16th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, GHGT-16

23rd -27th October 2022, Lyon, France

Reducing the CO2 Emission Intensity of Boundary Dam Unit 3

Through Optimization of Operating Parameters of the Power Plant
and Carbon Capture Facilities
Brent Jacobsa, Puttipong Tantikhajorngosola, Keith Hillb, Jonathan Ruffinib, Sarah
Wilkesb, Wayuta Srisanga, Yuewu Fenga, Doug Davernea, Conway Nelsona,*
a
The International CCS Knowledge Centre, 198 – 10 Research Drive, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada S4S 7J7
b
SaskPower, 2025 Victoria Avenue, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada S4P 0S1

Abstract

Operating data from SaskPower’s Boundary Dam Unit 3 Carbon Capture and Storage (BD3 CCS) Facility was
examined to identify the impact of controllable process parameters on the efficiency of the carbon capture plant (CCP).
A total of 6,047 data points from the facility were collected between January 2021 and July 2022. The analysis focused
on CO2 capture efficiency, energy supplied to the CCP from extracted steam, and heat duty for solvent regeneration,
which are commonly used as indicators of the process performance of carbon capture plants. The results show that
the CCP when operating at 70% to 80% of the designed capture capacity achieved over 90% CO2 capture efficiency
in 2021. Ongoing process optimization is enhancing the CCP’s capture efficiency over a broader range of operating
capture rates. The energy consumption of the CCP is discussed in relation to the CO2 capture efficiency and CO2
capture rate with the goal of optimizing how efficiently the steam supplied to the CCP is utilized. Flue gas flow rate,
the liquid-to-gas (L/G) ratio in the absorber, and the temperature in the CO2 stripper were found to significantly affect
the specific heat duty required by the CCP.

Keywords: Boundary Dam, Carbon capture, CO2 capture efficiency, CO2 emissions intensity

1. Introduction

SaskPower’s Boundary Dam Unit 3 Carbon Capture and Storage (BD3 CCS) facility was the first commercial-
scale fully integrated carbon dioxide (CO2) capture system on a coal fired power plant and achieved commercial
operation in October 2014 (Fig. 1) [1]. The capture facility is fully integrated with the power plant (PP), and both have
been designed for 99% sulfur dioxide (SO2) and 90% CO2 capture, for the case when the power plant is operating at
the maximum continuous rating. The full chain CCS process is shown in Fig. 2.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 306 529 9426, Email address: cnelson@ccsknowledge.com

 GHGT-16 Jacobs, Tantikhajorngosol, Hill, Ruffini, Wilkes, Srisang, Feng, Daverne, Nelson 2

Fig. 1 BD3 power station and CCS facility.

Fig. 2 Full chain CCS process.

The optimum performance of the CO2 capture system during a larger range of power plant outputs is becoming
increasingly important as the price on carbon imposed by the Canadian federal government rises. The price is currently
at 50 CAN$ per tonne for emissions above a threshold of 594 tonnes of CO2/GWh for coal plants and the price is
increasing in annual increments to 170 CAN$ per tonne by 2030 with the allowable emissions threshold declining to
420 tonnes of CO2/GWh over the same period.
The capture rate is the quantity of CO2 captured over a period, typically expressed in tonnes per hour or tonnes per
day, while the capture efficiency is the percentage of the CO 2 in the flue gas stream that has been captured. Although
the BD3 CCS facility has shown to be capable of achieving its design CO2 capture rate, for both technical reasons and
to minimize the cost of electricity and maximize electrical output, it has not sustained the design rate beyond a
 GHGT-16 Jacobs, Tantikhajorngosol, Hill, Ruffini, Wilkes, Srisang, Feng, Daverne, Nelson 3

dedicated capacity demonstration completed in 2015. The capture facility is typically operated with 60% to 85% of
the full flue gas produced from the power plant going to the CCP, and the flue gas that does not go to the CCP is
bypassed to the existing stack. One technical reason that the full flue gas flow is not fed to the capture system is that
higher-than-expected pressure losses can occur through the capture system. Further, in the past, CO2 production has
been aligned to meet the requirements of the CO2 off-taker for use in enhanced oil recovery operations. And finally,
our understanding is that the decision not to capture 90% is based on the technical issues and what is required for
long-term sustainable operation, including lower OM&A costs and improved reliability of the CCS plant. Thus,
historically the quantity of flue gas diverted to the BD3 CCP has been based on a combination of technical and
economic considerations. Notwithstanding these past circumstances, with the increasing price on carbon emissions in
Canada, there is now an increasing financial incentive to maximize the CO2 capture from BD3. There are several
factors that contribute to the higher pressure losses of flue gas including [2]:

• Fly ash fouling of the demisters in the SO2 absorber;

• Fly ash fouling of the packing in the SO2 and CO2 absorbers;
• Biological fouling of the packings in the SO2 absorber caustic polisher and the wash water section of the CO2
absorber;
• Foaming of the solvent in the CO2 absorber.

