Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical

Engineers, Part E: Journal of Process

Mechanical Engineering
http://pie.sagepub.com/

Thermodynamic analysis of combined cycle gas turbine power plant with post-combustion CO2 capture
and exhaust gas recirculation
Roberto Canepa, Meihong Wang, Chechet Biliyok and Antonio Satta
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part E: Journal of Process Mechanical Engineering 2013 227: 89
DOI: 10.1177/0954408912469165

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://pie.sagepub.com/content/227/2/89

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Institution of Mechanical Engineers

Additional services and information for Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part E: Journal of Process Mechanical
Engineering can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://pie.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://pie.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://pie.sagepub.com/content/227/2/89.refs.html

>> Version of Record - May 9, 2013

What is This?

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com at TOBB Ekonomi ve Teknoloji Üniversitesi on April 29, 2014
Special Issue Article

Proc IMechE Part E:

J Process Mechanical Engineering
Thermodynamic analysis of combined 227(2) 89–105
! IMechE 2012

cycle gas turbine power plant with post- Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

combustion CO2 capture and exhaust gas DOI: 10.1177/0954408912469165

uk.sagepub.com/jpme

recirculation

Roberto Canepa1, Meihong Wang2,3, Chechet Biliyok2 and

Antonio Satta1

Abstract
Natural gas is expected to make up a significant proportion of the future global energy mix. Therefore, reducing
greenhouse gas emissions from gas-fired processes is very essential for most countries, before emission reduction
targets can be met. This article aims to carry out thermodynamic analysis of combined cycle gas turbine power plant
with post-combustion CO2 capture through modelling and simulation. The combined cycle gas turbine power plant and
the CO2 capture plant were simulated in Aspen PlusÕ . The combined cycle gas turbine power plant model was validated
with simulation data from GateCycleÕ and the CO2 capture plant model was validated with experimental data from the
pilot plant at the University of Texas at Austin. The CO2 capture plant was scaled up from pilot plant to commercial scale
to process flue gas from a 250 MWe combined cycle gas turbine power plant. The integrated model for combined cycle
gas turbine and CO2 capture plant was further used for performance study. Exhaust gas recirculation has been proposed
to increase CO2 concentration in flue gas and reduce the flue gas flow rate. Its effect on combined cycle gas turbine
power plant performance and capture plant sizing has been investigated. The analysis indicated that exhaust gas recir-
culation can reduce penalty on thermal efficiency without any major modification to the original power plant.

Keywords
Combined cycle, gas turbine, combined cycle gas turbine, CO2 capture, post-combustion, exhaust gas recirculation,
power plant, process modelling

Date received: 25 August 2012; accepted: 22 October 2012

Introduction power plant is one important step forward. For

Background
Post-combustion CO2 capture using monoethanola-
mine (MEA) solvent is the most promising and
mature technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
from power plants.1 Compared to other available
approaches, its implementation requires minimal
modifications to the power plant and is therefore seen
as the best option for retrofit purpose. When retrofitted
to capture, the power plant electric power output will be
significantly reduced because of steam extraction
required for solvent regeneration and because of auxil-
iary power required by the capture plant.
Although amine technology for carbon capture is a
proven technology in oil, gas and chemical industries
with many decades of successful operations, the
design of a capture plant of the scale required to
achieve up to 90% capture in a fossil fuel fired
instance, one of the largest capture plants available
today, built by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, is able
to process up to 450 t of CO2 per day.2
From CO2 capture perspective, combined cycle gas
turbine (CCGT) power plants present the advantage
of higher thermodynamic efficiency, but with the dis-
advantage of a lower CO2 content in exhaust gas
when compared with coal fired power plants. This,
in combination with higher specific flue gas flow
1
DIME-MASET, University of Genova, Genova, Italy
2
Process Systems Engineering Group, School of Engineering, CranEeld
University, Bedfordshire, UK
3
School of Engineering, University of Hull, Hull, UK
Corresponding author:
Roberto Canepa, DIME-MASET, University of Genova, Via Montallegro
1, 16145 Genova, Italy.
Email: roberto.canepa@unige.it

