Technical Assistance Consultant’s Report

Project Number: 45096-001

September 2014

People’s Republic of China: Study on Carbon Capture

and Storage in Natural Gas-Based Power Plants
(Financed by the Carbon Capture and Storage Fund under the
Clean Energy Financing Partnership Facility)

Prepared by
Beijing Jiaotong University and North China Electric Power University
Beijing, China

For Datang International Power Generation Co., Ltd.

This consultant’s report does not necessarily reflect the views of ADB or the Government concerned, and
ADB and the Government cannot be held liable for its contents. (For project preparatory technical
assistance: All the views expressed herein may not be incorporated into the proposed project’s design.
 ADB Technical Assistance Project:
Aspen Simulation and Evaluation of Economic Feasibility of
CO2 Capture for
Gaojing Gas Fired Power Plant

Final

(English Version)

September 2014

Beijing Jiaotong University

North China Electric Power University

Edited by Steve Goldthorpe for ADB
 Table of Contents
1 Introduction............................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background and Significance .................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Research Objectives ................................................................................................................ 2
1.3 Research Scope ....................................................................................................................... 2
1.3.1 Amount of flue gas treatment ........................................................................................ 2
1.3.2 Operational mode ........................................................................................................... 2

2 MEA-based Carbon Capture and Chemical Process Simulation ................. 1

2.1 MEA-based Carbon Capture Technique .................................................................................. 1
2.2 Chemical Process Simulation .................................................................................................. 1

3 Basic Data for Process Simulation ............................................................ 3

3.1 Overview of extraction steam and flue gas conditions .......................................................... 3
3.1.1 Parameters of LP Steam .................................................................................................. 3
3.1.2 Quality of natural gas supply .......................................................................................... 3
3.1.3 Flue gas conditions.......................................................................................................... 3
3.2 Aspen Plus Modeling............................................................................................................... 4

4 Process Simulation for MEA-Based Carbon Capture ................................. 6

4.1 Process Description ................................................................................................................. 6
4.2 Definition and simulation of benchmark conditions .............................................................. 9
4.3 Models selection ................................................................................................................... 11
4.3.1 Reaction model ............................................................................................................. 11
4.3.2 Selection of equipment models .................................................................................... 11
4.3.3 Parameter research ...................................................................................................... 11
4.4 Results and Analysis .............................................................................................................. 12
4.4.1 Benchmark conditions .................................................................................................. 12
4.4.2 CO2 removal rate ........................................................................................................... 13
4.4.3 Flow rate of CO2-lean solution ...................................................................................... 14
4.4.4 Operating pressure of stripper ..................................................................................... 14
4.4.5 The temperature of rich solution at inlet of stripper.................................................... 14
4.4.6 The temperature of flue gas at inlet of absorber ......................................................... 15
4.4.7 CO2-lean MEA temperature at inlet of absorber .......................................................... 15
4.4.8 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 16

I
 4.5 Cooling water considerations ............................................................................................... 16
4.5.1 Cooling water temperature .......................................................................................... 16
4.5.2 Cooling water make up requirement ............................................................................ 17
4.5.3 Cooling water flow ........................................................................................................ 17

5 Economic Evaluation of MEA-Based Capture Process ............................. 19

5.1 Basic Data .............................................................................................................................. 19
5.2 Fixed Asset Investment ......................................................................................................... 20
5.3 Operating costs ..................................................................................................................... 21
5.3.1 MEA and demineralised water costs ............................................................................ 22
5.3.2 Utilities costs ................................................................................................................. 23
5.3.3 Overall operating Costs ................................................................................................. 24
5.3.4 Revised overall operating costs .................................................................................... 24
5.4 Influence of CO2 Price on Operating Cost ............................................................................. 26
5.5 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 26

6 Evaluation and Analysis of Retrofitting of Capture-ready Gas Fired

Power Plant ................................................................................................. 27
6.1 Land for Construction ........................................................................................................... 27
6.2 Power Plant efficiency .......................................................................................................... 28
6.3 Retrofitting Investment......................................................................................................... 29
6.4 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 30

7 Summary and Suggestions ..................................................................... 35

References

Appendix A

Tables
TABLE 3-1 PARAMETERS OF PILOT PLANT LP STEAM RESOURCE .................................................. 3

TABLE 3-2 NATURAL GAS COMPOSITION (% BY VOLUME) .............................................................. 3

TABLE 3-3 FLUE GAS PARAMETERS ........................................................................................................ 4

TABLE 3-4 FLUE GAS COMPOSITION ....................................................................................................... 4

TABLE 4-1 MAIN STREAMS OF THE ASPEN PLUS MODELING OF A SINGLE TRAIN..................... 8

TABLE 4-2 FLUE GAS FLOW RATE AND COMPOSITION.................................................................... 10

TABLE 4-3 PARAMETERS FOR LP STEAM AND COOLING WATER ................................................. 10

II
TABLE 4-4 PARAMETERS OF THE MODELING MODULES ................................................................ 12

TABLE 4-5 SIMULATION RESULTS AT BENCHMARK CONDITIONS ............................................... 13

TABLE 4-6 EFFECT OF CO2 CAPTURE RATE ON THE UTILITIES DEMAND.................................... 13

TABLE 4-7 EFFECT OF CO2-LEAN MEA FLOW ON THE UTILITIES DEMAND ................................ 14

TABLE 4-8 EFFECT OF OPERATING PRESSURE OF STRIPPER ON THE UTILITIES DEMAND..... 14

TABLE 4-9 EFFECT OF CO2-RICH MEA TEMPERATURE ON UTILITIES DEMAND ........................ 15

TABLE 4-10 INFLUENCE OF TEMPERATURE OF FLUE GAS AT ABSORBER INLET ....................... 15

TABLE 4-11 EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE OF LEAN MEA ON THE UTILITIES DEMAND ................ 15

TABLE 4-12 AIR AND COOLING WATER TEMPERATURE IN THE BEIJING REGION ...................... 16

TABLE 5-1 CAPITAL COST EVALUATION BASIS ................................................................................. 19

TABLE 5-2 CAPITAL COSTS PARAMETERS .......................................................................................... 19

TABLE 5-3 OPERATING COSTS ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................... 19

TABLE 5-4 GENERAL INVESTMENT PARAMETERS ............................................................................ 20

TABLE 5-5 ESCALATION ........................................................................................................................... 20

TABLE 5-6 COST OF EQUIPMENT UNITS INDICATED BY ASPEN PLUS.......................................... 20

TABLE 5-7 PROJECT CAPITAL COST ...................................................................................................... 21

TABLE 5-8 PRICES OF UTILITIES AND RAW MATERIAL ................................................................... 21

TABLE 5-9 ESTIMATED RAW MATERIAL OPERATING COSTS [ORIGINAL] ................................... 23

TABLE 5-10 ESTIMATED UTILITIES OPERATING COSTS [ORIGINAL]............................................... 23

TABLE 5-11 OPERATING COST PER TRAIN [ORIGINAL] ....................................................................... 24

TABLE 5-12 REVISED OPERATING COST PER TRAIN FOR BENCHMARK CASE .................................. 25

TABLE 6-2 PERFORMANCE OF RETROFIT OPTIONS FOR NGCC PLANT (IEAGHG, 2011) ........... 29

TABLE 6-3 COMPARISON OF CAPITAL COST ....................................................................................... 30

APPENDIX A

TABLE A-1 DESIGN DATA OF ADSORBER-TOWER ................................................. 66

TABLE A-2 DESIGN DATA OF COMPER .................................................................. 66
TABLE A-3 DESIGN DATA OF COOLER1 ................................................................. 67
TABLE A-4 DESIGN DATA OF COOLER4 ................................................................. 67
TABLE A-5 DESIGN DATA OF COOLER5 ................................................................. 68

III
 TABLE A-6 DESIGN DATA OF EXCH ........................................................................ 68
TABLE A-7 DESIGN DATA OF FLASH ...................................................................... 69
TABLE A-8 DESIGN DATA OF GGH ......................................................................... 69
TABLE A-9 DESIGN DATA OF PUMP ...................................................................... 70
TABLE A-10 DESIGN DATA OF SEP......................................................................... 70
TABLE A-11 DESIGN DATA OF STRIPPER-REBOILER .............................................. 71
TABLE A-12 DESIGN DATA OF STRIPPER-TOWER .................................................. 71
TABLE A-13 DESIGN DATA OF WASHER ................................................................ 72

FIGURES

FIGURE 2-1 ABSORPTION BASED POST COMBUSTION CAPTURE (GCCSI, 2012)............................. 1

FIGURE 4-1 FLUE GAS PRETREATMENT STAGE OF ASPEN PLUS PROCESS MODELING .............. 7

FIGURE 4-2 CO2 CAPTURE STAGE OF ASPEN PLUS PROCESS MODELING ....................................... 7

FIGURE 6-1 SITE LAYOUT PLAN OF GAS FIRED POWER PLANT WITHOUT CARBON CAPTURE
(IEAGHG, 2012) .......................................................................................................................................... 31

FIGURE 6-2 SITE LAYOUT PLAN OF GAS FIRED POWER PLANT WITH CARBON CAPTURE
(IEAGHG, 2012) .......................................................................................................................................... 32

FIGURE 6-3 STEAM TURBINE RETROFIT WITH A FIXED INTERMEDIATE TURBINE OUTLET AND
TWO LET-DOWN BACK PRESSURE TURBINES (IEAGHG, 2011), FIGURE A3.2. ........................... 33

FIGURE 6-4 RETROFIT OF A NGCC PLANT WITH THE ADDITIONAL OF TWO BACK-PRESSURE
TURBINES (IEAGHG, 2011), FIGURE A4.6. ............................................................................................ 33