Additional technical reasons for not diverting the total flue gas flow to the capture plant include:

• Insufficient capacity in the SO2 capture system due to fouling, amine health, and solvent distribution or higher
than designed sulfur content in the fuel;
• Temporary periods of higher than designed flue gas particulate concentrations as the result of above design ash
concentration in the coal or in some cases below design performance of the electrostatic precipitator such as cell
outages in the precipitator or ash characteristics that increase particulate concentrations.

A possible solution to reduce the bypassing of a portion of the flue gas is to reduce the fuel input to the power plant
to match the flue gas handling capacity of the capture system. However, the challenge with this solution has been that
the steam used to regenerate the solvents in the SO2 and CO2 capture systems is sourced from a steam turbine
extraction with a floating pressure. When the fuel input to the power plant is reduced, the quantity and pressure of the
steam available to the capture plant are also reduced and this limits the ability to regenerate the solvents in the systems.
The interim solution has been to operate the power plant with a partially reduced fuel input which still provides
sufficient steam to the capture plant. Nevertheless, this operating mode produces more flue gas than can be accepted
by the capture plant, necessitating the bypass of some of the flue gas to stack. In this partial diversion mode, the
capture plant has captured more than 90% of the CO2 in the flue gas that it receives, at times substantially higher than
90%. However, any CO2 that bypasses the capture facility still adds to the net carbon emissions.
A number of initiatives are ongoing or planned with the goal of eliminating flue gas bypass as follows:

• Since 2016, online cleaning of demisters has been effective at controlling demister pressure drops;
• Chemical cleans and replacement of fouled packing in the absorber towers to reduce pressure losses;
• Optimization of antifoam injection and other aspects of amine health, to minimize foaming potential;
• Optimization of Liquid-to-Gas (L/G) ratio in the absorber and other process parameters for the turn down case
to increase the efficiency of steam utilization;
• Tuning of the flue gas heat recovery for the turn down case, to minimize the need for steam extraction for
feedwater heaters, allowing more steam for the capture plant;
• Review of the overall performance of the power plant including heat rate and excess air in the flue gas to
minimize flue gas flow;
• Parametric testing to determine the optimum operating load for the power plant to minimize emissions for the
cases when the capture plant still cannot accept the designed flue gas flow.
 GHGT-16 Jacobs, Tantikhajorngosol, Hill, Ruffini, Wilkes, Srisang, Feng, Daverne, Nelson 4

This paper focuses on optimizing the efficiency of the use of the steam in the BD3 CCS facility to minimize the
firing rate of BD3 relative to the flue gas capacity treated by the capture plant, and thereby reduce the flue gas bypassed
around the capture system and vented from the existing stack. The data from the BD3 CCS facility was analysed to
identify opportunities for reducing the CO2 emissions intensity. The objective is to determine the impact of
controllable process parameters on the efficiency of the use of steam, which has been identified as a limiting parameter
to CO2 capture efficiency and heat duty. The effects of flue gas flow rate, L/G ratio in the absorber, and temperature
in the CO2 stripper or desorber based on the heat duty are also proposed in this paper. The deliverables and outcomes
include the analysis of CCS performance data with a focus on capture energy and efficiency, and other operating
parameters which were prioritized through consultations with SaskPower. The 6,047 data points from the BD3 CCS
facility were collected between January 2021 to July 2022.

Nomenclature

BD3 Boundary Dam Unit 3

CCP Carbon Capture Plant
CCS Carbon Capture and Storage
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery
GJ Gigajoule
IP Intermediate Pressure
L/G Liquid-to-Gas
LP Low Pressure
PP Power Plant
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide

2. Methodology

2.1. History of BD3 CCS Facility

The startup of the BD3 CCS facility was the culmination of a decade’s worth of work by SaskPower focused on
continued operation of coal-fired power-generating stations which provide fuel diversity for its fleet, while at the same
time mitigating the climate change impact of associated air emissions. Initially, the capture facility at BD3 experienced
operational challenges which hindered its overall performance and significantly reduced its reliability, not dissimilar
to other “first of a kind” projects. The facility, particularly related to the chemical processes, has required on-going
tuning and refining. Solutions to these challenges are crucial not only for improving the reliability of the facility but
are also important for demonstrating the potential global role of CCS as a significant CO2 mitigation solution. Since
initial start-up, operations have gradually improved with the current objectives being to maximize efficiency, optimize
CO2 emissions and minimize cost.