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com at TOBB Ekonomi ve Teknoloji Üniversitesi on April 29, 2014
90
rate, results in a higher capacity requirement for the
CO2 capture plant and a more expensive process in
terms of higher reboiler and pump duties. The disad-
vantage of lower CO2 concentration in flue gas can be
overcome through exhaust gas recirculation (EGR):
exhaust gases, after transferring heat to the steam
cycle through the heat recovery steam generator
(HRSG), are partially cooled down and recirculated
back to gas turbine (GT) intake. In this study, the
impact of EGR on both the CCGT power plant and
the CO2 capture plant will be investigated.
Previous research
The performance of power plants with post-combus-
tion CO2 capture has been studied by a number of
researchers through modelling and simulation.
Hetland et al.3 and Kvamsdal et al.4 designed and
optimised a post-combustion CO2 capture plant for
integration with a 450 MWe offshore CCGT power
plant, and considered the pre-conditioning of the
exhaust gas. Particular attention was given on off-
shore operation-related problems, such as sea forces
and the need to maintain a neutral water balance.
Karimi et al.5 analyzed a 430 MWe CCGT power
plant integrated with post-combustion CO2 capture
on both full and partial load conditions. Partial load
investigations comprise the effect of inlet guide vanes
and the use of throttle valve at the steam extraction
point. Lawal et al.6 described the development and
validation of a dynamic model for coal-fired power
plant integrated with CO2 capture plant. The scale-
up of the capture plant from pilot scale to full scale
was also discussed.
A number of studies explored CO2 capture by
means of amine solvent. Kvamsdal et al.7 and Lawal
et al.8 presented the dynamic modelling and simula-
tion of the absorber. Lawal et al.8 also showed that
rate-based modelling of the absorber is more accurate
than equilibrium-based ones. Lawal et al.9 extended
the analysis to the stand-alone regenerator column.
Stand-alone modelling brings inaccuracy due to the
closed loop with solvent recycle of the real process.
Lawal et al.10 and Biliyok et al.11 described the closed
loop modelling of the whole capture plant and showed
how it allows a better performance estimation over
the stand-alone modelling. A detailed rate-based
modelling and validation of the absorber column
was made by Kvamsdal et al.12 and Zhang et al.13
Notably Zhang et al.13 examined the impacts of key
rate-based modelling options like Elm discretisation,
Fow model options and showed the superiority of the
rate-based models over the traditional equilibrium-
stage models.
EGR has been investigated by many authors. Li
et al.14 showed that CO2 content in the flue gas can
be increased by EGR from 3.8 to 8.7 mol%, reducing
the total thermal energy consumption of the reboiler
by 60%. Bolland and Mathieu15 compared two
Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com at TOBB Ekonomi ve Teknoloji Üniversitesi on April 29, 2014
Proc IMechE Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering 227(2)
concepts for increasing CO2 capture efficiency in
CCGT power plant. The first involves EGR while
the second is based on a semi-closed GT cycle using
CO2 as the working Fuid and combustion with
pure oxygen. It is shown that the system efficiency
with EGR is always higher by 2–3% points than
the CO2-based combined cycle in comparable
conditions.
Motivation and novelty
The design of a capture facility for CCGT power
plant on a commercial scale is a necessary step for-
ward to prove the viability of carbon capture technol-
ogy. Current CO2 capture projects involve pilot plants
on a much smaller scale than would be required com-
mercially. The pilot plant built by Doosan Power
Systems at SSE’s Ferrybridge power station in West
Yorkshire,16 the first of its size to be integrated into a
live power plant in the UK, is able to capture 100 t of
CO2 per day, equivalent to 5 MWe of power gener-
ation, which is only a small fraction of the total
exhaust gas from the 2000 MWe plant. Despite this,
the project has required more than 20 million invest-
ment. Full scale demonstration projects are expected
to cost over a billion dollars17 and moreover these
facilities are limited in the range of studies that can
be carried out. By accurately modelling the power and
the capture plants, and by integration of the models,
useful insights on design and operation can be
derived.
EGR is viewed as a potential effective way to
decrease the high thermal efficiency penalty caused
by chemical absorption. From this perspective, a
detailed analysis of EGR effect on CCGT power
plant and CO2 capture plant is required to assess its
impact on power plant performance and sizing. Based
on the oxygen chamber combustion stability and com-
pleteness, a reasonable EGR ratio is identified and
applied to the power plant. Therefore, the absorber
and regenerator columns were sized to account for the
new CO2 concentration and flue gas flow rate.
The novelty of this article can be summarised as:
(a) scale-up of CO2 capture plant for a specific CCGT
power plant and (b) study of the impact of EGR on
performance of CCGT power plant with CO2 capture.
Outline
Model development and validation of the CCGT
power plant is presented in ‘Simulation and model val-
idation of CCGT power plant’. This is followed by
model development and validation of the CO2 capture
plant in ‘Simulation and validation of CO2 capture
plant’ and also includes the capture plant scale-up
from pilot plant scale (where it was validated) to full
scale. The next section describes the integration
between the CCGT power plant and the capture
plant. EGR impact on CCGT power plant and capture
Canepa et al.
plant performance is studied in ‘Impact of EGR’.
Finally, conclusions are drawn in the last section.
Simulation and model validation of
CCGT power plant
CCGT power plant description
A CCGT plant comprising of one Westinghouse 501F
GT, one single pressure HRSG and one condensing
steam turbine, is selected. The required data for the
Westinghouse 501F GT were obtained from the
GateCycle (General Electric Company) software
library. GT exhaust gases, through the HRSG, pro-
vide heating to the steam turbine cycle without any
supplementary boiler firing. The steam, at 52 bar,
leaves the third section of the HRSG superheated to
810 K and then expands through the high pressure
steam turbine (HP-ST). To allow the bleeding of
steam at 3 bar to feed the deaerator, the condensing
turbine has been split in two other section: intermedi-
ate pressure steam turbine (IP-ST) and low pressure
steam turbine (LP-ST) in which the steam enter at 5
and 3 bar, respectively. Thermodynamic simulations
of the CCGT power plant have been performed
using the commercial software Aspen PlusÕ (Aspen
Technology Inc.)
Model development for GT
The PR–BM property method (Peng–Robinson equa-
tion of state with Boston–Mathias modifications) is
used for the gas cycle and the STEAMNBS property
method is used for steam cycle, for accurate evalu-
ation of the steams properties.
Fuel
Compressor
Cooling
to CO2
removal plant
Ambient air
Figure 1. GT in CCGT configuration schematic figure.
CCGT: combined cycle gas turbine.
Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com at TOBB Ekonomi ve Teknoloji Üniversitesi on April 29, 2014
91
The combustor in GT has been modelled with an
RGibbs reactor block. It determines the equilibrium
composition using the Gibbs free energy minimisation
system. As an alternative, it is also possible to define
the extent of equilibrium to be reached. Reactor tem-
perature and pressure have to be specified but the
reaction stoichiometry is not required.
The compressor and turbine in GT were simulated
as Compr blocks. The Aspen PlusÕ block Compr can
be used to model polytropic centrifugal or positive
displacement compressors and isentropic compressors
or turbines. The accuracy of the results depends on
the efficiencies specified. However, to properly analyse
GT cycles, some modifications of this block are
required.18 In particular, flue gas temperature at GT
outlet and power output are highly connected to tur-
bine blade cooling. Turbine blade cooling, usually
achieved by air bled from the compressor, is required
to permit high turbine inlet temperature and therefore
high efficiency engine operation. This relatively large
cooling flow (approximately 20% of the inlet air flow)
has two negative effects: first it reduces the tempera-
ture of the gas expanding through the turbine, and
therefore its power output, second it adds losses con-
nected with the mixing of the cooling air with the
turbine working fluid. Both of these effects are taken
into account as suggested in Jonsson et al.19 The cool-
ing air is taken from compressor outlet and mixed
with the combustion products before entering the tur-
bine (Figure 1). The cooling fluid mass flow rate m_ c is
calculated with the following equation
 
m_ c cp,c Tcmb exit  Tb s
¼b ð1Þ
m_ g cp,g Tb  Tcmpr exit
Combustor
Turbine
HRSG
92 Proc IMechE Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering 227(2)

where Tb represents a generic blade surface tempera- Table 1. GT modelling assumptions and tuning parameters.
ture, cp,c the average specific heat capacity of gases
Assumptions
between the blade temperature and the compressor
exit temperature and cp,g the average specific heat cap- Tb ( C) 860
acity of gases between the blade temperature and Ambient temperature ( C) 15
combustor exit temperature. The pressure losses Atmospheric pressure (bar) 1.01
linked with the cooling ðpc Þ are evaluated using the Combustor exit temperature ( C) 1425
following momentum balance equation for the mixing Inlet air mass flow rate (kg/s) 409
Pressure ratio 15
pc m_ c
¼ K ð2Þ Compressor isentropic efficiency 0.895
ptbn inlet m_ g
Turbine isentropic efficiency 0.950
Tuned parameters
The three model parameters (b, K and s) have been Cooling model parameter, s 1
adjusted to properly represent the analyzed GT. The Cooling model parameter, b 0.1682
main assumptions and the results of the model tuning Cooling model parameter, K 0.6635
are reported in Table 1, while model performance is
shown in Table 2. GT: gas turbine.

Model development for CCGT power plant and

validation
Aspen Plus model of the whole CCGT power plant is Table 2. GT modelling assumptions and simulation results.
presented in Figure 2. The three sections of the HRSG
(economiser, evaporator and superheater) have been Aspen
modelled as HeatX blocks. The HeatX model deter- Plus model GateCycle
mines the outlet stream conditions based on heat and Cooling mass flow rate (kg/s) 76.46 N/A
material balances and estimates the surface area Cooling loss (kPa) 220.50 N/A
requirement using a constant value as the heat trans-
Compressor discharge 1520.30 1520.30
fer coefficient, eventually provided by the user. The pressure (kPa)
three steam turbine sections are simulated by the
Compressor discharge 655.06 656.43
Aspen Plus Compr block. A splitter allows the bleed- temperature (K)
ing of steam downstream the IP-SP to feed the deara-
Exhaust temperature (K) 877.0 877.13
tor, modelled as a Separator block. Table 3 provides
Net power output (MWe) 169.3 169.3
the assumptions of the steam cycle, while Table 4
gives the model validation results by comparing the GT: gas turbine.