FIGURE 6-5 RETROFIT OF A NGCC PLANT WITH TWO THROTTLING VALVES (IEAGHG, 2011),
FIGURE A4.7).............................................................................................................................................. 34

IV
 List of Abbreviations

ADB Asian Development Bank

ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
CAPEX Capital expenditure
CCS Carbon capture and storage
CER Certified emission reduction
CHP Combined heat and power
CNY Renminbi Yuan
DIPGCL Datang International Power Generation Co., Ltd.
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GHG Greenhouse gas
IEA International Energy Agency
IP Intermediate Pressure
LHV Lower heating value
LP Low Pressure
NGCC Natural Gas Combined Cycle
PCC Post-Combustion Capture
PRC The People’s Republic of China
ROR Rate of return
USD United States dollar

V
 1 Introduction
1.1 Background and Significance
CO2 is the main greenhouse gas (GHG) responsible for Climate Change. Its
atmospheric concentration has increased to 401ppm in June 2014 (CO2now, 2014). With
its rapid economic development in recent years, the Peoples Republic of China (PRC)
became the largest energy consuming country in the world in 2009, with the consumption
of 20% of global primary energy and 47% of global coal. In 2010, the PRC surpassed the
U.S. and became the country with the largest total carbon emissions. Consequently, the
PRC government made tremendous efforts to control its carbon emissions. On November
26, 2009, it released its ambitious GHG emissions cut target at the Copenhagen Climate
Change Conference. China plans to cut its GHG emissions per unit of gross domestic
product (GDP) by 40 to 45 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.
Replacing coal-fired power plants with gas power plants is one of the major measures
for CO2 emissions reduction. Additionally, the gas power plant is especially suited to be
used by developing countries, and regions like the PRC, to supply variable loads, provided a
low cost natural gas supply can be accessed. In order to reduce CO2 emissions, and
achieve other environmental benefits, Beijing plans to convert all of its coal-fired power
plants into gas power plants and heat supply centers. As one part of this plan, Datang
International Power Generation Co Ltd. (DIPGCL) is now implementing a gas power plant
conversion project at one of its suburban thermal power plants, Gaojing Combined Heat and
Power (CHP). This project plans to shut down a 660MW coal-fired unit, which is being
replaced by 3 sets of F-Grade gas turbines, each in a 350MW Natural Gas Combined Cycle
(NGCC) configuration. After project completion, Gaojing CHP will have the power supply
capacity of 6240GWh and winter heat supply capacity of 18 million cubic meters of hot
water per annum.
Nevertheless, large amounts of CO2 will still be discharged from gas power plants. In
the long run, gas power plants will be incorporated into the industry scope of CO2 emission
restrictions, which could mean that they are required to further reduce their CO2 emissions,
by implementing Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).
In light of this, ADB and the PRC government co-financed a project called, “Study on
Carbon Capture and Storage in Natural Gas-Based Power Plants” (TA 8001-PRC), which was
carried out by a research team administered by Beijing Jiaotong University (BJTU). The
main purpose of this project is to develop the CCS roadmap for NGCC plants and to establish
the CCS ready power plant criteria for Gaojing CHP. The research team conducted a
detailed evaluation of technical and economic feasibility of retrofitting CCS to Gaojing CHP’s
gas-fired power plant, including a top-down economic assessment based on published data.
This research project is an extension of the TA 8001-PRC study and attempts to make a
bottom-up economic assessment of the proposed Gaojing CHP CCS plant.

1
 1.2 Research Objectives
The main objectives of this project are as below:
• Through process simulation, to evaluate CO2 capture energy consumption in
different scenarios and optimize that consumption;
• To make an economic feasibility evaluation of Gaojing CHP’s CO2 capture
retrofitting;
• To evaluate the advantages of meeting capture-ready criteria in subsequent CCS
implementation; and
• To recommend the capture-ready conditions for Gaojing CHP at different
carbon capture rates.

1.3 Research Scope

The research project will consider six scenarios comprising a matrix of three scales of
operation and two load factors

1.3.1 Amount of flue gas treatment

There are a total of three 350MW NGCC and heat supply units in Gaojing Gas Fired
Power Plant. Its three gas turbines are configured based on a “one gas turbine with one
steam cycle” unit and a “two gas turbines with one steam cycle” unit.
The three alternative scales of operation are:
• “One-for-one unit” scenario: In this scenario, carbon capture treatment is
applied to flue gas in Gaojing CHP’s “one-for-one unit” only. Given there is
only one gas turbine in “one-for-one unit”, this scenario is equivalent to treating
one third of flue gas of the plant.
• “Two-on-one unit” scenario: in this scenario, carbon capture treatment is
applied to the flue gas in Gaojing CHP’s “two-on-one unit” only. There are two
gas turbines in the “two-on-one unit”, and therefore, it is equivalent in this
scenario to treating two thirds of flue gas of the plant.
• “All-plant flue gas” scenario, i.e. “one-for-one unit + two-on-one unit” scenario:
In this scenario, carbon capture treatment is applied to all flue gas in Gaojing
CHP’s “One-for-one unit” and “two-on-one unit”. Hence, it is equivalent in
this scenario to treating the flue gas of the whole plant.

1.3.2 Operational mode

During the heating season, Gaojing Gas Fired Power Plant needs to supply heat
externally and generate electricity. During the non-heating season, it only needs to
generate electricity. This research analyses CO2 capture in two operational modes:

2
 • Scenario 1: running 2880 hours during the winter heating seasons + running
2620 hours during the non-heating seasons (spring and autumn), totaling 5500
hours in the year; and
• Scenario 2: running 2880 hours during the winter heating seasons +running
4620 hours during the non-heating seasons (spring, summer and autumn),
totaling 7500 hours in the year.
For these six scenarios, this research uses the chemical process simulation software,
Aspen Plus, to undertake the process simulation and to analyze fixed asset investment and
operating expenses. The influence of some process parameters, such as carbon capture
rate, is assessed on LP steam requirement, electricity demand and cooling water
requirement.
This research carries out the simulation and analysis of carbon capture process only,
excluding CO2 dehydration, compression, transport and sequestration.

3
 2 MEA-based Carbon Capture and Chemical Process Simulation

2.1 MEA-based Carbon Capture Technique

MEA-based carbon capture technology is a mature post-combustion carbon capture
technology with fast absorption rate and efficiency. It has been widely used for CO2
recovery in some industrial processes.
Figure 2-1 shows a typical process flow diagram of an MEA-based carbon capture
process used to capture of CO2 from a flue gas. In this process, CO2 in the flue gas is
absorbed by MEA in the absorber at a low temperature (about 35-40oC), and the CO2-rich
MEA is then heated (to about 110-125 oC) and CO2 is regenerated in the stripper.

Figure 2-1 Absorption based Post Combustion Capture (GCCSI, 2012)

The Aspen Plus modeling that has been carried out on this process flow sheet is
described in more detail in Chapter 4.

2.2 Chemical Process Simulation

Computer simulation is useful for the preliminary design, operation optimization,
sensitivity analysis, and technical and economic assessments of a chemical process.

1
 Currently, software for chemical process simulation widely used by industry mainly
includes ASPEN PLUS, PRO/II, HYSYS, ChemCAD and gPROMS. This research uses Aspen
Tech’s Aspen Plus software. The outstanding features of Aspen Plus are its complete
physical properties databases. Physical properties models and data are the foundation for
accurate simulation, and Aspen Plus software possesses a complete physical properties
system most suited to the chemical industry. Its databases include pure component data,
electrolyte solution data, solids data, Henry’s constants, binary interaction parameter
libraries, inorganic material data, combustion data, water solution data and other data for
various chemical and physical parameters.
Additionally, Aspen Plus provides pre-prepared carbon capture modules that use
various amine absorbents for carbon capture in industrial process simulations. It provides
physical properties data and binary interaction data that are suited to the simulation of
MEA-based carbon capture process in the natural gas power plant. Aspen Plus is widely
used and the results of other simulations have been well validated.

2
 3 Basic Data for Process Simulation

3.1 Overview of extraction steam and flue gas conditions

3.1.1 Parameters of LP Steam

The stripper reboiler in the process of MEA-based carbon capture uses LP steam
heating and stripping of the CO2-rich MEA solution to desorb CO2 and regenerate MEA.
The LP steam stream used in the Gaojing pilot plant comes from the gland sealing steam
stream at conditions shown in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1 Parameters of pilot plant LP steam resource

Unit Value
o
Temperature C 150

Pressure bar 4.75

[Editorial Note - In a commercial scale optimized CO2 capture plant the large volume of
steam required for the stripper reboiler would be extracted from the crossover between the
medium pressure and low pressure turbines in the power station steam cycle and would be
depressurized is a power recovery turbine and desuperheated to increase its volume.]

3.1.2 Quality of natural gas supply

Gaojing Gas Fired Power Plant’s gas turbine unit uses natural gas supplied via
Shanxi-Beijing No. 3 Line. Table 3-2 provides the composition (volume percent) and LHV of
natural gas.
Table 3-2 Natural Gas composition (% by volume)

CH4 C2H6 C3H8 C4H10 C5H12 CO2 N2 H2S He

96.12% 0.501% 0.118% 0.033% 0.012% 2.6% 0.147% 4 ppmv 0.469%
Lower Heating Value (LHV) 32.72 MJ/Nm3 (at normalized conditions of 101.32 kPa and 20 oC)

3.1.3 Flue gas conditions

Feed gas processed by the CO2 capture system comes from the exhaust of the host
power station’s heat recovery boilers. The flue gas may be subject to denitrification
treatment. Table 3-3 and Table 3-4 show flue gas parameters and gas composition.