2.2 Process Description

The CANSOLV process, an amine solvent system, was selected for the BD3 CCS project. Fig. 3 depicts this process
consisting of two distinct processes working in series, the SO2 Capture Plant and CO2 Capture Plant. The SO2 Capture
Plant is a CANSOLV amine-based desulfurization process which removes greater than 99% of SO2 from the flue gas.
The captured SO2 is converted into sulfuric acid in a Sulfuric Acid Plant. The desulfurized flue gas then passes through
the CO2 Capture Plant or CCP where 90% of the CO2 is removed. Extracted steam from the Intermediate Pressure –
Low Pressure (IP-LP) crossover on the BD3 turbine, is utilized as the source of energy for regenerating the amine in
both plants. The CO2 product is then compressed and transported approximately 70 km by pipeline on a continuous
 GHGT-16 Jacobs, Tantikhajorngosol, Hill, Ruffini, Wilkes, Srisang, Feng, Daverne, Nelson 5

basis for the CO2-enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR) operation at the Weyburn oilfield and, on an intermittent basis,
CO2 is transported by a 2 km pipeline to the Aquistore site for injection and long-term geological storage at a depth
of approximately 3.4 km [3].

Fig. 3 Cansolv's SO2 and CO2 Amine Capture System as Deployed at SaskPower's BD3 Power Unit.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. CO2 Capture Efficiency Analysis

The CO2 capture efficiency of the CCP and of the combined plant including periods when CCP is operated (ON)
and not operated (OFF) between January 2015 to August 2022 is presented in Table 1. The results show that the CCP
CO2 capture efficiency has been higher than 90% of the CO2 diverted to the CCP from BD3 since 2020 and the average
efficiency is 89% which is close to the designed capture performance of 90%. However, it is important to note that
the combined plant capture efficiency (when CCP is operated) is still lower than the efficiency of CCP itself. This
result implies that some amount of flue gas is bypassed to the original stack. To increase the combined plant
performance (when the CCP is on) to be closer to the CCP efficiency, eliminating the flue gas bypass by optimizing
operating conditions is being further studied.
Fig. 4 shows the relation between the actual/designed CO 2 capture rate, the CO2 capture efficiency, as well as the
outlet CO2 concentration from the absorber. It can be noticed that the CO2 capture efficiency is able to reach over 90%
and the CO2 concentration at the absorber outlet can be lower than 1.5% when the actual/designed CO 2 capture rate is
lower than 78%. When the CO2 capture rate increases over 80% of the designed value, the CO2 capture efficiency is
typically between 80% to 90%. In addition, under some conditions, CO 2 capture reaches almost 100%, which indicates
the potential of CO2 capture systems. Analysis is ongoing to identify operational enhancements to achieve greater than
90% capture efficiency when the CPP is operating at greater than 80% of the designed capture rate.
 GHGT-16 Jacobs, Tantikhajorngosol, Hill, Ruffini, Wilkes, Srisang, Feng, Daverne, Nelson 6

Table 1. CO2 capture efficiency (January 2015 to August 2022)

Combined Plant Plant Availability (%)
Combined Plant Percentage of
Efficiency
Efficiency only Flue Gas
Year including CCP Efficiency
when CCP is Diverted to CCP PP CCP*
periods when
ON when CCP is ON
CCP is OFF
2015 38% 55% 92% 60% 90% 64%
2016 62% 67% 79% 85% 99% 88%
2017 45% 61% 89% 69% 86% 72%
2018 62% 65% 89% 73% 76% 93%
2019 52% 63% 88% 72% 90% 79%
2020 63% 65% 90% 72% 88% 94%
2021 37% 67% 94% 71% 86% 58%
2022 55% 66% 91% 79% 99% 81%
Average 52% 64% 89% 73% 89% 79%
* CCP availability is relative to PP availability

Fig. 4 Correlation between actual/designed CO2 capture rate and CO2 capture efficiency and CO2 concentration at absorber outlet (2021).