Figure 2. Flowsheet in Aspen PlusÕ for CCGT power plant.

CCGT: combined cycle gas turbine.

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com at TOBB Ekonomi ve Teknoloji Üniversitesi on April 29, 2014
Canepa et al.
Table 3. Steam cycle assumptions.
Assumptions
HP steam pressure (bar)
IP steam pressure (bar)
LP steama pressure (bar)
Condenser inlet pressure (bar)
Superheater approach temperature ( C)
Evaporator pinch T ( C)
Economiser approach temperature ( C)
a
Defined in order to allow the bleeding to feed the deaerator.
Table 4. Steam cycle validation results.
Steam mass flow rate (kg/s)
HP steam temperature ( C)
Flue gas mass flow rate (kg/s)
Flue gas temperature ( C)
Steam plant net power output (MWe)
Power plant net power output (MWe)
Figure 3. Flowsheet in Aspen PlusÕ for flue gas pre-treatment section.
Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com at TOBB Ekonomi ve Teknoloji Üniversitesi on April 29, 2014
93
simulation results with those obtained from
GateCycle software with the same inputs.
Flue gas pre-processing
52
5 Flue gases leaving the HRSG, before entering the
3 absorber, have to be cooled down to between 40–
0.05 50  C in order to improve the absorption process
55
and reduce solvent losses due to evaporation.1 The
cooling system consists of direct contact cooler
14
which is modelled as a two theoretical stages tower
25
with Rushig rings packing. A spray of water at 25  C
has been used to cool down the flue gases to 40  C.
The Aspen Plus block RadFrac was used for this pur-
pose (Figure 3). Water condenses from the flue gas
during cooling, reducing its water content. This
amount of water, about 7 kg/s, has to be carefully
taken into account since it will play an important
role to reach a water balance for the whole plant. A
blower then increases to pressure of the cooled flue
Aspen gases to above atmospheric pressure, to balance the
Plus
pressure losses in the process.
model GateCycle
Acid gases such as NOx or SOx, along with particu-
63.80 62.21 late matter and oxygen have to be taken out of the flue
538.0 537.8 gas.1 Acid gases tend to form heat stable salts that
418.9 418.9 cannot be regenerated with the solvent, compromising
196.8 197.0 its absorption capacity. Traditional flue gas scrubbing
70.8 71.1 should be used to reduce their content to an acceptable
level. Particulates cause foaming in the absorber and
240.1 240.4
regenerator. This can be removed by either electrostatic
94 Proc IMechE Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering 227(2)

precipitators or bag house filters. Oxygen content also Programme (SRP) at the University of Texas at
has to be controlled to avoid corrosion of the equip- Austin pilot plant has been used to validate the cap-
ment and solvent degradation. For simplicity, an ideal ture plant model in Aspen PlusÕ .20 The pilot plant is a
cleaning process has been considered and therefore all closed loop absorption and stripping facility for CO2
the unwanted species have been taken out, leaving a flue removal from flue gas with 32.5 wt% aqueous MEA
gas with only four species (Table 5). solution. The absorber and the regenerator are carbon
steel columns, each with an internal diameter of
0.427 m and a total column height of 11 m. The pack-
Simulation and validation of CO2 capture ing consists of two 3.05 m packed bed sections with a
plant collector plate and redistributor between the beds.
The absorber was kept at atmospheric pressure
CO2 capture pilot plant while the stripper operated at a pressure slightly
A test campaign consisting of 48 runs at 24 operating higher than the atmospheric and for the last four
conditions, conducted by the Separation Research runs was operated in vacuum. Two different kinds
of packing have been adopted: Flexipac 1Y, a struc-
Table 5. Exhaust gas composition and mass flow rate. tured packing with a specific area of 420 m2/m3 and
IMTP no. 40, a random metal packing with a specific
Exhaust gas area of 145 m2/m3.
leaving the Exhaust gas Exhaust gas
Mass fraction HRSG after cooling after cleaning
Simulation of CO2 capture pilot plant and validation
O2 0.133 0.135 0.000
N2 0.733 0.745 0.862 A closed-loop rate based capture model for the CO2
H2O 0.056 0.040 0.046 removal from flue gases has been developed with
Aspen PlusÕ (Figure 4).
CO2 0.065 0.066 0.076
The absorber and regenerator columns were mod-
ARGON 0.013 0.013 0.015
elled using a the rate-based model. Rate-based calcula-
Mass flow 418.9 411.8 356.0 tions offer a more reliable solution over the equilibrium
rate (kg/s)
stages approach.13 Packed sections are specified within
HRSG: heat recovery steam generator. the columns, with dimensions of the pilot plant.

Figure 4. Flowsheet in Aspen PlusÕ for CO2 capture plant.

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com at TOBB Ekonomi ve Teknoloji Üniversitesi on April 29, 2014
Canepa et al. 95

The absorber column uses IMTP no. 40 packing,
with the mass transfer coefficients and the interfacial
area predicted by Onda correlation,21 while the
holdup was calculated with the Stichlmair correl-
ation.22 The regenerator column uses Flexipack 1Y
packing, where Bravo correlation (1985) is used for
mass transfer coefficient and interfacial area evalu-
ation.23 The Bravo correlation (1992) is used for
holdup calculation.24 For both packings, the Chilton
and Colburn correlation was used for the evaluation
of the heat transfer coefficients.25 In each phase, the
thickness of the film is determined as the ratio of the
average diffusivity and average mass transfer coeffi-
cient, the film resistance is calculated by discretising
the films, and reactions are considered in the liquid
film. Out of the four different flow models available,
the ‘mixed’ Fow model was chosen.
The cross-heat exchanger was modelled with two
different Heater blocks, one for the hot and another
for the cold side, connected by an heat stream in order
to match their heat duties.
The closed-loop configuration adopted for the cap-
ture plant has a better columns performance predic-
tion11 over the standalone configuration, thanks to
the fact that this representation is closer to the real
process with a recycle. In the simulation, the lean solv-
ent is treated as a tear stream and its flow rate is
therefore not an input to the calculation. Solvent
makeup is required to close the loop due to losses in
vapour streams leaving both the absorber and regen-
erator columns. A water section at the top of the
absorber can reduce solvent loss. However, water
wash was not included in this study.
The physical property method used is the
Electrolyte Non-Random-Two-Liquid model for
liquid and RK equation of state for vapour. The kin-
etic model proposed by Aboudehir et al.26 and
Aspentech27 is adapted for this study. The model is
comprised of both equilibrium and rate-controlled
reactions.
The equilibrium reactions are defined as
MEACOO þ H3 Oþ ! MEA þ CO2 þ H2 O
ð9Þ
The equilibrium constants Keq for the reactions (3)
to (5), on a molar concentration basis, can be deter-
mined as
  B
ln Keq ¼ A þ þ C  lnðTÞ þ D  T ð10Þ
T
And the kinetic expressions (6) to (9) are governed by
the power law expression
  N
E Y
r ¼ kT exp  n
Cai ð11Þ
RT i¼1 i
The values of the parameter A, B, C and D for the
equilibrium reactions as well as the kinetic param-
eters, are given in Table 6.
Out of the 48 experimental cases carried out in the
test campaign, three cases (cases 28, 32 and 47) were
chosen for validation to account for different liquid to
gas (L/G) ratios. Table 7 shows the process conditions
for these cases.
Figures 5 to 7 show the comparison of absorber
and regenerator temperature profiles between the
model and the pilot plant measurements for the
cases 28, 32 and 47, respectively. It can be observed
that the predictions of the model generally agree with
the available experimental data.
In Table 8, the overall performance of the CO2
capture plant model was reported. The simulation
results were compared with the experimental results
and with those obtained by Zhang et al.13 from their
Aspen Plus simulation results. The lean loading of the
absorber solvent feed stream is, in our closed-loop
model, controlled by a design specification set in the
regenerator column. The rich loading of the stream
coming from the bottom of the absorber is estimated