3
 Table 3-3 Flue gas Parameters

Unit Value
Flue gas density kg/Nm3 1.253
Flue gas temp. o
C 79
Flue gas pressure KPa 101.33
Flue gas velocity m/s 23.1
Flue gas mass flow kg/s 708.3

Table 3-4 Flue gas composition

Unit Value
Ar 0.89
CO2 4.2
H2O % by volume 8.23
N2 74.71
O2 11.96
3
NOx mg/Nm 24.6
SO2 mg/Nm3 0.53
Dust mg/Nm3 0

3.2 Aspen Plus Modeling

3.2.1 Simulation of MEA-based carbon capture process
Property methods and process simulation options need to be selected for simulating
the MEA-based carbon capture process.
Property method is the method used for the presentation of thermodynamic and
kinetic parameters for physico-chemical properties and inter-species interactions (reactions)
of all the species involving in the chemical process, and for the parameters that are
unavailable in computer databases. In terms of the amine solution system of the
MEA-based carbon capture process, for the property method in the liquid phase, the
ELECNRTL method calculated via non-ideal models is used for liquid phase material (such as,
water, amine and hydramine) to absorb acid gas. For gaseous phase parameters,
Redlich-Kwong equation is selected.
For the amine solution system, Aspen Plus possesses a dedicated data package suited
to MEA-based carbon capture, which describes the dynamics on the reaction between MEA
and CO2 in the liquid phase. Therefore, KEMEA data package of MELECNRTL is used for this
research. This data package is suited to the circumstances where the MEA concentration is
<50% and solution temperature is <130oC.

4
3.2.2 Unit models
In the simulation of chemical processes, various chemical unit process and equipment
are represented by modules. The main unit modules of MEA-based carbon capture
process include absorbers, strippers, fans, pumps, splitters, mixers and heat exchangers.
The calculation methods for simulation of modules are either equilibrium or
non-equilibrium methods. Both the absorber and stripper involve multistage gas-liquid
distillation operation, for which RADFRAC or RATEFRAC model can be used. RATEFRAC is a
rate-based model for non-equilibrium separation. It simulates actual tray or packed
columns, rather than idealized representations. RADFRAC is assumed to be an equilibrium
stage model, suited to the optimization for theoretical analysis. RATEFRAC model needs to
be used for the optimization of process parameters and in economic efficiency analysis. In
these simulations, Aspen’s RATEFRAC module is used.

5
 4 Process Simulation for MEA-Based Carbon Capture
4.1 Process Description
An illustrative process flow diagram for the MEA CO2 capture process is shown in Figure
2-1. The corresponding diagrams for the configuration that has been modeled are shown
in Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2. Data for the main streams of the Aspen Plus modeling of a
single train of the MEA process are presented in Table 4-1 Main Streams of the Aspen Plus
Modeling of a single train.
The flue gas (FLUEGAS) from the denitrification system of the host power station enters
a separator (SEP) to condense part of the water vapor from the flue gas to decrease the load
on the compressors. The compressors (COMPR1-COMPR4) compress the flue gas to the
absorber inlet pressure. The compressed flue gas then enters a gas-gas-heater (GGH) and
a cooler (COOLER1) to be cooled to the absorber inlet temperature.
In the absorber (ADSORBER), cooled flue gas comes into contact with the recycled
CO2-lean MEA-water solution (LEAN-ABS), and most of the CO2 is absorbed by MEA and thus
separated from the flue gas. The processed flue gas (TREATGAS) and a CO2-rich amine
(RICH-MEA) are the output streams from the absorber module.
The processed flue gas (TREATGAS) is cooled and enters a separator (WASHER) to
condense water vapour and to remove MEA from the vented gas stream. The condensate
(CONDWAT) discharged from WASHER flows back to a mixer (MIXER) to mix with the
make-up water part of the MEA solution (MEAWAT) and recycled CO2-lean solution. The
make-up of MEA is not modeled. The temperature of the scrubbed flue gas from WASHER
is 32oC. The flue gas at this low temperature is not buoyant. Ideally, the discharged flue
gas should be warmer than 75oC. Some Chinese plants discharge flue gas at 40-50oC after
desulphurization.
The clean flue gas (VENTGAS) discharged from WASHER enters the gas-gas-heater
(GGH) to be heated to a temperature of 60oC prior to discharge to atmosphere.
The CO2-rich solution (RICH-MEA) discharged from the absorber is pumped to the
lean/rich solution heat exchanger (EXCH), where the CO2-rich solution is preheated by the
CO2-lean solution discharged from the stripper (STRIPPER). The preheated CO2-rich
solution enters the stripper and is heated by LP steam in the reboiler to strip CO2 out of the
CO2-rich solution. CO2 recovered from the amine solvent leaves from the top of the
stripper accompanied by water vapor. That stream is cooled to condense water, which is
separated and flows back into the stripper.
The CO2-lean solution from the base of the stripper column is partially cooled in the
heat exchanger EXCH by the CO2-rich solution stream. Because absorbent (MEA solution,
MEA and H2O) degrades in the process and escapes with the processed flue gas, a mixer
(MIXER) is added to the system to make up the lost MEA solution. The mixed stream is
further cooled in COOLER4 to the absorber inlet temperature before entering the absorber.

6
 Figure 4-1 Flue gas pretreatment stage of Aspen Plus process modeling

[Editorial note – The use of a bank of gas compressors, to substantially increase the pressure for the
feed gas to the absorber, results from the assumption of a large pressure drop in the vapour phase passing
through the absorber. In commercial MEA plant designs the vapour phase pressure drop across the
absorber is minimized by equipment design, in particular by ensuring that flooding of the column with liquid
does not occur and that the gas flows upwards freely over a packing that is wetted with down-flowing MEA
solution. It appears that in this Aspen Plus modeling study the absorber has been modeled as a flooded
column in which the gas phase is bubbled through the MEA solution against a large hydraulic head.
Furthermore, since the flue gas is the exhaust gas from a gas turbine, the driving force could be
provided by a back pressure on the gas turbine. Accordingly, the high capital cost and high energy
consumption reported for feed gas compression in this modeling study is not representative of a likely
commercial plant design. A low-power booster fan might be used to aid control of the process.]

Figure 4-2 CO2 Capture Stage of Aspen Plus process modeling

7
 Table 4-1 Main Streams of the Aspen Plus Modeling of a single train
Name FLUEGAS SEP-OUT FLUE-ABS TREATGAS CONDWAT VENTGAS
Mass Flow kg/hr 637,470 36,410 601,060 595,240 18,696 576,546
Mole Flow kmol/hr 23,048 2,021 21,027 21,517 1,036 20,480
o
Temperature C 79 30 40 48 32 32
Pressure bar 1.01 1.01 1.5 1.1 1.1 1.1
Vapor Frac 1 0 1 1 0 1
3
Volume Flow m /hr 665,477 37 364,638 521,493 19 472,507
Enthalpy Gcal/hr -217 -138 -107 -114 -71 -56
Component mass flows kg/hr
H2O 52,468 36,406 16,062 35,071 18,651 16,416
CO2 26,776 1.4 26,775 2,213 0.1 2,199
N2 476,292 0.5 476,291 476,237 0.3 476,238
O2 76,248 0.1 76,247 76,231 0.1 76,231
MEA 24 3.2 Trace
+
MEA trace 19.8
-
MEACOO trace 2.2
-
HCO3 trace trace 17.1
2-
CO3 trace trace 0.5
ARGON 5,674 2.2 5,672 5,452 1.2 5,4510
SO2 trace trace trace trace
-
HSO3 0.25
2-
SO3 trace
NO 12 trace 12 12 trace 12
Main streams of Aspen Plus modeling of a single train - continued
Name RICH-MEA RICH-STP FLASHED LEAN-STP MEAWAT LEAN-ABS
Mass Flow kg/hr 980,663 980,663 25,049 955,600 539 974,843
Mole Flow kmol/hr 39,941 40,013 576 39,926 30 40,986
Temperature oC 38 95 30 120 25 40
Pressure bar 1.1 2.7 2.5 1.9 2.1 1.3
Vapor Frac 0 0 1 0 0 0
3
Volume Flow m /hr 1,026 1,091 5,743 1,050 0.5 1,008
Enthalpy Gcal/hr -2898 -2853 -53 -2,770 -2 -2,905
Component mass flows kg/hr
H2O 638,757 638,198 182 640,234 539 659,685
CO2 103 3,279 24,575 234 0.8
N2 55 55 55 trace 0.3
O2 17 17 17 trace 0.1
MEA 64,958 77,330 trace 130,089 0.011 127,662
+
MEA 106,929 100,760 69,848 0.004 71,102
-
MEACOO 160,975 150,233 112,134 114,227
-
HCO3 6,300 9,854 2,863 1,094
CO32- 2,348 715 195 1,068
ARGON 221 221 221 0.3 1.5
SO2 trace trace trace trace trace
-
HSO3 trace trace trace trace
2-
SO3 0.51 0.47 0.4 0.4
NO 0.06 0.06 0.1 trace trace

8
 In a commercial MEA plant there would be a discharge and reclaim system of waste
solvent from the LEAN-STP stream between the reboiler and EXCH. However, due to the
difficulty of the simulation of MEA degradation, this system is omitted in this modeling flow
sheet. This simplification of the flow sheet does not alter the results of the parameter
researches in this chapter. In Chapter 5, the loss of MEA due to degradation is estimated
based on the data of process vendors.