3.2. Energy to CO2 Capture Plant Analysis

The CO2 capture process requires thermal energy, primarily for regenerating the amine solvent solution within the
stripper or desorber column. In the BD3 CCS facility, this energy is supplied by IP-LP crossover steam from the PP
which is fed to the reboilers of the stripper column. Fig. 5(a) presents the energy to the CCP and the BD3 gross
electrical output during the period between January 2021 and July 2022. It is necessary to clarify that the data was
collected only when the CCP is in operation. The plot shows that the energy to the CCP tends to follow the BD3
electrical output. The linear relationship between energy to CPP and the main steam flow in the power plant is shown
in Fig. 5(b). This confirms the observed results from Fig. 5(a) as the main steam is the source of electricity generation
 GHGT-16 Jacobs, Tantikhajorngosol, Hill, Ruffini, Wilkes, Srisang, Feng, Daverne, Nelson 7

by BD3. The highest frequency of the input energy to the CCP is at B as shown in Fig. 6 while more than 90% of the
dataset falls between A and D. This also shows the normal distribution of the collected dataset of the input energy to
the CCP.

(a) (b)

Fig. 5 (a) Energy to CCP and BD3 load from January 2021 to July 2022, (b) Relationship between main steam and energy to CCP.

Fig. 6 Distribution of energy to CCP from BD3 CCS facility.

There is a linear relationship between the energy available to the CCP and the steam flow rate while the capture
efficiency for the dataset is higher at lower steam flows. (Fig. 7). Optimizing the load on BD3 to provide only the
steam flow necessary to the CCP for 90% capture efficiency is a possible solution to minimize the production and
venting of flue gas in excess of what can be accepted by the capture plant. This solution has the potential to maintain
the CO2 capture efficiency over 90% when the steam flow to the CCP is between the range of A and B. However,
when the steam flow supplied to the CCP is close to B, the CO2 capture efficiency is typically between 80% and 90%.
It is difficult to achieve higher than 90% when the steam flow was greater than B. Therefore, the optimized energy to
CCP should occur within this range.
 GHGT-16 Jacobs, Tantikhajorngosol, Hill, Ruffini, Wilkes, Srisang, Feng, Daverne, Nelson 8

Fig.7 Correlation between steam flow to CCP and energy to CCP as well as CO2 capture efficiency.

Fig.8 Correlation between main steam flow and steam flow to CCP.

However, a more detailed study is required as reduced steam flow can affect the operating conditions and
controllability of the CCP. This is due a potential limitation of the BD3 power plant in that when the power plant load
is reduced, this also results in a reduction in steam flow and pressure through the turbine, in proportion to load. The
reduction in the required duty to the reboiler in the CCP is also proportionate to the reduction in power plant load
however at a lower rate of change than the reduction in available steam flow. This results in a greater percentage of
the steam consumed for capture operations as plant load is reduced. Eventually, the pressure at the IP-LP crossover
drops below the pressure required for the reboilers and solvent regeneration will not be able to be maintained and the
CCP will require an additional derate. Therefore, this can become the limiting factor for capture operations at reduced
 GHGT-16 Jacobs, Tantikhajorngosol, Hill, Ruffini, Wilkes, Srisang, Feng, Daverne, Nelson 9

loads and requires careful consideration. The correlation between the main steam flow to the turbine in the PP and the
steam flow to the CCP is shown in Fig. 8.
Fig. 9 presents the linear relationship between the energy to the CCP and the CO2 capture rate. It is clearly seen
that reducing the energy to the CCP decreases the CO2 capture rate. This result is consistent with the discussion above
in that the reduced energy can affect the capture plant capacity. To provide a CO2 capture rate between 2,100 to 3,000
tonnes/day in the BD3 CCS facility, the energy to the CCP has to be maintained within the range shown. A more
detailed analysis of the optimum CO2 capture rate based on heat duty follows.

Fig. 9 Correlation between energy to CCP and CO2 capture rate.

Fig. 10 Correlation between CO2 capture rate and efficiency in the CCP.

From the observed dataset in Fig. 10, the majority of the data points for CO 2 capture rate (over 95%) are between
2,100 to 3,000 tonnes/day with 95% and 78% of the dataset over 80% and 90% of the CO 2 capture efficiency,
respectively. According to this information, it is reasonable to proceed with the CCP energy optimization for CO 2
 GHGT-16 Jacobs, Tantikhajorngosol, Hill, Ruffini, Wilkes, Srisang, Feng, Daverne, Nelson 10

capture rate in this range with goal to consistently achieve a CO 2 capture efficiency of 90%. The wide range of the
CO2 capture rate and efficiency from the data could be due to many possible factors, such as pressure losses, flue gas
flow rate, solvent flow rate, L/G ratio, CO2 concentration in flue gas, etc. [4].