2H2 O $ H3 Oþ þ OH ð3Þ

HCO þ 2 Table 6. Coefficient of equilibrium constants and kinetic

3 þ H2 O $ H3 O þ CO3 ð4Þ
parameters.

MEAHþ þ H2 O $ MEA þ H3 Oþ ð5Þ Equation

no. A B C D
The following set of rate-controlled reactions has
3 132.889 13,455.9 22.4773 0
been defined
4 216.049 12,431.7 35.4819 0
CO2 þ OH ! HCO ð6Þ 5 3.03832 7008.357 0 0.0031348
3
k E (cal/mol)

HCO
3 ! CO2 þ OH

ð7Þ 6 4.32 e þ 13 13,249
7 2.38 e þ 17 29,451
MEA þ CO2 þ H2 O ! MEACOO þ H3 Oþ 8 9.77 e þ 10 9855.8
ð8Þ 9 2.18 e þ 18 14,138.4

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com at TOBB Ekonomi ve Teknoloji Üniversitesi on April 29, 2014
96 Proc IMechE Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering 227(2)

with an empirical equation resulting in a 10% uncer- with an underestimation of the rich loading compared
tainty level,20 and as a result, all the rich loading pre- with the experimental results. However, this result is
dictions of the model can be considered satisfactory. found to be in agreement with the one obtained by
Case 47 has the largest deviation among the three, Zhang et al. for the same case. Overall, the CO2 cap-
ture level is always lower than the experimental
results, which is similarly observed in the model by
Table 7. Process conditions for cases 28, 32 and 47. Zhang et al.
Case 28 Case 32 Case 47

Lean solvent flow rate (L/min) 81.916 40.731 30.132 Scale-up of CO2 capture plant
Lean solvent temperature (K) 313.14 313.71 313.32 Assumptions. As the capture plant model was validated
Flue gas flow rate (m3/min) 11.000 5.480 8.222 at pilot plant scale, it needs to be scaled up to fit the
Flue gas temperature (K) 321.08 319.71 332.38 requirements of the 250 MWe CCGT power plant.
Flue gas pressure (kPa) 105.19 104.63 103.32 The following assumptions were made for scale-up:
Flue gas CO2 content (mol%) 16.54 17.66 18.41
Regenerator pressure (kPa) 162.09 162.03 68.95 (a) solvent is 30 wt% MEA;
Regenerator feed temperature (K) 345.21 358.67 354.33 (b) 90% capture level;
(c) the same operating pressures for absorber and
Condenser temperature (K) 287.79 286.17 297.14
regenerator in the pilot plant will be used at full
Reboiler temperature (K) 388.05 386.68 366.30
scale (i.e. 1 and 1.6 bar, respectively);20

Case 28 Absorber Temperature Case 28 Regenerator Temperature

Profile Profile
(a) 340 (b) 400
335 390
330
Temperature [K]

Temperature [K]

380
325
370
320
360
315
Pilot plant 350 Pilot plant
310 Measurements Measurements
305 Rate based model 340 Rate Based Model

300 330
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Height from boom [m] Height from boom [m]

Figure 5. Temperature profile for case 28: (a) absorber and (b) regenerator.

Case 32 Absorber Temperature Case 32 Regenerator Temperature

Profile Profile
(a) 350 (b) 400

390
340
Temperature [K]
Temperature [K]

380
330
370
320
360
Pilot plant Pilot plant
310 Measurements Measurements
350 Rate Based Model
Rate Based Model

300 340
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10

Height from boom [m] Height from boom [m]

Figure 6. Temperature profile for case 32: (a) absorber and (b) regenerator.

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com at TOBB Ekonomi ve Teknoloji Üniversitesi on April 29, 2014
Canepa et al. 97

(d) adiabatic absorption process; parameter, Figure 8 presents the given relationship
(e) no water wash section in the absorber; and between the flow parameter FLV and the modified
(f) no oxygen and acid gases in the flue gases. gas load k4 , defined, respectively, as follows

To scale up the capture plant, the following is rffiffiffiffiffiffi

Lw V
required: the number and size of the absorber and FLV ¼ ð12Þ
Vw L
regenerator columns, as well as the solvent flow
rate. Starting from a first guess solution given in the
following section, these parameters will be improved
13:1ðVw Þ  Fp  ðL =L Þ0:1
with the developed Aspen PlusÕ capture plant model k4 ¼ ð13Þ
to provide a reliable solution. V ðL  VÞ

Absorber and regenerator scale-up. Given the flue gas

mass flow rate and mass composition in Table 5 and The term FLV can be evaluated once the liquid to gas
the assumed capture level of 90%, the required solv- flow ratio and the ratio of densities for the solvent and
ent mass flow rate was calculated assuming MEA flue gas are given. From Figure 8, the gas load k4 can
solvent absorption capacity of 0.18 mol CO2/mol be evaluated given the assumed pressure drop. From
MEA. The resulting solvent flow rate was estimated equation (13), the gas mass flow rate per unit column
to be 618 kg/s. cross-sectional area is obtained. The total area
A good design of the absorber column requires it to required can be calculated given the flue gas flow
operate at the highest economical pressure drop. This rate that has to be processed.
is to ensure good gas and liquid distribution. This The same procedure was adopted for the scale-up
value has been chosen to be 42 mm water per metre of regenerator. The liquid flow is equal to the sum of
packing as suggested by Sinnot28 for absorbers and the rich solvent mass flow rate plus the reflux rate
strippers columns. Sinnot28 also gave a generalised while the gas flow rate is equal to the boiled-up rate.
pressure drop correlation to estimate the required The adopted values as well as the obtained results are
column diameter. With constant pressure drop as a presented in Table 9.