4.2 Definition and simulation of benchmark conditions

4.2.1 Basic hypothesis for simulation
The power plant’s exhaust gas consists of many constituents, and various other factors
have impacts on the absorption process. In order to simplify the simulation process, the
basic hypothesis of simulation is as follows:
(1)NOx consists of NO, NO2 and N2O. The content of NOx in post-denitrification flue
gas is low, and even lower than the maximum NO2 concentration that can be
tolerated by MEA absorbent. In the simulation, consideration will not be given to
the interactions between NOx and MEA in the simulation. The MEA loss resulted
from degradation will be estimated based on the data of suppliers.
[Editorial note – The Chinese NOx emission standard for gas fired power stations is
50 mg(NO2)/Nm3 (24.6 ppm by volume). The recommended maximum NOx content
of MEA scrubber feed gas is 20 ppm by volume. So improved denitrification might
be required prior to CO2 capture.]
(2) The influence of oxidation and corrosive effects in the simulation process are not
considered;
(3) The reaction process is assumed to be adiabatic;
(4) In the state of gas-liquid equilibrium, CO2, oxygen and nitrogen will conform to
Henry’s Law.
Due to huge amounts of flue gas for processing, it is impossible for a single absorber to
process such a huge amount of flue gas, even if just handling the flue gas from one gas
turbine. For this reason, every gas turbine is equipped with 4 trains of carbon capture
system, each train including 4 compressors, 1 absorber and 1 stripper. Each train will
process one twelfth of flue gas from all the three gas turbines, i.e. each train will process
one quarter of the flue gas from a single gas turbine.
Flue gas flow, velocity and composition in the post-denitrification flue gas for the
one-for-one unit of Gaojing Gas Fired Power Plant, are shown in Table 4-2. Parameters for
low pressure stream extraction and cooling water from the capture process are shown in
Table 4-3.

9
 Table 4-2 Flue gas flow rate and composition

Units Parameter
Temp. o
C 79
Pressure kPa 101.32
1 GT Flue gas Flow tonnes/h 2,550
Amount of flue gas flow processed by a
tonnes/h 637.5
single train of carbon capture
Flue gas composition (volume %)
Ar 0.89%
CO2 4.2%
H2O 8.23%
N2 74.71%
O2 11.96%
NOx 20 ppmv
SO2 0.4 ppmv

Table 4-3 Parameters for LP steam and Cooling Water

Unit Value
o
Temperature of LP steam C 150
Pressure of LP steam bar 4.75
o
Cold End Temp. difference of the Reboiler C 5
o
Temperature of cooling water C 15
Pressure of cooling water bar 1.013

4.2.2 Definition of benchmark conditions

In the simulation, MEA characteristics embedded in modules of Aspen Plus are used to
build thermodynamic and mass transfer models. They use ELECNRTL models to describe
the thermodynamic properties of the MEA-H2O-CO2 system. The simulated benchmark
conditions are defined as below:
• CO2 removal efficiency is nominally 90%;
(Table 4-1 shows the simulation results of main streams for one train of CO2 capture
system. Stream FLUEGAS is the flue gas stream flowing into the capture system and
stream FLASHED is the CO2 product stream flowing off the capture system.
CO2 capture rate is calculated according to this equation：
mass low of CO in the stream of FLASHED
Capture rate of CO =
mass low of CO in the steam of FLUEGAS
According to the CO2 flow rate of stream FLUEGAS and stream FLASHED in Table 4-1,
the CO2 capture rate is 91.79% in the benchmark case.)
• Absorbent concentration is 30% by weight MEA;

10
 • Stripper pressure is 1.9 bar;
• Temperature of CO2-rich solution at the stripper’s inlet is 95oC;
• Temperature of CO2-lean solution at the absorber’s inlet is 40 oC; and,
• Temperature of the flue gas at the absorber’s inlet is 40oC.

4.3 Models selection

4.3.1 Reaction model

Due to existence of multi-stage equilibrium and dynamic reversible reaction, the
reaction and absorption of MEA-H2O-CO2 system are complicated. The equilibrium
reactions in this model include the following, in which MEA is represented as R-NH2:
2H O = H O! + OH # (4-1)
CO + 2H O = HCO# + H O! (4-2)
HCO# + H O = CO #
+ H O! (4-3)
R − NH ! + H O = R − NH + H O! (4-4)
R − NH − COO# + H O = R − NH + HCO# (4-5)
SO + 2H O = HSO# + H O! (4-6)
HSO# + H O = SO #
+ H O! (4-7)
The reaction equilibrium constants and kinetic constants included in the Aspen Plus
modeling software are used in this simulation.

4.3.2 Selection of equipment models

• RATEFRAC model is used for absorber and stripper;
• HEATER unit model is used for the COOLER1, COOLER4 and COOLER5; HEATX model,
which is a model for a two-stream heat exchanger for the gas-gas heat exchanger
GGH and the lean/rich solution heat exchanger EXCH;
• MIXER model is used for the MIXER and MIXER3;
• FLASH2 Model is used for the gas-liquid separators (SEP, WASHER and FLASH);
• PUMP model is used for rich liquid pump.
• COMPR model is used for feed gas compressors.

4.3.3 Parameter research

In this chapter, the effects of the parameters below on the utility requirements of the
CO2 capture process will be investigated:
• CO2 removal efficiency;
• CO2-Lean solution flow rate.
• Operating pressure of stripper;
• Temperature of rich solution at the inlet of the stripper;
• Temperature of flue gas at the inlet of the absorber;

11
 • Temperature of lean solution at the inlet of the absorber;
The following performance indicators used to evaluate parameter influence on the
absorption/stripping process:
• Reboiler thermal duty for CO2 stripper (GJ/t CO2);
• Amount of low pressure steam needed by the stripper (t/t CO2);
[Editorial note – the low pressure steam demand is equivalent to the reboiler thermal
duty at an enthalpy change of 2.217 GJ/tonne, which corresponds to the enthalpy difference
between saturated steam at 150oC and 4.75 bar and water condensate at 125oC. Almost
all that heat would be delivered at 150oC, which may give rise to excessive thermal
degradation of the MEA]
• Electrical power (kW/t CO2); and,
• Consumption of cooling water (t/t CO2).
Table 4-4 Parameters of the modeling modules
Model Temperature, oC Pressure, bar
COOLER1 DHE TEMA EXCH 40 1.7
COOLER4 DHE TEMA EXCH 40 1.5
COOLER5 DHE TEMA EXCH 40 1.2
EXCH DHE TEMA EXCH 95
GGH DHE TEMA EXCH 60
COMPR1,2,3,4 DGC CENTRIF 1.7
PUMP DCP CENTRIF 2.7
FLASH-flash vessel DVT CYLINDER 30 2.5
SEP-flash vessel DVT CYLINDER 30 1
WASHER-flash vessel DVT CYLINDER 32.3
MIXER C 2.1
MIXER3 C 1.7
o
Temp. - C Press.- bar No. stages Diam.- m
STRIPPER-reboiler DRB THERMOSIPH 125
STRIPPER-tower DTW TRAYED 1.9 7 12
ADSORBER-tower DTW TRAYED 1.1 12 11

4.4 Results and Analysis

4.4.1 Benchmark conditions

The simulation results at benchmark condition are shown in Table 4-5.

In the sensitivity studies the effect of one of the parameters on process performance is
investigated and the other parameters remain unchanged. In this situation, the CO2
capture rate may change. If so, the results presented are calculated to correspond to
the consistent basis of the amounts of utilities required for capturing one tonne of CO2.
In the reporting of sensitivity studies the benchmark results are presented in bold.

12
 Table 4-5 Simulation Results at Benchmark Conditions

Unit Value
GCal/h 35.7
Duty of reboiler
GJ/t CO2 6.03
tonnes/h 67.47
Consumption of LP steam
t/t CO2 2.72
tonnes/h 974.8
Flow of lean solution
t/t CO2 39.67
Electricity requirement
MW 11.39
Electricity for compressors
kW/t CO2 463.4
kW 53.3
Electricity for CO2-rich solution pump
kW/t CO2 2.17
Total Electricity requirement MW 11.63
kW/t CO2 473.1
Cooling water requirement
tonnes/h 224.8
Cooling water for flue gas(COOLER1)
t/t CO2 9.15
Tonnes/h 912.2
Cooling water for lean solution(COOLER4)
t/t CO2 37.12
Tonnes/h 280.8
Cooling water for CO2 product(COOLER5)
t/t CO2 11.43
tonnes/h 141.8
Total cooling water requirement
t/t CO2 57.69

4.4.2 CO2 removal rate

Table 4-6 shows the influence of CO2 capture rate on the utility requirement. The
electricity requirement increases with an increase in CO2 capture rate. However, the duty
of reboiler, steam consumption of reboiler and the cooling water requirement reach their
minimum between CO2 capture rates of 76% and 91%.

