consistent and profound understanding of capture process configurations and solvent behaviour can be
achieved. The outstanding agreement of the test data with the simulation results for the MEA benchmark solvent and the new
optimised GUSTAV200 solvent and a high reproducibility under real power plant operating conditions provide a reliable basis
for sound process optimisation and the design of large-scale capture plants. The much lower energy demand for the regeneration
of GUSTAV200 means a huge step forward in post-combustion capture technology.

7. Acknowledgements

The project mentioned in this report is supported by funding from the German Ministry of Economics and Technology
(BMWi), whom we would like to thank for their commitment, under sponsorship codes 0327793A to C for RWE Power, BASF
and Linde. The responsibility for the contents of this publication rests with the authors. With its crucial financial contribution
within the scope of its COORETEC initiative, the BMWi is pursuing the principles of safeguarding resources, assuring security
of supply and supporting the competitiveness of German industry.

References

[1] Moser P, Schmidt S, Sieder S, Garcia H, Ciattaglia I, Klein H. Enabling Post Combustion Capture Optimization – The Pilot Plant Project at Niederaussem.
Energy Procedia 2009; 1: 807-814.
[2] Sieder G, Northemann A, Stoffregen T, Holling B, Moser P, Schmidt S. Post Combustion Capture Technology: Lab scale, Pilot scale, Full-scale Plant. 4th
International CO2 Forum Proceedings, Sogat, Abdu Dhabi (UAE) (2010).
[3] GHGT10, to be published at Energy Procedia 2 (2010).
[4] Notz R, Tönnies I, Mangalapally,HP, Hoch S, Hasse, HA. Short-cut method for assessing absorbents for post-cumbustion carbon dioxide capture. Int. J.
Greenhouse Gas Control 2010. doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2010.03.008.
[5] Chang H., Shih CM. Simulation and Optimozation for Power Plant Flue Gas Absorption-Stripping Systems. Sep. Sci. and Technol.2005; 40: 877-909.
[6] Thompson RE, King CJ. Energy conservation in regenerated chemical absorption processes. Chemical Engineering and Processing 1987; 21: 115-129.
[7] Spuhl O, Garcia H, Sieder G, Notz R. Comparison and limitation of different evaluation methods for novel PCC solvent, GHGT-10, Energy Procedia 2010)