Case 47 Absorber Temperature Case 47 Regenerator Temperature

(a) 350 Profile Profile
(b) 370
345
365
340
Temperature [K]

Temperature [K]

335 360

330 355
325 Pilot plant
Pilot plant 350
Measurements
320 Measurements Rate Based Model
Rate Based Model 345
315
310 340
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Height from boom [m] Height from boom [m]

Figure 7. Temperature profile for case 47: (a) absorber and (b) regenerator.

Table 8. Capture plant performance for cases 28, 32 and 47.

Lean loading Rich loading

(mol CO2/mol MEA) (mol CO2/mol MEA) CO2 capture level (%)

Rate-based Zhang et al. Rate-based Zhang et al.

Case Experimental Experimental model model Experimental model model

28 0.287 0.412 0.409 0.405 86 71.0 74

32 0.279 0.428 0.438 0.432 95 88.9 90
47 0.281 0.539 0.467 0.480 69 68.7 68
MEA: monoethanolamine.

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com at TOBB Ekonomi ve Teknoloji Üniversitesi on April 29, 2014
98 Proc IMechE Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering 227(2)

Figure 8. Generalised pressure drop correlation from Sinnot28 (This figure was published in Sinnot,28 Copyright Elsevier
Butterworth-Heinemann).

The first-guess solution for the absorber diameter

Table 9. Absorber and regenerator sizing first guess solution: as a function of one to four absorber columns in par-
assumptions and results. allel configuration is given in Figure 9, and for the
regenerator column is given in Figure 10. Due to
Assumptions
structural limitations, column diameter should not
Absorber Regenerator exceed 12.2 m (i.e. 40 ft).6,29 One absorber column
configuration would exceed this limitation. In add-
Lw =Vw 1.736 9.445
ition, only one column would not have an adequate
V ðkg=m3 Þ 1.092 1.100 reliability and capability to accommodate turndown
L ðkg=m3 Þ 1015.6 1019.6 ratio characteristic of the power plants. A greater
Pressure drop 42 42 number of columns would require larger capital
(mmH2 O=mpacking Þ costs and footprint without any major benefit.
Fp ð1=mÞ 78.74 168.2 Therefore, a two-column absorber and one-column
L ðPa  sÞ 0.00355 0.000969 regenerator configuration was selected.
Results
Full scale capture plant. First guess solutions presented
Absorber Regenerator in ‘Absorber and regenerator scale-up’ for absorber
FLV 0.0569 0.309 and regenerator columns sizing have been simulated
k4 ðXXXÞ 1.5 0.85 with the previously developed model for capture plant
in Aspen PlusÕ and improved upon. Indeed, the cap-
Cross-sectional area 149.65 53.58
required ðm2 Þ ture plant needs to be analysed for an integrated
closed loop operation, as absorber performance

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com at TOBB Ekonomi ve Teknoloji Üniversitesi on April 29, 2014
Canepa et al. 99

16

14

Required diameter [m]

12

10

4
0 1 2 3 4 5
Number of absorber columns [-]

Figure 9. First-guess solution result: absorber diameter as function of the number of columns.

10
9
Required diameter [m]

8
7
6
5
4
3
2
0 1 2 3 4 5
Number of regenerator columns [-]

Figure 10. First-guess solution results: regenerator diameter as function of the number of columns.

affects the regenerator, and vice versa. If the absorber and, as a consequence, the required reboiler duty falls
and regenerator are considered individually, the cap- as well. A higher lean loading translates to lower
ture plant may be designed to operate at a region absorption capacity for the solvent, therefore, higher
requiring higher capital and operational expenditure. L/G ratio is needed to satisfy the capture level require-
For this reason, the influence of the lean loading and ment. At lean loadings above 0.31, the reboiler duty
the L/G ratio over the regenerator reboiler duty is requirement will increase slightly due to the sensible
investigated to determine reasonable column design heat demand of the increased rich solvent flow rate.
in terms of capital costs and operational performance. In this analysis, the column’s packing height was
The same packing type used in the pilot plant is also left unchanged and equal to 30 m. However, when the
used. A design specification is assigned to ensure the L/G ratio is increased, the packing height can then be
required approach temperature in the cross heat reduced, resulting in decreased capital costs. On the
exchanger between the hot lean stream and the cold other hand, the operational costs may be higher due
reach stream (notably 10  C). to the larger pumping power and the larger reboiler
Figure 11 presents the reboiler duty and L/G ratio as duty required by a larger solvent flow rate. With a
a function of absorber inlet lean loading for a 90% smaller L/G ratio however, a larger packing height
capture level. When a low lean loading is specified, it would be required, resulting in higher capital costs
means that a low CO2 concentration in the solvent has while the operational costs, connected with the solv-
been targeted, and as a result a large amount of steam is ent flow rate, would likely fall. The optimal solution
required to strip the rich solvent of CO2 to the desired will be a trade-off between these two different trends.
lean loading. When a higher lean loading is specified, The solution adopted in this article is presented in
more CO2 is allowed to remain dissolved in the solvent, Tables 10 and 11.

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com at TOBB Ekonomi ve Teknoloji Üniversitesi on April 29, 2014
100 Proc IMechE Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering 227(2)

Reboiler duty L/G Ratio

12 3.5

11
3.0
Reboiler Duty (GJ/ton) 10

L/G ratio (mol/mol)

9
2.5

2.0
7

6
1.5
5

4 1.0
0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Lean Loading

Figure 11. Impact of lean loading on reboiler duty and L/G ratio at 90% capture level.

Table 10. Capture plant equipment design. (b) steam draw-off from the steam turbine to feed the
reboiler of the regenerator; and
Absorber Regenerator
(c) condensate return to the power plant.
Column number 2 1
Column packing IMTP no. 40 Flexipack 1 Y The first two points result in a reduction of the
Column diameter (m) 9.5 8.2 CCGT power plant output. ‘Flue gas preprocessing’
Column packing height (m) 30 30 has already been discussed in previous section. The
Column pressure (kPa) 101 162
heat requirement by the reboiler is usually supplied
by withdrawing steam from steam cycle at the IP/LP
crossover.6 High temperatures and pressures in the
reboiler can cause thermal degradation of the solvent.
Table 11. Capture plant operating conditions. Therefore, the reboiler temperature is maintained
between 110  C and 125  C.
Solvent mass flow rate (total) (kg/s) 720.46
Steam extraction from the CCGT power plant can
L/G (mol/mol) 2.29 be done in mainly three ways: clutched turbine,
Lean loading (mol/mol) 0.300 throttled turbine and floating crossover pressure.30
Rich loading (mol/mol) 0.456 In the clutched LP turbine design, the flow rate of
Cross heat exchanger approach temperature ( C) 10 steam required for solvent regeneration is equal to
Condenser temperature ( C) 25 the design flow rate of one or two of the LP cylinders.
Condenser duty (MW) 53 So when a power plant is retrofitted, the LP cylin-
Reboiler temperature ( C) 117 der(s) no longer in use can be unclutched and the
Reboiler duty (MW) 121 remaining one(s) will not be affected by modification
Reboiler duty (GJ/t CO2) 4.97 in the inlet temperature and pressure. Therefore, there
is no change in their efficiency, making this the most
Capture level (%) 90
efficient design. However, it has the primary disadvan-
tage of not being able to vary the amount of steam
extracted for solvent regeneration, which is usually a
fraction of the steam in the cycle.
Integration between the CCGT power In the throttled LP turbine configuration, the
crossover is designed to provide steam at the pressure
plant and the CO2 capture plant
required for the regenerator. When the CCGT power
Retrofitting a CCGT power plant with post-combus- plant is retrofitted for CO2 capture, the steam is
tion CO2 capture requires minimal structural changes throttled in a valve to maintain crossover pressure,
in the original cycle. The main modifications needed while the remaining steam is sent to the LP turbine.
to be incorporated are as follows: As a result, the quantity of steam extracted can be
controlled, but with a drawback of pressure losses
(a) flue gas pre-processing; due to the throttling.