Table 4-6 Effect of CO2 capture rate on the utilities demand

CO2 capture Duty of Reboiler Steam Electricity Cooling Water

rate % GJ/tCO2 t/tCO2 kW/tCO2 t/tCO2
99.3% 7.25 3.27 436.4 74.6
91.8% 6.03 2.72 473.1 57.7
91.1% 5.82 2.63 476.0 53.1
76.2% 5.60 2.53 568.7 51.0
64.2% 8.50 3.83 675.9 319.7

13
4.4.3 Flow rate of CO2-lean solution
Table 4-7 shows the influence of CO2-lean solvent flow rate on the utilities
requirement. The duty of reboiler, steam consumption of reboiler and the cooling water
requirement decrease with an increase in flow rate of CO2-lean solution. On the other
hand, with an increase in flow rate of lean solution, the electricity requirement increases
and CO2 capture rate increases also.
Table 4-7 Effect of CO2-Lean MEA flow on the utilities demand

Lean flow Duty of Reboiler Steam Electricity Cooling Water

tonnes/h GJ/tCO2 t/tCO2 kW/tCO2 t/tCO2
693.4 5.88 2.65 660.2 54.9
974.8 6.09 2.75 473.1 57.7
162.5 10.6 4.77 437.3 130.7

4.4.4 Operating pressure of stripper

Table 4-8 shows the influence of the operating pressure of the stripper on the utilities
requirement. With an increase in operating pressure of stripper, the duty of reboiler, the
steam consumption, the cooling water requirement and the electricity requirement reach
their minimum at 1.9 bar.
Table 4-8 Effect of operating pressure of stripper on the utilities demand

Operating Duty of
Steam Electricity Cooling Water
pressure Reboiler
t/tCO2 kW/tCO2 t/tCO2
bar GJ/tCO2
1.5 6.45 2.91 446.8 72.8
1.9 5.57 2.51 442.9 52.8
2 6.03 2.72 561.0 56.5

4.4.5 The temperature of rich solution at inlet of stripper

Table 4-9 shows the influence of the temperature of rich solution at inlet of stripper on
the utilities requirement. With an increase in the temperature of rich solution at inlet of
stripper, the duty of reboiler, the steam consumption and the cooling water requirement
decrease. However, the electricity requirement increases with an increase in the
temperature of rich solution at inlet of stripper. In the temperature range of 95-99oC, an
increase in the temperature of rich solution at inlet of stripper exerts few effect on the
amount of electrical energy consumption, but results in an large decrease in CO2 capture
rate. As the result, the electricity requirement for capturing one tone of CO2 increases with
an increase in the temperature of rich solution at inlet of stripper.

14
 Table 4-9 Effect of CO2-rich MEA temperature on utilities demand

Temperature of Duty of Reboiler Steam Electricity Cooling Water

CO2-rich MEA oC GJ/tCO2 t/tCO2 kW/tCO2 t/tCO2
95 oC 6.03 2.72 561.0 56.5
96 oC 5.94 2.68 578.7 55.3
98 oC 5.71 2.58 592.3 52.5
99 oC 5.60 2.53 597.1 51.2

4.4.6 The temperature of flue gas at inlet of absorber

Table 4-10 shows the influence of the temperature of flue gas at the inlet of the
absorber on the utilities requirement. An increase in the temperature of the flue gas at
the inlet of the absorber results in a decrease in the CO2 adsorption efficiency of solvent,
and hence a decrease in CO2 capture rate. As a result, the duty of reboiler, the steam
consumption and electrical energy consumption for capturing one tonne of CO2 increases.
On the other hand, with an increase in the temperature of flue gas at inlet of absorber, the
cooling water flow required to cool the flue gas decreases, while the CO2 capture rate
decreases. An outcome is that cooling water requirement for capturing one tonne of CO2
reaches its minimum at the flue gas temperature of 45oC.
Table 4-10 Influence of temperature of flue gas at absorber inlet

Temperature Duty of Reboiler Steam Electricity Cooling Water

of flue gas GJ/tCO2 t/tCO2 kW/tCO2 t/tCO2
40 oC 5.57 2.51 442.9 52.8
45 oC 5.72 2.58 532.6 52.1
48 oC 5.77 2.61 532.7 52.4

4.4.7 CO2-lean MEA temperature at inlet of absorber

Table 4-11 shows the influence of CO2-lean MEA temperature at the inlet of the
absorber on utilities requirement. With an increase in CO2-lean temperature at the inlet of
the absorber, the duty of the reboiler, the steam requirement, and also the cooling water
requirement decrease. However, electricity requirement for capturing one tonne of CO2
increases with an increase in the CO2-lean temperature at the inlet of the absorber.
Table 4-11 Effect of temperature of lean MEA on the utilities demand

Temperature Duty of Reboiler Steam Electricity Cooling Water

of lean MEA GJ/tCO2 t/tCO2 kW/tCO2 t/tCO2
38oC 5.80 2.62 489.7 57.6
40oC 6.03 2.72 473.1 57.7
41oC 5.79 2.61 494.0 52.4
44oC 5.77 2.60 500.5 46.9

15
4.4.8 Summary
• The energy consumption is lowest at a CO2 capture rate between 76% and 91%.
• The effect of certain parameters on one of the energy consumption indicators may
be different from its effect on other energy consumption indicators, so the selection
of the optimal operating condition should be decided by the evaluation of the effects
of these parameters on the total cost of capture process.
• If the lowest consumption of LP steam is used as an object for optimization of the
operating conditions, the optimal operation conditions are as follows:
• Operating pressure of stripper is 1.9 bar,
• The temperature of rich solution at the inlet of stripper is 99oC;
• The temperature of flue gas at inlet of absorber is 40oC;and
• The temperature of lean solution at inlet of absorber is 44oC.
• If the lowest consumption of electrical energy is used as an object for optimization of
the operating conditions, the different optimal operation conditions are as follows:
• The temperature of rich solution at the inlet of stripper is 95oC; and
• The temperature of lean solution at the inlet of absorber is 38oC.

4.5 Cooling water considerations

Three coolers have been modeled in the carbon capture system, which require cooling
water. In the modeled Gaojing CHP’s carbon capture system, the coolers are Cooler1,
Cooler4 and Cooler5. The required amount of cooling water is related to the temperature
of cooling water.

4.5.1 Cooling water temperature

Cooling water in the condenser’s recirculation cooling water system in the steam cycle
is used as the cooling water for Gaojing CHP’s carbon capture system. Table 4-12 shows
the average temperature of various seasons and average operating temperature of
recirculation cooling water at a power plant in the Beijing region.
Table 4-12 Air and Cooling Water Temperature in the Beijing Region
o
C Winter Spring Autumn Summer
Average Air Temp. -5～+5 1～12 15～25 18～29
Temp. of Cooling Water 15 25 30

The design temperature of the power station recirculating cooling water system is 33oC
at the maximum required to operate the power station condenser with the LP turbine
exhaust at 42oC. However, the actual operating temperature of recirculation cooling water
in spring and autumn may be well under this maximum. The operating temperature for
spring and autumn is usually 25oC, while it is typically 15oC in winter.

16
 Cooling water temperature will influence the heat exchange area necessary for the
heat exchanger, thus influencing its building cost. However, when designing the coolers, it
is necessary to do so in the light of its annual maximum water temperature. Therefore a
scenario is considered with an operating time of 5500 hours with the summertime
operation avoided. On this basis the cooling water temperature would be 25oC.

4.5.2 Cooling water make up requirement

Consumption of recirculation cooling water includes the loss from evaporation,
windage and blow down in the cooling tower. According to the specifications and data in
(L/T5339, 2006), 1.5% is taken for evaporation loss coefficient, 0.4% for windage loss
coefficient and 1% for blow down loss coefficient, which combine to make 2.9% for total
cooling water make-up requirement.

4.5.3 Cooling water flow

The carbon capture system needs large amounts of recirculation cooling water.
Hence, consideration should be given to whether the capacity of Gaojing CHP’s existing
recirculation cooling water systems can provide sufficient cooling water for its carbon
capture system. If it cannot provide sufficient cooling water, it is necessary for the carbon
capture system to include new recirculation cooling water systems or to expand its existing
recirculation cooling water systems.
The carbon capture system extracts steam from the steam cycle, which reduces the
steam discharging into the power plant condenser. Therefore the steam cycle condenser
cooling water flow will be reduced accordingly.
[Editorial note - From an energy balance perspective, the overall energy input to the
power station is either exported as electricity or dissipated to cooling water, with only a
small part of that energy dissipated by other means. If CO2 capture is integrated into the
power station energy balance, then the net electricity output is reduced, so the net heat
dissipated to cooling water must increase by a similar amount, which is manifest as the
addition of cooling in the CO2 capture plant being greater than the reduction of cooling in
the power plant condenser. The amount of energy delivered to CO2 capture, and
subsequently rejected to cooling, is about five times greater than the amount of electrical
energy production that is lost due to steam extraction from the steam cycle. Therefore the
net increase in combined cooling duty is about one fifth of the total CO2 capture plant
cooling duty.
Table 4-5 reports a total cooling water demand of 57.7 tonnes per tonne of CO2 for the
Benchmark condition; i.e. 1,418 tonnes per hour. In light of the foregoing discussion, the
corresponding net increase in cooling water demand for the power station with CO2 capture
would be about one fifth of that; i.e. 284 tonnes per hour per train.

17
 The amount of make-up water is 2.9% of the cooling water flow. Therefore the
additional cooling water make up requirement attributable to the addition of CO2 capture
would be 8.22 tonnes per hour per CO2 capture train.
Table 4-1 shows that the amount of water condensed from the flue gas feed stream
under benchmark condition is 36.4 tonnes per hour, which is about four times greater than
the additional amount of make-up water required for the cooling system. Therefore the
overall water balance for the power station with CO2 capture would be comfortably in
surplus and no additional make-up water for the cooling systems would be required for
replenishment in excess of that which is required for the host power station.]

