2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.04.116
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Minimization of CO2 capture energy penalty in second generation oxy-fuel power plants

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

2
23
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 62 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
2
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The biggest obstacle to the development and application of oxy-fuel technology at present is the net efficiency penalty associated with the high cost of the air separation unit (ASU) and compression purification unit (CPU). For a conventional air-fired coal power plant, the net efficiency reduced by more than 10% when it is converted to oxy-firing [3][4][5].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The biggest obstacle to the development and application of oxy-fuel technology at present is the net efficiency penalty associated with the high cost of the air separation unit (ASU) and compression purification unit (CPU). For a conventional air-fired coal power plant, the net efficiency reduced by more than 10% when it is converted to oxy-firing [3][4][5].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Around the same penalty was obtained by Gao et al but they concluded that efficiency loss could be reduced by using optimized cryogenic ASU processes and a higher level of integration [22]. Later works, with integration and high oxygen concentration in the boiler and optimized ASU and CPU designs, reduce the penalty to 7.3 points [29] and to 7.26 points using the waste heat from ASU, CCS installation and flue gas in a lignite drying system [30]. In this case, the introduction of the drying installation has a major impact on the growth in efficiency of the oxy-fuel installation but is feasible only for high moisture fuels.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 52%
“…CO 2 compression and sorbent regeneration during CO 2 capture account for about 92% of the energy penalty associated with most carbon capture and storage technologies [113]. For instance, a typical CO 2 capture system that is based on monoethanolamine (MEA) requires a significant amount of energy at about 3.0-4.5 GJ/t CO 2 to regenerate the solvent in the stripper reboiler as well as energy for the stripper feed which is usually provided by cooling of the lean solvent [114]. According to a report by Zenz-House et al [115], energy penalty associated with retrofitting CO 2 capture devices into existing power plants is estimated between 50 and 80%.…”
Section: Energy Penalty In Co 2 Capture Systemsmentioning
confidence: 99%