Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 304 views

    Comparative Performance Analysis of Various Pre-Combustion CO Capture Techniques

    Uploaded by

    Usama Shakil
    This document analyzes various pre-combustion CO2 capture techniques, comparing the performance of processes like DEPG-SELEXOL. It evaluates the SELEXOL process using Aspen Plus simulation and analyzes the energy requirements for CO2 capture of around 90%.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Comparative Performance Analysis of Various Pre-Combustion CO Capture Techniques

    Uploaded by

    Usama Shakil
    304 views26 pages
    This document analyzes various pre-combustion CO2 capture techniques, comparing the performance of processes like DEPG-SELEXOL. It evaluates the SELEXOL process using Aspen Plus simulation and analyzes the energy requirements for CO2 capture of around 90%.

    Original Description:

    Selexol process - CO2 removal

    Original Title

    Selexol process

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document analyzes various pre-combustion CO2 capture techniques, comparing the performance of processes like DEPG-SELEXOL. It evaluates the SELEXOL process using Aspen Plus simulation and analyzes the energy requirements for CO2 capture of around 90%.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    304 views26 pages

    Comparative Performance Analysis of Various Pre-Combustion CO Capture Techniques

    Uploaded by

    Usama Shakil
    This document analyzes various pre-combustion CO2 capture techniques, comparing the performance of processes like DEPG-SELEXOL. It evaluates the SELEXOL process using Aspen Plus simulation and analyzes the energy requirements for CO2 capture of around 90%.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 26

    Comparative Performance

    Analysis of Various Pre-


    Combustion CO2 Capture
    Techniques
    Presented by:
    Usama Shakil
    PE 15

    Project Supervisor:
    Dr. M. Zaman
    BACKGROUND
    Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC)
    power plants:
    Post-combustion CO2 capture
    Pre-combustion CO2 capture
    OBJECTIVE
    Detailed study of Pre-combustion CO2 capture
    technologies.

    Comparative performance analysis of various CO2


    Capture Technologies.
    DEPG SELEXOL
    PROCESS
    Advantages Disadvantages
    DEPG is non-corrosive Highly viscous

    Process equipment can be High cooling energy is


    made of carbon steel materials required
    only

    Formation of heat-stable salts


    can be avoided

    Very low vapor pressure low


    solvent loss
    BASE CASE SINGLE
    ABSORPTION
    Economic assessment and optimization of the
    Selexol process with novel additives

    Dasom Im, Kosan Roh, Junhan Kim, Yongseok Eo, Jay


    H. Lee
    PROCESS FLOWSHEET
    FEED GAS
    SPECIFICATIONS
    Specification Value
    Temperature (oC) 37.78
    Pressure (bar) 17.24
    Molar Flow Rate (kmol/hr) 7997.36
    Mole Fraction
    CO 0.004
    CO2 0.247
    H2 0.318
    H2 O 0.004
    N2 0.415
    CH4 0.007
    DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
    Specification Value
    Absorber stage number 12
    H2 recovery drum pressure (bar) 6.89
    H2 recovery temperature (C) 7.78
    HP flash drum and captured CO2 1.72
    pressure (bar)
    MP flash drum pressure (bar) 1.01
    LP flash drum pressure (bar) 0.276
    Lean solvent cooling temperature (C) -1.11
    Lean solvent pump outlet pressure 17.24
    (bar)
    ASPEN PLUS
    SIMULATION
    Thermodynamic Property Model
    PC-SAFT

    CO2 Capture: 91.7%

    CO2 Loading: 0.18 mole CO2/mole Depg


    STREAM RESULTS
    FEED CLEAN C02-CAP
    Temperature (C) 37.8 13.9 51.9
    Pressure (bar) 17.24 17.24 1.72
    Vapor Fraction 1 1 1
    Mole Flow (kmol/hr) 7997.36 6115.108 1850.52
    Mass Flow (kg/hr ) 189003.3 107783 80648.95
    Volume Flow (cum/hr) 11925.86 8503.816 28889.78
    Enthalpy (Gcal/hr) -188.802 -17.43 -170.193
    Mole Flow (kmol/hr)
    CO 31.989 31.616 0.373
    CO2 1975.348 160.759 1815.4
    H2 2543.16 2534.97 8.19
    H2 O 31.989 0 0.246
    N2 3318.904 3296.517 22.387
    STREAM RESULTS
    CLEAN Aspen WP
    Temperature (C) 13.9 14.2
    Pressure (bar) 17.24 17.24
    Vapor Fraction 1 1
    Mole Flow (kmol/hr)
    CO2 160.759 180.5
    ENERGY ANALYSIS
    Specification Value
    Three Stage Flash 8.63 MW
    Solvent Chilling 15.32 MW
    CO2 Compression 849 kW
    HT 1 Recovery 722 kW
    HT 2 Recovery 360 kW
    CO2 Capture = 90%
    ENERGY ANALYSIS

    Operation at Lean Solvent Temperature of 0 oC


    90.1% CO2 Capture

    13.5 MW Cooling Duty

    Cost
    DUAL ABSORPTION
    Recovery of H2S and CO2 using Selexol.

    AGR (Acid Gas Removal) System

    Configurations
    LITERATURE REVIEW

    C. Trapp, T. Thomaser, H. A. J. Van Dijk, and P. Colonna,


    Design optimization of a pre-combustion CO2 capture
    plant embedding experimental knowledge, Fuel, vol. 157,
    pp. 126139, 2015
    LITERATURE REVIEW

    S. H. Park, S. J. Lee, J. W. Lee, S. N. Chun, and J. Bin Lee,


    The quantitative evaluation of two-stage pre-combustion
    CO2 capture processes using the physical solvents with
    various design parameters, Energy, vol. 81, pp. 4755,
    2015.
    LITERATURE REVIEW
    Z. Kapetaki, P. Brandani, S. Brandani, and H. Ahn,
    Process simulation of a dual-stage Selexol process for 95%
    carbon capture efficiency at an integrated gasification
    combined cycle power plant, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control,
    vol. 39, pp. 1726, 2015.
    LITERATURE REVIEW
    M. Gatti, E. Martelli, F. Marchal, and S. Consonni,
    Multi-Objective Optimization of a Selexol Process for the
    Selective Removal of CO2 and H2S from Coal-Derived
    Syngas, no. 1, 2015.
    FEED
    Temperature C 30
    Pressure bar 60
    Vapor Frac 1
    Mole Flow (kmol/sec) 6.589
    Mass Flow (kg/sec) 131.693
    Mole Frac
    CO 0.012
    CO2 0.409
    H2 0.563
    H 2S 0.011
    N2 0.004

    You might also like