Techno-Economic Analysis of a Secondary Air Stripper Process. (July 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Heberle, J.R.; Nikolic, Heather; Thompson, Jesse; Liu, Kunlei; Pinkerton, Lora L.; Brubaker, David; Simpson, James C.; Wu, Song; Bhown, Abhoyjit S.
• Is Part Of: Energy procedia. Volume 114(2017)
• Page Start: 1069
• Page End: 1074
• Publication Date: 2017-07
• Subjects: Post-Combustion CO2 Capture -- Techno-economic assessment -- Center for Applied Energy Research University of Kentucky Process; Power resources -- Congresses; Power resources -- Periodicals; Power resources; Conference proceedings; Periodicals; 333.7905
• DOI: 10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1255
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1876-6102

Abstract

Abstract: We present results of an initial techno-economic assessment on a post-combustion CO2 capture process developed by the Center for Applied Energy Research (CAER) at the University of Kentucky using Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems' H3-1 aqueous amine solvent. The analysis is based on data collected at a 0.7 MWe pilot unit combined with laboratory data and process simulations. The process adds a secondary air stripper to a conventional solvent process, which increases the cyclic loading of the solvent in two ways. First, air strips additional CO2 from the solvent downstream of the conventional steam-heated thermal stripper. This extra stripping of CO2 reduces the lean loading entering the absorber. Second, the CO2 -enriched air is then sent to the boiler for use as secondary air. This recycling of CO2 results in a higher concentration of CO2 in the flue gas sent to the absorber, and hence a higher rich loading of the solvent exiting the absorber. A process model was incorporated into a full-scale supercritical pulverized coal power plant model to determine the plant performance and heat and mass balances. The performance and heat and mass balance data were used to size equipment and develop cost estimates for capital and operating costs. Lifecycle costs were considered through a levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) assessment based on the capital cost estimate and modeled performance. The results of the simulations show that the CAER process yields a regeneration energy of 3.12 GJ/t CO2, a $53.05/t CO2 capture cost, and LCOE of $174.59/MWh. This compares to the U.S. Department of Energy's projected costs (Case 10) of regeneration energy of 3.58 GJ/t CO2, a $61.31/t CO2 capture cost, and LCOE of $189.59/MWh. For H3-1, the CAER process results in a regeneration energy of 2.62 GJ/tCO2 with a stripper pressure of 5.2 bar, a capture cost of $46.93/t CO2, and an LCOE of $164.33/MWh.