3.3. Heat Duty Analysis

Heat duty is the energy required for the solvent regeneration in the CCP. It is composed of the energy of sensible
heat, latent heat, and latent heat of vaporization [5]. The heat duty is a crucial indicator of solvent and process
performance, and it is usually reported in the unit of GJ/tonne of CO2. Lower heat duty represents higher capture
performance. Since the exact value of heat duty is confidential information, the heat duties presented in this paper are
relative to the designed values.
Fig. 11 depicts the distribution of the heat duty from the BD3 CCS facility during January 2021 to July 2022 (6,047
data points). The result shows that 38% of the actual heat duty data is in the range of the designed heat duty while
most of the actual heat duty data points (~60%) are slightly higher than the designed value. Consequently, it is
beneficial and necessary to optimize the operating parameters to maximize the process performance and minimize the
heat duty.
The correlation between the heat duty and the CO2 capture rate is presented in Fig. 12. Regarding the CO2 capture
rate between 2,100 to 3,000 tonnes/day which potentially gives 90% CO2 capture efficiency, the heat duty is close to
the design value. Another important finding from the results is that the heat duty from the dataset tends to vary less
and reach the designed value when the CO2 capture rate is close to 3,000 tonnes/day but varies more when the CO2
capture rate is decreased below 2,500 tonnes/day. This is the result of off-design operation of the BD3 CCS facility
includes the effects of fouling, high flue gas pressure drop, low amine concentration, lower energy to the CCP, and
other abnormal operating conditions that have been described in our previous publication [2].

Fig. 11 Distribution of heat duty from BD3 CCS facility.

 GHGT-16 Jacobs, Tantikhajorngosol, Hill, Ruffini, Wilkes, Srisang, Feng, Daverne, Nelson 11

Fig. 12 Correlation between CO2 capture rate and heat duty.

Fig. 13 illustrates the correlation between the CO2 capture efficiency and the heat duty from the BD3 CCS facility.
It shows the expected result that the heat duty is significantly increased when the CO2 capture efficiency is higher than
95%. Table 2 compares the increased average heat duty at the different percentages of CO2 capture using the heat duty
at between 80% to 90% of the CO2 capture efficiency as a base line. This illustrates that the optimum CO2 capture
efficiency is between 90% to 95% with the best results based on the heat duty analysis in this study. It was noted that
there was no disproportionate energy penalty for operating at 95% vs 90% capture efficiency.

Fig. 13 Correlation between CO2 capture efficiency and heat duty.

 GHGT-16 Jacobs, Tantikhajorngosol, Hill, Ruffini, Wilkes, Srisang, Feng, Daverne, Nelson 12

Table 2. Increase of average heat duty at different CO2 capture efficiency.

CO2 Capture Efficiency Increased Average Heat Duty
80% to 90% Base line
90% to 95% 0.00%
≥ 95% 2.69%
≥ 96% 3.15%
≥ 97% 3.49%
≥ 98% 3.92%
≥ 99% 4.67%

The correlation between the flue gas flow rate to the capture island and the heat duty is presented in Fig. 14. The
flue gas flow rate represents the amount of inlet CO2 to the CCP. Consequently, an increase in flue gas flow rate
increases the amount of inlet CO2 which increases the driving force in the CO2 absorber and results in a higher CO2
capture rate. The result in Fig. 14 shows that when the flue gas flow rate is operated between A and B, the heat duty
can be operated close to the designed value of the heat duty. Therefore, this range of flue gas flow rate is suggested
as the optimum operating condition. However, a broad range of heat duty can be observed when the flue gas flow rate
is close to the point A and the range is narrower when the flow rate is increased close to the point B. This behavior is
associated with the relationship between the CO2 capture rate and the heat duty shown in Fig. 12, i.e., that a high CO2
capture rate corresponds to a low heat duty.

Fig. 14 Correlation between flue gas flow rate and heat duty.