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com at TOBB Ekonomi ve Teknoloji Üniversitesi on April 29, 2014
Canepa et al.
The floating crossover pressure configuration is the
most flexible from both the point of view of the quan-
tity and of the pressure of the steam extracted. The
crossover pipe is designed to impose an appropriate
pressure drop to reach the desired steam pressure
depending on the flow rate of steam extracted, result-
ing in no throttling losses at design extraction rate.
The last stages of the IP turbine and the first stages
of the LP turbine would have to be designed to cope
with a wide range of temperatures and pressures.
In the CCGT power plant, the steam cycle com-
prises of a two-stage turbine, but is modelled as three-
stage turbine. This is because the second turbine is
split into two to account for the bleeding of steam
needed to feed the deaerator. For this reason, the suit-
able point for steam extraction is the crossover
between the HP-ST and the IP-ST. In retrofitting to
CO2 capture an existing power plant, enough space
should be provided to accommodate the required
valves and tie-in piping that is required for steam
extraction. After the retrofitting, the LP-ST will see
a major reduction of steam flow rate, which will result
in the reduction of both its efficiency and power
output.
A floating crossover pressure configuration is used
in this study. The steam, taken at the HP/IP crossover
is at 5 bar and 230  C, and the temperature has to be
reduced to just above saturation temperature with a
water spray. The waste heat resulting from this pro-
cess could be partially recovered by combining the
steam with some of the condensate coming from the
reboiler, thereby reducing the quantity of steam that
has to be extracted. The condensate from the reboiler
is then returned to the deaerator.
The integrated CCGT and capture plant perform-
ance is given in Table 12. This is also compared with
the reference CCGT power plant before retrofitting.
The power plant output is reduced by three main
factors:
(a) flue gas blower power;
Table 12. Summary of CCGT power plant performance with
and without CO2 capture.
Without
Description CO2 capture
Net power output (MWe) 240.1
Flue mass flow rate (kg/s) 9.89
Blower power (MWe) 0 1.39
Steam extraction (kg/s) 0 52.0
Capture plant pumping 0 0.0899
power (MWe)
CO2 capture level (%) 0 90
CCGT: combined cycle gas turbine.
Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com at TOBB Ekonomi ve Teknoloji Üniversitesi on April 29, 2014
101
(b) steam extraction that causes a reduction of the
mass flow rate through the LP-ST and therefore
of its power output;
(c) solvent circulation pump power.
Out of the three factors considered, the power
reduction due to steam extraction is the main one.
Impact of EGR
Compared with their coal-fired counterparts, CCGT
power plants have a lower CO2 content in the flue gas
and higher specific flows (approximately 1.5 kg/MWs
in contrast to 0.95 kg/MWs). This makes post-com-
bustion CO2 capture plant for CCGT bulky and
costly.31 This low CO2 concentration results in high
energy requirement for solvent regeneration, com-
pared to coal-fired plants for the capture of the
same amount of CO2. One way to overcome this
problem is EGR: a fraction of flue gases coming
from the HRSG is recirculated back to compressor
inlet where it is mixed with fresh air, increasing the
CO2 content in the exhaust gas. The major benefit of
this semi-closed cycle configuration is the reduction of
the mass flow rate that has to be treated by the cap-
ture plant.
The maximum amount of flue gas recirculation is
limited by combustor-related phenomena such as
Fame stability and incomplete oxidation. It is believed
that the changes in turbomachinery performance may
be very small.32–35 EGR has been already successfully
applied to compressors for anti-icing purpose36 and
the technological feasibility of recirculation ratio up
to 40% has been proven by experimental research on
dry low NOx (DLN) combustor.37,38
The flowsheet in Apen PlusÕ for CCGT with EGR
is shown in Figure 12. The exhaust gases at the HRSG
exit are split into two streams: one is delivered to the
capture plant, the other is fed to compressor inlet after
being cooled down to ambient temperature and mixed
with air. Recycling stream cooling is required to
achieve high GT efficiency since low inlet temperature
is preferred. EGR is defined as
volume flow of recirculated exhaust gas
EGR ¼
volume flow of exhaust gas
ð14Þ
With
CO2 capture
209.4 The heat exchanger areas, sized for the base case
9.89 analysis without EGR, have been left unchanged to
study the performance modifications when the CCGT
power plant is retrofitted for CO2 capture and EGR.
Compressor and turbine efficiencies in GT have been
left unchanged given the fact that EGR is believed to
have a minimal effect on turbine performance.
In Figure 13, exhaust gas composition is shown as
a function of the EGR ratio. By increasing the
102 Proc IMechE Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering 227(2)

Figure 12. Flowsheet in Aspen PlusÕ for CCGT power plant with EGR.
CCGT: combined cycle gas turbine; EGR: exhaust gas recirculation.

100

N2
Exhaust gas composition [mol%]

O2
10
H2O

CO2

1
0 10 20 30 40 50
EGR [%]

Figure 13. Exhaust gas composition as a function of EGR ratio.

EGR: exhaust gas recirculation.

recirculation ratio, oxygen concentration is decreased, configuration. As a result, it has been determined
as less oxygen is available in the recirculated stream. that one absorber column with a diameter of 11.6 m
Combustors require an oxygen concentration in com- would be sufficient. However, this value is too close to
bustion air of minimum 16–18%,35 therefore a recir- the structural limit of 12.2 m. Also for reliability rea-
culation ratio of 40% (after water condensation) has sons, two absorber columns, each with a diameter of
been chosen (Figure 14). With such an EGR ratio, the 8 m, have been chosen. Similarly, as for the case with-
CO2 content is increased from the 4.1 to 7 mol% and out EGR, one regenerator column with a diameter of
the flow rate treated by the capture plant decreases by 8 m is sufficient. The effects of lean loading and L/G
40%. ratio on capture plant performance are also investi-
The capture plant has to be re-sized to fit the gated to identify a good operating point. The results
requirements of the new CCGT power plant are summarised in Tables 13 and 14. In Table 15, the

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com at TOBB Ekonomi ve Teknoloji Üniversitesi on April 29, 2014
Canepa et al. 103

24

21

O2 concentration [mol%]
18

15

12

6
0 10 20 30 40 50
EGR [%]

Figure 14. Oxygen concentration in combustion chamber as a function of EGR ratio.