18
 5 Economic Evaluation of MEA-Based Capture Process
5.1 Basic Data
Table 5-1 through Table 5-5 provide the basic data for economic evaluation.
• The design life of the capture plant is 30 years;
• Land for plant construction is a building-free cleared industrial site;
• Various pressurized equipment items and pipelines will be designed and
manufactured based on the ASME standards; and
• All the control systems are the digital control systems with standard
configurations.
Table 5-1 Capital Cost Evaluation Basis

Description
Currency Conversion Rate 6.2 CNY/US$
Project Type Cleared industrial site
Design code ASME
User Currency Name Chinese Yuan
User Currency Symbol CNY

Table 5-2 Capital Costs Parameters

UNITS Value
Number of Weeks per Year Weeks/year 52
Number of Years for Analysis Year 20
Working Capital Percentage Percent/year 3
Desired Rate of Return/Interest
Percent/year 20
Rate (ROR)
ROR Annuity Factor 5
Project Capital Escalation Percent/year 3

Table 5-3 Operating Costs Assumptions

UNITS Value
Operating Labour (lump-sum) Cost/year 10
Maintenance Charges (lump-sum) Cost/year 10
User Entered Operating Charges (as percentage) Percent/year 15
Operating Charges (Percent of Operating Labor Costs) Percent/year 20
Plant Overhead
Percent/year 25
(Percent of Operating Labor and Maintenance Costs)
General and Administrative Expenses
Percent/year 4
(Percent of Subtotal Operating Costs)

19
 Table 5-4 General Investment Parameters

UNITS Value
Tax Rate Percent/year 20%
Interest Rate Percent/year 20%
Economic Life of Project Years 30
Salvage Value (Fraction of Initial Capital
Percent 10%
Cost)
Depreciation Method Straight Line

Table 5-5 Escalation

UNITS Value
Project Capital Escalation Percent/year 3%
Products Escalation Percent/year 3%
Raw Material Escalation Percent/year 2%
Operating and Maintenance Labor Escalation Percent/year 2%
Utilities Escalation Percent/year 2%

5.2 Fixed Asset Investment

Table 5-6 shows the cost of equipment for a CO2 capture rate of 90%. The details of
equipment specifications are shown in Appendix A.
Table 5-6 Cost of equipment units indicated by Aspen Plus

million CNY Total Direct Cost Equipment Cost

ADSORBER-tower 20.4 7.7
COMPER1 42.8 40.1
COMPER2 42.8 40.1
COMPER3 42.8 40.1
COMPER4 42.8 40.1
COOLER1 3.1 2.2
COOLER4 1.9 1.3
COOLER5 0.7 0.3
EXCH 5.2 3.8
FLASH-flash vessel 0.7 0.1
GGH 0.7 0.3
PUMP 0.8 0.1
SEP-flash vessel 2.8 1.2
STRIPPER-reboiler 29.1 27.8
STRIPPER-tower 17.9 5.1
WASHER-flash vessel 2.7 1.3
Total 257.3 211.6

20
 Table 5-7 shows the project capital cost in various scenarios, including an allowance for
CO2 dehydration and compression.
Table 5-7 Project capital cost

Capital cost of one train 329 million

“One-for-one” scenario 1,316 million
Capital cost of
“Two-on-one” scenario 2,631 million
whole plant
“One-for-one + two-one-one” scenario 3,946 million
[Editorial note – The equipment specifications in Appendix A show that almost all of the
plant items are specified to operate at significant elevated pressure. Also, Table 5-6 shows
that two thirds of the estimated capital cost is attributable to feed gas compressors that
could be designed out of the process. Therefore it is likely to be feasible to design a CO2
capture plant with a substantially lower capital cost than the plant that has been modeled in
this study.]

5.3 Operating costs

shows the price of utilities and raw materials.
Table 5-8 Prices of utilities and raw material

Unit Price
Steam（selling price） CNY/t 192
Steam（cost price） CNY/t 26.55 [see note]
Electricity CNY/kWh 0.531
Cooling water make up CNY/t 1.8
Demineralised water CNY/t 6
MEA CNY/kg 30

A local selling price for LP steam is noted in Table 5.8, but it is more reasonable to
calculate the steam cost for CO2 capture on the basis of the lost opportunity cost of
converting that steam into electricity in the power station. Generally, 20 tonne of steam
can generate 1MWh electricity, that is, one tonne of steam generate 50kWh electricity.
Therefore, the cost price of steam is about 26.55CNY/t (Table 5-8). In this chapter, we use
this steam price to calculate the steam cost.
[Editorial note – When steam extraction is integrated with a power station steam cycle,
as described in the editorial note in 3.1.1, the amount of energy delivered as heat to the
reboiler is about 5 times greater than the amount of energy in the form of electricity product
that is lost from the LP turbine in the power station. That corresponds to about 8 tonnes of
steam having the value of 1 MWh of electricity, i.e. 1 tonne of steam has the same value as
125 kWh of electricity. On this basis, the lost opportunity cost in the power station of
steam extracted for the MEA reboiler is about 66 CNY per tonne of extracted steam.]

21
 In this simulation, the expense for cooling water is calculated by the model based on
cooling water flow, but the actual consumption of circulating cooling water is 2.9% of
circulating flow (for details, see section 4.5). Therefore, the price of cooling water actually
being input into the model is 2.9% of the raw price listed in the table, i.e. the price of input
cooling water is CNY 0.0522 per ton of water circulated.
[Editorial note – See discussion in Section 4.5.3 identifying that no cooling system
make-up water is required.]

5.3.1 MEA and demineralised

demineralised water costs
The main raw materials used in CO2 capture process are demineralised water and MEA.
Their losses have to be made up.

The cost of demineralised water is calculated on the basis of its flow rate and price.
According to the flow rate of H2O component in stream MEAWAT in Table 4-1 and the price
of demineralised water shown in , the cost of demineralised water is 3.23CNY/h for one
train of the CO2 capture system.
The loss of MEA includes the loss resulting from degradation and a minor loss resulting
from entrainment in the discharge steams. In the simulation, the degradation of MEA is
not simulated, but the flow rate of MEA components (including MEA and MEA+) in stream
MEAWAT represents the entrainment loss rate of MEA, by mass balance in the Aspen Plus
model. The entrainment loss of MEA indicated in the Aspen Plus modeling is therefore
0.0006 kg/tCO2.
The main loss of MEA in the CO2 capture process is its degradation losses caused by
oxidative degradation and thermal degradation. Some estimates of these losses are:
• China Wuhuan Engineering Corporation states that the specific loss of its MEA
solvent (MEA loss per tonne of CO2 captured) is 2.3 kg/tCO2 for the Gaojing
pilot plant at a CO2 capture rate of 90%. The price of its MEA solvent is
20CNY/kg.
• China Huneng Clean Energy Research Institute states the specific loss of its
MEA solvent is 0.7 kg/tCO2 for PCC of NGCC power plant at a CO2 capture rate
of 85%, where the specific degradation loss of its solvent is 0.3 kg/tCO2.
• Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd states that the specific degradation loss of its
solvent, KS-1, is only 10% of conventional MEA solvent. The price of KS-1 is 40
CNY/kg.
• [Editorial note - Table 4-1 shows that the NOx content of the feed gas is 12
kg(NO)/h. If each molecule of NOx degrades one molecule of MEA in the
presence of oxygen, then the oxidative degradation of MEA would be 24.4 kg/h,
i.e. 1 kg/tCO2. Thermal degradation in the reboiler would be additional.]

22
 Table 5-9 shows the estimated cost of raw materials for various scenarios, in which the
MEA cost is estimated on the basis that the price of MEA is 30CNY/kg and its specific
degradation loss is 1.1 kg/tCO2.
Table 5-9 Estimated raw material operating costs [original]

Million CNY/y Scenario 1 Scenario 2

(operating time=5500h/y) (operating time=7500h/y)
Demineralised water 0.018 0.024
One MEA 4.46 6.08
train Total 4.48 6.11
“One-for-one” unit 17.9 24.4
“Two-on-one” unit 35.8 48.8
“One-for-one” unit
53.7 73.3
+“Two-on-one” unit

5.3.2 Utilities costs

Cost of utilities includes cost of LP steam, cost of cooling water and cost of electricity.
Table 5-10 presents the cost of utilities for one train of CO2 capture system and other
scenarios.
[Editorial note – As explained in Section 4.5 the net production of water in the feed gas
condenser is significantly greater than the net additional make up water requirement for the
cooling system. Therefore there is no additional operating cost for cooling water make-up
attributable to CO2 capture.]
Table 5-10 Estimated utilities operating costs [original]

Million CNY/y Scenario 1 Scenario 2

(operating time=5500h/y) (operating time=7500h/y)
LP steam 9.85 13.43
One Cooling water 0.59 0.89
train Electricity 34.05 46.30
Total 44.49 60.63
“One-for-one” unit 17.9 24.4
“Two-on-one” unit 35.8 48.8
“One-for-one” unit
53.7 73.3
+“Two-on-one” unit

23
 5.3.3 Overall operating Costs
Operating cost includes raw materials cost, utilities cost, operating labor cost ,
maintenance cost , operating charges, plant overhead and general and administrative cost
(G and A Cost).
Table 5-11 presents the annual operating cost for one train of CO2 capture system and
the annual operating cost of capture plant at various scenarios.
Table 5-11 Operating cost per train [original]

Million CNY/year Case 1 Case 2

operating time=5500 hours/year operating time=7500 hours/year
Winter Spring-Autumn Winter Spring-Autumn
2880 hours 2620 hours 2880 hours 4620 hours
Operating Labor Cost 0.39 0.35 0.39 0.62
Maintenance Cost 2.75 2.50 2.75 4.39
Operating Charges 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.09
Plant Overhead 0.78 0.71 0.78 1.25
G and A Cost 0.59 0.58 0.59 1.19
Sub-total 4.57 4.21 4.57 7.55
Sub-total 8.78 12.13
Raw Materials Cost 4.48 6.11
Utilities Cost 44.49 60.63
Total 57.75 78.86
“One for one” unit 231 315
“Two on one” unit 462 630
“One for one” unit
693 946
+“Two on one” unit

5.3.4 Revised overall operating costs

In view of the several significant changes identified in editorial notes throughout this report
Table 5-12 shows a recalculation of operating costs on a per train basis and the annual operating
cost of capture plant at various scenarios, based on the following factors:
• The subtotal of overheads is taken from Table 5-11, but these figures are inconsistent
with the parameters in Table 5-3;
• There is no charge for cooling water make-up;
• The electricity consumption by the feed gas compressors is deleted, and
• LP steam is costed at CNY 66/tonne.

