Maximising the effectiveness of post combustion CO2 capture systems

Gibbins, Jon; Crane, Robert I.; Lambropoulos, D.; Booth, Colin A.; Roberts, C.A.; Lord, M. E.

doi:10.1016/b978-008044704-9/50015-x

Cited by 26 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1). [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] In this paper, we calculate the thermodynamic work required for the various steps of CCS. We elucidate the cause of the spread in previously estimated energy penalties by deriving an analytic relationship for the energy penalty from first principles and by identifying which of the variables are most difficult to constrain.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The energy penalty of post-combustion CO2 capture & storage and its implications for retrofitting the U.S. installed base

House

Harvey

Aziz

et al. 2009

Energy Environ. Sci.

254

186

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A review of the literature has found a factor of 4 spread in the estimated values of the energy penalty for post-combustion capture and storage of CO 2 from pulverized-coal (PC) fired power plants. We elucidate the cause of that spread by deriving an analytic relationship for the energy penalty from thermodynamic principles and by identifying which variables are most difficult to constrain. We define the energy penalty for CCS to be the fraction of fuel that must be dedicated to CCS for a fixed quantity of work output. That penalty can manifest itself as either the additional fuel required to maintain a power plant's output or the loss of output for a constant fuel input. Of the 17 parameters that constitute the energy penalty, only the fraction of available waste heat that is recovered for use and the 2nd-law separation efficiency are poorly constrained. We provide an absolute lower bound for the energy penalty of $11%, and we demonstrate to what degree increasing the fraction of available-waste-heat recovery can reduce the energy penalty from the higher values reported. It is further argued that an energy penalty of $40% will be easily achieved while one of $29% represents a decent target value. Furthermore, we analyze the distribution of PC plants in the U.S. and calculate a distribution for the additional fuel required to operate all these plants with CO 2 capture and storage (CCS).

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The energy penalty of post-combustion CO2 capture & storage and its implications for retrofitting the U.S. installed base

House

Harvey

Aziz

et al. 2009

Energy Environ. Sci.

254

186

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Influence of the permeate pressure on the purity, recovery rate and energy intensity of the membrane CO 2 separation process. of the extracted steam mainly depends on the condenser pressure and the isentropic efficiency and usually is in the range 200O350 C [48]. This value is much higher than the temperature required for regeneration of the solvent (120 C), which causes additional exergy losses.…”

Section: Comparison Of the Energy Intensity Of The Chemical Absorptiomentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling and analysis of selected carbon dioxide capture methods in IGCC systems

Skorek‐Osikowska

Janusz-Szymańska

Kotowicz

2012

Energy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The main objective of this study is the determination of minimum achievable performance impact on power plant; consequently a parametric study on the stripper pressure could be necessary. For the same amount of bleeded steam, as the pressure of the steam decreases the overall plant efficiency increases (Gibbins et al, 2005). In this paragraph, the stripper pressure is considered to be 1 bar and therefore the steam bleeding is at 1.3 bar (pressure drop is neglected).…”

Section: Solvent Absorption With Thermal Regenerationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some studies already investigated these thermodynamic boundaries mostly for post-combustion capture (Page et al, 2009;Gibbins et al, 2005), oxy-combustion (Pfaff and Kather, 2009) or pre-combustion (Rezvani et al, 2009). The permeation membrane processes with pressured flue gases or vacuum permeate have been specifically investigated for post and pre-combustion applications (Bounaceur et al, 2006;Favre, 2007;Brunetti et al, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of carbon capture thermodynamic limitation on coal-fired power plant efficiency

Moullec¹

2012

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Maximising the effectiveness of post combustion CO2 capture systems

Cited by 26 publications

References 8 publications

The energy penalty of post-combustion CO2 capture & storage and its implications for retrofitting the U.S. installed base

The energy penalty of post-combustion CO2 capture & storage and its implications for retrofitting the U.S. installed base

Modeling and analysis of selected carbon dioxide capture methods in IGCC systems

Assessment of carbon capture thermodynamic limitation on coal-fired power plant efficiency

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About