EGR: exhaust gas recirculation.

Table 13. Capture plant design and sizing results when EGR Table 15. Summary of power plant performance with and
is applied to CCGT power plant. without EGR.

Absorber Regenerator Description Without EGR With EGR

Column number 2 1 Net power output (MWe) 209.4 211.2

Column packing IMTP no. 40 Flexipack 1 Y Fuel mass flow rate (kg/s) 9.89 9.89
Column diameter (m) 8 8 Blower power (MWe) 1.39 0.776
Column packing height (m) 30 30 Steam extraction (kg/s) 52.0 49.1
Column pressure (kPa) 101 162 Capture plant pumping power (kW) 89.9 84.7
CO2 capture level (%) 90 90
CCGT: combined cycle gas turbine; EGR: exhaust gas recirculation.
EGR: exhaust gas recirculation.

Table 14. Capture plant operating conditions when EGR is

applied to CCGT power plant. EGR is therefore confirmed to be an effective way
to reduce the efficiency penalty resulting from CO2
Solvent mass flow rate (total) (kg/s) 675.6
capture. The modifications required to the original
L/G (mol/mol) 3.32
power plant are minimal as only piping and a heat
Lean loading (mol/mol) 0.3 exchanger is needed to recycle the exhaust gas and
Rich loading (mol/mol) 0.466 to cool it before it is returned to the air compressor.
Cross heat exchanger approach temperature ( C) 10 This initial capital expenditure is likely to be offset by
Condenser temperature ( C) 25 the reduced energy penalty, however further economic
Condenser duty (MW) 47.9 analysis is required to confirm this.
Reboiler temperature ( C) 117.4
Reboiler duty (MW) 114.16 Conclusions
Reboiler duty (GJ/t CO2) 4.68
Capture level (%) 90 In this article, a CCGT power plant and a post-com-
bustion CO2 capture plant were simulated in Aspen
CCGT: combined cycle gas turbine; EGR: exhaust gas recirculation. PlusÕ . The CCGT power plant was validated with
performance data from GE’s GateCycleÕ software.
The capture plant was validated at pilot plant scale
performances of the integrated CCGT and capture with data from the SRP at the University of Texas at
plant with and without EGR are compared. The net Austin and then scaled up to fit the requirements of
power output is larger in the case of 40% EGR due to the 250 MWe CCGT power plant. The procedure
the lower amount of steam required for solvent regen- adopted for scale-up is based on chemical engineering
eration, mainly as a result of lower solvent circulation principles. It considers the flue gas mass flow rate and
rates. Similarly, the power required for the flue gas CO2 concentration in flue gas to be treated. The solv-
blower and for solvent pumps is lower due to the ent circulation rate, number of absorber and regener-
reduced treated gas and solvent circulation rates. ator columns required and their diameters are

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com at TOBB Ekonomi ve Teknoloji Üniversitesi on April 29, 2014
104
determined. The CCGT power plant was integrated
with the capture plant. The performance of the CCGT
power plant without capture is compared with the
power plant retrofitted with capture, quantifying the
energy penalty. In addition, the performance of the
CCGT power plant with CO2 capture is compared
with the CCGT power plant with CO2 capture and
EGR. The results indicate that EGR is an effective
way to reduce the energy penalty caused by the inte-
gration with a CO2 capture plant.
Funding
The authors would like to acknowledge ERASMUS pro-
gramme for the financial support that has allowed this col-
laboration to take place. The UK authors would like to
acknowledge the financial support from UK Research
Councils’ Energy Programme (Ref: NE/H013865/1 and
EP/J020788/1).
References
1. Wang M, Lawal A, Stephenson P, et al. Post-
combustion CO2 capture with chemical absorption: a
state-of-the-art review. Chem Eng Res Des 2011; 89(9):
1609–1624.
2. Okuzumi N and Mitchell R. Current status of MHI’s
CO2 recovery technology and road map to commercial-
ization for coal-Ered power plant application. In:
Proceedings of the international conference and exhibition:
nitrogen and syngas, Bahrain, 28 February–3 March
2010, www.mhi.co.jp/en/products/pdf/articles_07.pdf
(2010, accessed July 2012).
3. Hetland J, Kvamsdal HM, Haugen G, et al. Integrating a
full carbon capture scheme onto a 450 MWe NGCC
electric power generation hub for offshore operations:
presenting the Sevan GTW concept. Appl Energy 2009;
86: 2298–2307.
4. Kvamsdal HM, Hetland J, Haugen G, et al. Maintaining
a neutral water balance in a 450 MWe NGCC–CCS
power system with post-combustion carbon dioxide cap-
ture aimed at offshore operation. Int J Greenhouse Gas
Control 2010; 4: 613–622.
5. Karimi M, Hillestad M and Svendsen HF. Natural gas
combined cycle power plant integrated to capture plant.
Energy & Fuels 2012; 26(3): 1805–1813.
6. Lawal A, Wang M and Stephenson P. Demonstrating
full-scale post-combustion CO2 capture for coal-Ered
power plants through dynamic modelling and simula-
tion. Fuel 2012; 101: 115–128. DOI: 10.1016/
j.fuel.2010.10.056.
7. Kvamsdal HM, Jakobsen JP and Hoff KA. Dynamic
modelling and simulation of a CO2 absorber column
for post-combustion CO2 capture. Chem Eng Process:
Process IntensiOcation 2009; 48(1): 135–144.
8. Lawal A, Wang M, Stephenson P, et al. Dynamic
modelling of CO2 absorption for post-combustion cap-
ture in coal-Ered power plants. Fuel 2009; 88(12):
2455–2462.
9. Lawal A, Wang M, Stephenson P, et al. Dynamic mod-
eling and simulation of CO2 chemical absorption process
for coal-Ered power plants. Comput Aided Chem Eng
2009; 27: 1725–1730.
Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com at TOBB Ekonomi ve Teknoloji Üniversitesi on April 29, 2014
Proc IMechE Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering 227(2)
10. Lawal A, Wang M, Stephenson P, et al. Dynamic mod-
elling and analysis of post-combustion CO2 chemical
absorption process for coal-Ered power plants. Fuel
2010; 89(10): 2791–2801.
11. Biliyok C, Lawal A, Wang M, et al. Dynamic model-
ling, validation and analysis of post-combustion chem-
ical absorption CO2 capture plant. Int J Greenhouse Gas
Control 2012; 9: 428–445.
12. Kvamsdal HM and Rochelle GT. Effects of the tem-
perature bulge in CO2 absorption from flue gas by
aqueous monoethanolamine. Ind Eng Chem Res 2008;
47(3): 867–875.
13. Zhang Y, Chen H, Chen C-C, et al. Rate-based process
modelling study of CO2 capture with aqueous mono-
ethanolamine solution. Ind Eng Chem Res 2009; 48:
9233–9246.
14. Li H, Ditaranto M and Berstad D. Technologies for
increasing CO2 concentration in exhaust gas from nat-
ural gas-fired power production with post-combustion,
amine-based CO2 capture. Energy 2011; 36(2):
1124–1133.
15. Bolland O and Mathieu P. Comparison of two CO2
removal options in combined cycle power plants.
Energy Convers Manage 1998; 39: 1653–1663.
16. Doosan Power Systems. UK’s first carbon capture plant
opens at ferrybridge power station. West Sussex, RH:
Doosan Power Systems, http://www.doosanpowersys-
tems.com/NewsEvents/News/2011-11-30/UKS-FIRST-
CARBON-CAPTURE-PLANT-OPENS-AT-
FERRYBRIDGE-POWER-STATION/ (2011,
accessed 30 November 2011).
17. Herzog H, Meldon J and Hatton A. Advanced post-
combustion CO2 capture. Cambridge, MA:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, web.mit.edu/
mitei/docs/reports/herzog-meldon-hatton.pdf (2009,
accessed July 2012).
18. Ong’iro AO, Ugursal VI, Taweel AMA, et al.
Simulation of combined cycle power plants using the
aspen plus shell. Heat Recovery Syst CHP 1995; 15(2):
105–113.
19. Jonsson M, Bolland O, Bcker D, et al. Gas turbine
cooling models for evaluation of novel cycles. In:
Proceedings of the ECOS, Trondheim, Norway, 20–22
June 2005.
20. Dugas ER. Pilot plant study of carbon dioxide capture by
aqueous monoethanolamine. M.S.E. Thesis, University
of Texas, Austin, USA, 2006.
21. Pitzer KS. Thermodynamics of electrolytes. I.
Theoretical basis and general equations. J Phys Chem
1973; 77: 268–277.
22. Arcis H, Rodier L, Karine B-B, et al. Modeling of
(vapor þ liquid) equilibrium and enthalpy of solution
of carbon dioxide (CO2) in aqueous ethyldiethanola-
mine (MDEA) solutions. J Chem Thermodyn 2009; 41:
783–789.
23. Fair JR and Bravo JL. Prediction of mass transfer
efEciencies and pressure drop for structured tower
packings in vapor/liquid service. Inst Chem Eng Symp
Ser A 1985; 104: 183–200.
24. Bravo JL, Rocha JA and Fair JR. A comprehensive
model for the performance of columns containing struc-
tured packings. Inst Chem Eng Symp Ser A 1992; 129:
439–457.
Canepa et al. 105