24
 Table 5-12 Revised Operating cost per train for Benchmark case

Million CNY/year Case 1 Case 2

operating time=5500 hours/year operating time=7500 hours/year
Sub-total overheads 8.78 12.13
Demin water cost 0.02 0.02
MEA cost 4.46 6.08
Electricity (excl. compr.) 0.16 0.21
LP Steam 24.49 33.40
Total 37.91 51.84
“One for one” unit 152 207
“Two on one” unit 303 415
“One for one” unit +“Two
455 622
on one” unit

25
5.4 Influence of CO2 Price on Operating Cost
For CCS, carbon trade is a potential economic driver. If the price of CO2
Certified Emission Reduction (CER) or value of CO2 product as a commodity were to
rise very significantly the cost of CO2 capture would be offset to some extent.
[Editorial note – This study only considers the MEA CO2 capture process and
does not consider other elements of the complete CCS train nor capital investment.
Therefore it does not provide a basis for assessing the “carbon price” that would be
required to make CCS economically viable.]

5.5 Summary
1. It would be technically feasible to implement PCC using MEA as a solvent for
Gaojing NGCC power plant. A technically feasible configuration has been modeled
that is based on a high pressure drop across the absorber.
2. The total capital cost is 1,315 million CNY for the capture plant treating
one-third of all flue gas; and 3,946 million CNY for the capture plant treating all of
flue gas.
[Editorial note – This capital cost estimation is based on an expensive process
configuration with high operating pressures and consequently excessive feed gas
compression. An alternative process configuration should result in a very much
lower plant cost.]
3. For an annual operating time of 5500 hours, the annual operation cost is 231
million CNY for the capture plant treating one-third of all flue gas; and about 693
million CNY for the capture plant treating all of flue gas.
[Editorial note – Recalculation of annual operating cost in the light of editorial
comments in this study gives a result of 455 million CNY for the CO2 capture plant
with 90% capture on all flue gas. That corresponds to US$45 per tonne of CO2
captured for the operating costs only of CO2 capture.]
4. A very large increases in the price of CO2 product or CERs would be required
to cover the operating cost of capture plant.

26
6 Evaluation and Analysis of Retrofitting of Capture-ready Gas Fired Power
Plant
If carbon capture retrofitting is made to a capture-ready power plant, compared with
the non-ready plant, it should have significant advantages in construction land, power plant
efficiency and investment.

6.1 Land for Construction

In (IEAGHG, 2012) a detailed technical and economic analysis is made of CO2 capture
from NGCC plants with and without CCS.
The total land area requirement for a non-CCS-ready NGCC power plant retrofitted
with CO2 capture (denoted as A1) can be considered equal to the sum of the land area
requirement for a NGCC power plant without CO2 capture (denoted as Ao) and the land area
requirement for CO2 capture plant (denoted as A3).
A1=A0+A3 （6-1）
The land area requirement for the CCS ready NGCC power plant retrofitted with CO2
capture (denoted as A2) can be considered equal to the land area requirement for a new
NGCC power plant with CCS.
The difference between the total land area requirement for a non-CCS-ready NGCC
power plant retrofitted with CO2 capture (A1) and the land area requirement for the CCS
ready NGCC power plant retrofitted with CO2 capture ( A2) is the saved land area ( denoted
as Asave) of the CCS ready NGCC power plant retrofitted with CO2 capture, contrasting to the
non-CCS-ready NGCC power plant retrofitted with CO2 capture.
Asave=A1-A2 （6-2）
The land saving rate (S%) is equal to the saved area of construction land (Asave) over the
total land area requirement for a non-CCS-ready NGCC power plant retrofitted with CO2
capture ( A1).
S%=（Asave/A3）×100% (6-3)
Figure 6-1 Site Layout Plan of Gas Fired Power Plant without Carbon Capture
shows the site layout plan of the power plant without consideration of carbon capture.
From this site plan:
A0=360m×246m=88560m2.
In the scenario 3 of (IEAGHG, 2012) the site layout plan for the model NGCC power
plant with CO2 capture was designed as shown in . This site layout plan can be considered
as the site layout plan of the CCS ready NGCC power plant retrofitted with CO2 capture, and
its floor area is equal to the land area for the CCS ready NGCC power plant retrofitted with
CO2 capture (A2).

27
 From Figure 6-2,
A2=487m×246m=119802m2
The land area for CO2 capture plant (A3) can be calculated from Figure 6-2:
A3=35921m2
Then,
A1=A0+A3=124481m2
Asave=A1-A2=4679m2
S%=（Asave/A3）×100%=13%
The results above suggest that, contrasting to non-CCS ready NGCC power plant, CCS
ready NGCC power plant can save land area of about 13% when implementing retrofit of
CO2 capture. Contrasting to that the non-CCS ready NGCC power plant is not pre-planned
for retrofit of CO2 capture, the CCS ready NGCC power plant is well pre-planned for retrofit
of CO2 capture and can save the area of construction land.
[Editorial note – Figures 6.1 and 6.2 do not demonstrate the claimed benefits of
planning for the latter implementation of CO2 capture. The derivation of A3 from figure
6.2 is unclear.]

6.2 Power Plant efficiency

The CCS ready NGCC power plant may have a better performance when it is retrofitted
with PCC.
Contrasting to Capture-ready NGCC power plant where specific arrangements have
been made to set the value of the IP/LP crossover pressure to match the temperature of
the solvent reboiler, at the non-CCS-ready NGCC power plant, the steam extracted for use
in the CO2 capture plant has to be desuperheated to match the temperature of the solvent
reboiler.
In (IEAGHG, 2011) various options for desuperheating the extracted steam have been
discussed. Among these options, the options with less electricity output penalty require
setting letdown turbines and desuperheaters in the extraction line as shown in Figure 6-3
and Figure 6-4. This requires enough space to be allocated near the steam turbines and
increases capital costs. If not enough space is available, a retrofit with throttle valves to
reduce the pressure and water addition to desuperheat the extracted steam may be the
only option. The retrofit with two throttle valves is shown in Figure 6-5. In this retrofit
option, a butterfly valve is used to throttle the LP inlet downstream of the extraction point
to maintain the design exit pressures for IP turbine and the LP evaporator pressure. A
second valve is used in the solvent extraction line to expand the steam down to the
pressure corresponding to the desired reboiler temperature. This option is less efficient
due to the losses of entropy occurring through the two valves.
Table 6-2 compares the performance of two retrofit options. Table 6-2 shows that if a
let-down turbine is used then the energy penalty of CO2 capture will be reduced.

28
 The details of retrofit options above are explained further in (IEAGHG, 2011).
Table 6-1 Performance of retrofit options for NGCC plant (IEAGHG, 2011)

Two back
Existing power
pressure Two valve
Item Unit plant
turbine retrofit
(no capture)
retrofit
Performance without capture
Efficiency %LHV 55.4% 55.4% 55.4%
Net power output MWe 773.6 773.6 773.6
Gas input MWth 1396.0 1396.0 1396.0
Performance with capture
Gas input MWth 1396.0 1396.0 1396.0
Gas turbine gross output MWe 520 520 520
Steam cycle gross output MWe 277.6 230.9 217.1
Gross power output MWe 797.6 750.9 737.1
Net power output with MWe 773.6 672.9 659.1
capture
Efficiency with capture %LHV 55.4 48.2 47.2
CO2 emissions gCO2/kWh 368.7 58.8 59.8
Electricity output kWh/tCO2 0 403.1 458.0
penalty

6.3 Retrofitting Investment

When CCS retrofitting is carried out for a non-carbon capture ready power plant, it will
not be easy to set up the equipment according to their most convenient position, which
makes the cost of piping increase. Apart from that, due to increased length of the
pipeline, the heat loss and pressure loss in the steam pipeline will increase. This will need
the pumps and draught fans with more power, which in turn makes the equipment
expense increase, the power consumption of these draught fans and pumps increase, the
operating expense for the carbon capture system increase and finally the carbon capture
cost increase.
For example, if the position of the new CCS plant of the non-CCS ready power plant,
and the cooling tower of the original plant’s recirculation cooling water system and/or its
recovery boiler and chimneys are located at opposite ends of the original power plant,
then, the amount of piping for CCS retrofitting will probably be several times that of the
CCS-ready power plant, which will make the expense of fixed asset investment for CCS
retrofitting and operating expense for the carbon capture system increase significantly.