As previously stated, the optimization of the L/G ratio in the absorber is one of the critical operating parameters to
increase the efficiency of steam utilization and has the potential to reduce the amount of bypassed flue gas and
therefore the CO2 emission intensity. The correlation between the L/G ratio and heat duty provided in Fig. 15 shows
that the L/G ratio from BD3 CCS facility (January 2021 to July 2022) mostly falls between A and C (88% of the
dataset). 45% of the dataset is in the range between A and B of the L/G ratio while 43% of the dataset is in the range
between B and C. This result indicates that when the CCP is operated with the L/G ratio between A and B, the design
heat value can be achieved, especially when operated at an L/G ratio close to the design L/G value.
In addition, at the lower L/G ratio, the variability of the heat duty is less than when the higher L/G ratio is operated.
 GHGT-16 Jacobs, Tantikhajorngosol, Hill, Ruffini, Wilkes, Srisang, Feng, Daverne, Nelson 13

This indicates that the reduction of the solvent flow rate can be a potential solution to reduce the energy requirement
in the BD3 CCD facility. Additionally, the reduction of the bypassed flue gas can be successfully implemented with
the recommended lower range of the L/G ratio. However, validation of this approach requires more analysis in future
work.

Fig. 15 Correlation between L/G ratio and heat duty.

From the temperature dataset in the stripper of the CCP in Fig. 16, it is clearly seen that the best performance,
based on the heat duty, can be obtained with the stripper temperature between A and B and the design heat duty can
be achieved.

Fig. 16 Correlation between stripper temperature and heat duty.

 GHGT-16 Jacobs, Tantikhajorngosol, Hill, Ruffini, Wilkes, Srisang, Feng, Daverne, Nelson 14

4. Future Work

From the results published in this paper, potential future studies will be focused on the analysis of other operating
parameters, such as percent amine concentration, the temperature profile in the CO2 absorber, and other relevant
factors on the CO2 capture efficiency and the heat duty. Moreover, modelling to maximize the efficiency of the steam
utilization and to provide the optimum conditions for full flue gas capacity without bypassing the flue gas to the
existing stack will be determined. The economic analysis of the optimum conditions will be assessed as compared to
the current results.

5. Conclusion

This paper has provided the analysis results using a dataset from the BD3 CCS facility. The 6,047 data points from
the facility for the period from January 2021 to July 2022 were collected for the analysis to reduce the CO2 emission
intensity. The performance of the CCP based on CO2 capture efficiency, energy to CCP (indicating the use of steam),
and the heat duty are discussed in this work. The effects of flue gas flow rate, L/G ratio in the absorber, and the
temperature of the heat duty are included in the analysis.
The results show that, in 2021, over 90% CO2 capture efficiency was attained when the actual/designed CO2 capture
rate was operated between 70% to 80%. Sufficient steam to CCP is required to maintain the energy supply to operate
with over 90% CO2 capture efficiency and the targeted CO2 capture rate (2,100 to 3,000 tonnes/day). A more detailed
study of energy optimization with reduced BD3 load is necessary due to the limitation of the energy available to CCP
as the BD3 unit output is reduced.
The heat duty analysis indicates that the designed heat duty can be achieved when the CO2 capture rate is close to
3,000 tonnes/day. When the flue gas flow rate is increased or the L/G ratio is decreased, better performance of the
CCP based on the heat duty can be realized.

References

[1] Giannaris S, Jacobs B, Srisang W, Bruce C, Janowczyk D. Heat integration analysis and optimization for a post combustion CO2 capture retrofit
study of SaskPower’s Shand Power Station. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 2019; 84: 62-71.
[2] Giannaris S, Janowczyk D, Ruffini J, Hill K, Jacobs B, Bruce C, Feng Y, Srisang W. SaskPower’s Boundary Dam Unit 3 Carbon Capture
facility: The journey to achieving reliability. 15th International Conference on Green House Gas Control Technologies. UAE. 15th-18th March
2021.
[3] Worth K, White D, Chalaturnyk R, Sorenson J, Hawkes C, Rostron B, Johnson J, Young A. Aquistore project measurement, monitoring, and
verification: From concept to CO2 injection. Energy Procedia 2014; 63: 3202-3208.
[4] Liang Z, Rongwong W, Liu H, Fu K, Gao H, Cao F, Zhang R, Sema T, Henni A, Sumon K, Nath D, Gelowitz D, Srisang W, Saiwan C, Benamor
A, Al-Mari M, Shi H, Supap T, Chan C, Zhou Q, Abu-Zahra M, Wilson M, Olson W, Idem R, Tontiwachwuthikul P. Recent progress and new
developments in post-combustion carbon-capture technology with amine-based solvents. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control
2015; 40: 26-54.
[5] Oexman J, Kather A. Minimising the regeneration heat duty of post-combustion CO2 capture by wet chemical absorption: The misguided focus
on low heat absorption solvents. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 2010: 4: 36-43.