25. Taylor R and Krishna R. Multicomponent mass trans- 38. Elkady AM, Evulet A, Brand A, et al. Application of
fer. New York: John Wiley, 1993. exhaust gas recirculation in a DLN F-class combustion
26. Aboudheir A, Tontiwachwuthikul P, Chakma A, et al. system for postcombustion carbon capture. ASME
Kinetics of the reactive absorption of carbon dioxide GT2008-51152, 2008. New York: ASME.
in high CO2-loaded, concentrated aqueuous mono-
ethanolamine solutions. Chem Eng Sci 2003; 58:
5195–5210.
27. Aspentech. Rate-based model of the CO2 capture pro- Appendix
cess by MEA using Aspen Plus, support.aspentech.com Notation
(2011, accessed July 2012).
28. Sinnott RK. Chemical engineering design. vol 6, 4th edn. b cooling model parameter
Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, 2005. cp,c constant pressure specific heat capacity.
29. Ramezan M and Skone TJ. Carbon dioxide capture from Average value between the blade and
existing coal-Ored power plants. Report no. DOE/ compressor exit temperatures (kJ/
NETL-401/110907, 2007. Morgantown, WV: National (kgK))
Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). cp,g constant pressure specific heat capacity.
30. Kang CA, Brandt AR and Durlofsky LJ. Optimal oper-
Average value between the blade and
ation of an integrated energy system including fossil fuel
the combustor exit temperatures (kJ/
power generation, CO2 capture and wind. Energy 2011;
36(12): 6806–6820. (ISSN 0360-5442, DOI: 10.1016/ (kgK))
j.energy.2011.10.015. Fp packing factor (m1)
31. Jonshagen K, Sipöcz N and Genrup M. A novel FLV flow parameter
approach of retrofitting a combined cycle with post k4 pressure drop parameter
combustion CO2 Capture. J Eng Gas Turbines Power K cooling model parameter
2011; 133(011703): 17. L/G liquid to gas molar Fow ratio (mol/mol)
32. Sipöcz N, Jonshagen K, Assadi A, et al. Novel high- Lw liquid mass flow-rate per unit column
performing single pressure combined cycle with CO2 cross-sectional area (kg/(m2s))
capture. In: Proceedings of the ASME turbo expo, m_ c cooling mass flow rate (kg/s)
Glasgow, UK, 14–18 June 2010, paper no. GT2010-
m_ g combustion chamber exit mass flow
23259, pp.803–811. New York: ASME.
rate (kg/s)
33. Jonshagen K, Sipöcz N and Genrup M. (2010), Optimal
combined cycle for CO2 capture with EGR. p pressure (bar)
In: Proceedings of the ASME turbo expo, Glasgow, s cooling model parameter
UK, 14–18 June 2010, paper no. GT2010–23420, T temperature ( C)
pp.867–875. New York: ASME. Vw gas (or vapour) mass flow-rate per unit
34. Jonshagen K, Eriksson P and Genrup M. Low-calorific column cross-sectional area (kg/(m2s))
fuel mix in a large size combined cycle plant. In:
Proceedings of the ASME turbo expo, Orlando, FL, 8– pc pressure drop due to cooling (bar)
12 June 2009, paper no. GT 2009-59329, pp.367–376.  viscosity (Pas)
New York: ASME.  density (kg/m3)
35. Ulfsnes R, Karlsen G, Jordal K, et al. Investigation of
physical properties of CO2/H2O-mixtures for use in
semi-closed O2/CO2 gas turbine cycle with CO2-capture.
In: Proceedings of the ECOS, Copenhagen, Denmark, Subscripts
30 June–2 July 2003.
36. Loud RL and Slaterpryce AA. Gas turbine inlet air b blade
treatment. GER-3419A, GE Power Generation, 1991. cmb exit combustion chamber outlet condition
37. Evulet AT, ElKady AM, Branda AR, et al. On the per- cmpr exit compressor outlet condition
formance and operability of GE’s dry low NOx com- L liquid
bustors utilizing exhaust gas recirculation for post- tbn inlet turbine inlet condition
combustion carbon capture. Energy Procedia 2009; 1: V gas, vapour
3809–3816.

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com at TOBB Ekonomi ve Teknoloji Üniversitesi on April 29, 2014