29
 In (IEAGHG, 2011) the economic assessments on retrofitting CO2 Capture to existing
power plants have been carried out. For the retrofitting CO2 capture to exiting NGCC
power plant, various retrofit options have been discussed. Among the options, two
options are as below:
1. Retrofit the existing NGCC power plant with CCS.
2. Close the existing NGCC power plant and build a new NGCC plant with CCS.
The option 1 above can be considered as the situation that a non-CCS ready NGCC
power plant is retrofitted with CCS. And the option 2 is the case that the NGCC power
plant is designed and built with a consideration of CCS plant. This option can be
considered as a CCS ready NGCC power plant is retrofitted with CCS. Comparing the
capital cost of option 1 and option 2, we can analyze the advantages of CCS ready in the
capital cost for retrofitting with CCS.
Table 6-3 presents the capital cost for NGCC power plant retrofitted with PCC.
Table 6-2 Comparison of capital cost

CAPEX（
（$/kW）
）

Existing NGCC power plant（without CCS） 0

Integrated retrofitting with CCS
857
（non-CCS ready NGCC power plant） ）
New built NGCC power plant with CCS
（CCS ready NGCC power plant
including the capital cost of NGCC power plant）
New build NGCC power plant without CCS 1000
Capital cost for CCS retrofitting to
650
CCS ready NGCC pope plant
Saved capital cost of CCS ready NGCC power plant
857-650=207
retrofitted with CCS
Save rate of capital cost 207/857=24.15%

Whilst not directly relevant to capture-ready planning, the analysis in this Section
illustrates that cost savings should accrue from taking the potential for subsequent
implementation of CCS into account and the host plant design stage.

6.4 Summary
In comparison with non-CCS ready NGCC power plants, CCS ready NGCC power plants
have significant advantages in land area requirement, capital cost and plant efficiency when

30
retrofitted with CO2 capture. In a case study, the CCS ready NGCC power plant retrofitted
with CCS saves about 13% area of construction land and about 24% capital cost of retrofit.
Therefore, it is necessary to build CCS ready NGCC power plant.

Figure 6-1 Site Layout Plan of Gas Fired Power Plant without Carbon Capture
(IEAGHG, 2012)

31
Figure 6-2 Site Layout Plan of Gas Fired Power Plant with Carbon Capture
(IEAGHG, 2012)

32
 Figure 6-3 Steam turbine retrofit with a fixed intermediate turbine outlet and two
let-down back pressure turbines (IEAGHG, 2011), Figure A3.2.

Figure 6-4 Retrofit of a NGCC plant with the additional of two back-pressure turbines
(IEAGHG, 2011), Figure A4.6.

33
Figure 6-5 Retrofit of a NGCC plant with two throttling valves
(IEAGHG, 2011), Figure A4.7)

34
 7 Summary and Suggestions
1. MEA-based CO2 capture technique is technically feasible for Gaojing power plant.
For the capture plant treating one-third of all flue gas of Gaojing NGCC power plant, the
total capital cost is about 1315 million CNY, and its annual operation cost is 231 million CNY
for an annual operating time of 5500 hours, based on the plant configuration that has been
modeled.
2. It is strongly suggested that new NGCC power plant should be built CCS ready. In
comparison with non-CCS ready NGCC power plants, CCS ready NGCC power plants
potentially would have significant advantages in land area requirement, capital cost and
plant efficiency if subsequently retrofitted with CO2 capture.
3. A large increases in the price of CO2 product or CERs might cover the operating cost
of capture plant. A further increase would be required the capital investment and the
costs of CO2 processing and storage. To promote the CCS ready plant, currently a stronger
carbon emissions penalty price is required.

35
 References
(2014). CO2now. Retrieved from http://www.co2now.org/

GCCSI. (2012). The Global Status of CCS. Retrieved from

http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/category/organisation/icf-international

IEAGHG. (2011). Retrofitting CO2 Capture to Existing Power Plants, 2011/02.

IEAGHG. (2012). CO2 Capture at Gas Fired Power Plants, 2012/8.

36
 Appendix A

Table A-1 Design data of Absorber-tower

Property Value Units
Application DISTIL
Base material thickness 16 mm
Design gauge pressure 2.44 BARG
o
Design temperature 125 C
Item type TRAYED
Number of trays 18
Shell material A 516
Source of quote SG
Total weight 279.3 Tonnes
Tray material A285C
Tray spacing 622.3 mm
Tray thickness 4.5 mm
Tray type SIEVE
Vessel diameter 11.13 m
Vessel tangent to tangent height 14.17 m
[Editorial note – the absorber tower would be a packed column
not a trayed distillation column]
Table A-2 Design data of COMPER
Property Value Units
Actual gas flow rate Inlet 130740 m3/H
Casing material A285C
Compressor speed 3414 RPM
Design gauge pressure Inlet 0.0 BARG
Design gauge pressure Outlet 0.69 BARG
o
Design temperature Inlet 30 C
Driver power 2847 kW
Driver type MOTOR
Item type CENTRIF
Number of impellers 2
Source of quote SGL
Total weight 36.9 Tonnes

37
 Table A-3 Design data of Cooler1
Property Value Units
Area per shell 590.5 m2
Item type TEMA EXCH
Number of shells 3
Shell design gauge pressure 2.44 BARG
Shell design temperature 125 DEG C
Shell diameter 1.2 m
Shell length 6 m
Shell material A285C
Source of quote SG
TEMA type BEM
Total weight 55.2 Tonnes
Tube design gauge pressure 1.29 BARG
Tube design temperature 125 DEG C
Tube length extended 6 m
Tube material A 214
Tube outside diameter 25 mm

Table A-4 Design data of Cooler4

Property Value Units
Area per shell 515 m2
Item type TEMA EXCH
Number of shells 2
Shell design gauge pressure 2.44 BARG
Shell design temperature 125 DEG C
Shell diameter 1125 mm
Shell length 6 m
Shell material A285C
Source of quote SG
TEMA type BEM
Total weight 32.4 Tonnes
Tube design gauge pressure 1.29 BARG
o
Tube design temperature 125 C
Tube length extended 6 m
Tube material A 214
Tube outside diameter 25 mm

38
 Table A-5 Design data of Cooler5
Property Value Units
Heat transfer area 167 m2
Item type TEMA EXCH
Shell design gauge pressure 2.44 BARG
o
Shell design temperature 129.6 C
Shell diameter 650 mm
Shell length 6 M
Shell material A285C
Source of quote SG
TEMA type BEM
Total weight 5.8 Tonnes
Tube design gauge pressure 1.29 BARG
o
Tube design temperature 129.6 C
Tube length extended 6 m
Tube material A 214
Tube outside diameter 25 mm

Table A-6 Design data of EXCH

Property Value Units
Area per shell 508 m2
Item type TEMA EXCH
Number of shells 5
Shell design gauge pressure 2.44 BARG
o
Shell design temperature 150 C
Shell diameter 1.1 m
Shell length 6 m
Shell material A285C
Source of quote SG
TEMA type BEM
Total weight 80 Tonnes
Tube design gauge pressure 2.44 BARG
o
Tube design temperature 150 C
Tube length extended 6 m
Tube material A 214
Tube outside diameter 25 mm

39
 Table A-7 Design data of FLASH
Property Value Units
Application CONT
Base material thickness 8 mm
Design gauge pressure 2.44 BARG
o
Design temperature 125 C
Item type CYLINDER
Liquid volume 5.635 m3
Shell material A 516
Source of quote SG
Total weight 1.7 Tonnes
Vessel diameter 1.37 m
Vessel tangent to tangent height 3.81 m

Table A-8 Design data of GGH

Property Value Units
Heat transfer area 150 m2
Item type TEMA EXCH
Shell design gauge pressure 2.44 BARG
o
Shell design temperature 125 C
Shell diameter 625 mm
Shell length 6 m
Shell material A285C
Source of quote SG
TEMA type BEM
Total weight 5.2 tonnes
Tube design gauge pressure 2.44 BARG
o
Tube design temperature 126 C
Tube length extended 6 m
Tube material A 214
Tube outside diameter 25 mm

40
 Table A-9 Design data of Pump
Property Value Units
Casing material CS
Design gauge pressure 2.44 BARG
o
Design temperature 125 C
Driver power 75 kW
Driver type MOTOR
Fluid head 17.1 M
Fluid viscosity 0.5 MPa.s
Item type CENTRIF
Liquid flow rate 1130 m3/hr
Seal type SNGL
Source of quote SG
Speed 1500 RPM
Total weight 1.4 tonnes

Table A-10 Design data of SEP

Property Value Units
Application CONT
Base material thickness 8 mm
Design gauge pressure 1.03 BARG
o
Design temperature 125 C
Item type CYLINDER
Liquid volume 2854 m3
Shell material A 516
Source of quote SG
Total weight 32.1 Tonnes
Vessel diameter 9.7 m
Vessel tangent to tangent height 3.81 m

41
 Table A-11 Design data of Stripper-Reboiler
Property Value Units
Area per shell 587 m2
Item type THERMOSIPH
Number of shells 24
Shell design gauge pressure 5.44 BARG
Shell design temperature 0.0 DEG C
Shell diameter 1.2 m
Shell length 6 m
Shell material A285C
Source of quote SG
TEMA type BEM
Total weight 439.2 Tonnes
Tube design gauge pressure 3.23 BARG
o
Tube design temperature 155 C
Tube length extended 6 m
Tube material A 214
Tube outside diameter 25 mm

Table A-12 Design data of Stripper-tower

Property Value Units
Application DISTIL
Base material thickness 16 mm
Design gauge pressure 2.44 BARG
o
Design temperature 150 C
Item type TRAYED
Number of trays 9
Shell material A 516
Source of quote SG
Total weight 164 Tonnes
Tray material A285C
Tray spacing 623 mm
Tray thickness 4.5 mm
Tray type SIEVE
Vessel diameter 12 m
Vessel tangent to tangent height 8.7 m

42
 Table A-13 Design data of Washer
Property Value Units
Application CONT
Base material thickness 13 mm
Design gauge pressure 2.44 BARG
o
Design temperature 125 C
Item type CYLINDER
Liquid volume 242 m3
Shell material A 516
Source of quote SG
Total weight 39 Tonnes
Vessel diameter 9 m
Vessel tangent to tangent height 3.8 m

43