Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277477965
CITATIONS
READS
77
3 authors:
I.P. Koronaki
Loukia Prentza
3 PUBLICATIONS 3 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Vasilis D Papaefthimiou
National Technical University of Athens
22 PUBLICATIONS 108 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
art ic l e i nf o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 17 October 2014
Received in revised form
11 March 2015
Accepted 23 April 2015
Climate change mainly due to the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is getting alarming
dimensions. CO2 capture from point source emissions is a promising solution, lately receiving signicant
attention. In particular, chemical absorption of CO2 from ue gases using aqueous solvents (mainly
alkanolamines) is a well-known process, studied in detail. Modern research aims to optimize this
process, maximizing the absorption rates and minimizing the parasitic but not negligible energy
requirements for solvent regeneration. This type of analysis requires considering the coupling of the
absorption with the power plant operation or other source of CO2. The operation uctuations and
disturbances, such as load variations or start-up mode have to be reected in the process modeling,
justifying the emerging need for dynamic modeling. However, dynamic analysis is not always realizable
as dynamic experimental data are scarce in order to enable accurate model validation. Thus, steady state
models are still convenient for certain cases. The current work provides a short description of the main
modeling approaches followed and enlists representative steady state and dynamic models found in
literature. Finally, a primary comparison is performed for some comparable models that used the same
set of experimental data for model validation.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Chemical absorption
CCS
Rate-based model
Dynamic modeling
CO2
Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 548
Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 548
Chemical absorption process and solvents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 548
Chemical absorption modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549
4.1.
Modeling requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549
4.2.
Modeling approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549
4.3.
Mass transfer approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549
4.4.
Thermodynamic models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 550
4.4.1.
Kent Eisenberg model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 550
4.4.2.
Electrolyte non-random two-liquid (e-NTRL) model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 550
4.4.3.
EoS/GE models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 550
4.4.4.
SAFT (statistical association uid theory) model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551
4.5.
Kinetic models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551
4.6.
Absorption column model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551
4.7.
Dynamic modeling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551
Models review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551
5.1.
Rational for this review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.124
1364-0321/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
548
I.P. Koronaki et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 547566
5.2.
1. Introduction
Facing climatic change as a detrimental result of the increasing
global energy demand, various policies have been adopted aiming to
mitigate the consequences, mainly to the reduction of greenhouse
emissions. During the last years, the penetration of renewable sources
of energy has been mainly promoted as a promising solution.
However, it seems that fossil fuels will still be a predominant
component of the global energy mix, posing the need for more direct
ways of response. At the same time, EU and its member states are
committed to an emission reduction target of 20% by 2020, compared
with 1990 levels. This target could be increased to 30% under
conditions set out by the European Council [1]
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is a promising technique
gaining increasing interest among researchers and policymakers.
In specic, CCS is a process where CO2 is separated from industrial
production or energy conversion, is transported to the storage site
under high pressure and nally geologically stored, aiming to
realize zero emissions in the process of fossil energy extraction,
conversion and usage [2]. CCS refers to the capture of CO2
emissions either before the combustion of the fuel or directly
from the ue gas. Post combustion methods are more applicable as
they have no retrotting requirements for the existing equipment.
The most applied and efcient post combustion method is
chemical absorption. In comparison with other post-combustion
CO2 absorption processes, chemical absorbents ensure higher
absorption efciency and selectivity, and lower energy [3].
In order to enable a wider scale implementation of CCS, detailed
and efcient modeling of the process is a prerequisite. This is because
the study of reactive absorption is mainly based on simulations, as
experimental data are limited and not always reliable. Chemical
absorption of CO2 by aqueous solvents, mainly amines, has been
studied for decades by numerous researchers with satisfying results.
The developed models include both kinetic and thermodynamic
aspects and are aiming to optimize the absorption. It is only recently
though, that these attempts include dynamic characteristics and more
realistic representations of the process.
The current work objective is to outline briey the common
modeling approaches in the eld of post-combustion CO2 absorption and also attempt to list a wide spectrum of specic models,
steady and dynamic, encompassing their assumptions, modeling
and validations tools and main outcome. Finally, the paper aims to
conclude on the prediction efciency of several models, comparing, to the point it is possible, results of different researchers
which are based on the same experimental data.
2. Structure
The article is structured in 5 Sections. Section 1 is the
introductory section providing information about the CO2 emissions problem and the necessity to confront this. In following,
Section 2 outlines the chemical absorption process and certain
commercially used solvents. Section 3 provides the fundamentals,
assumptions and requirements of the reactive absorption
I.P. Koronaki et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 547566
549
systems with gas and liquids [9]. The modied equation giving the
generalized driving force is the following:
di
C lft Dij
where D is the Maxwell Stefan diffusion coefcient, xlfi and xlfj are
the liquid mole fractions in the liquid lm for i and j components,
nlfj and nlfi are the molar uxes in the liquid lm for i and j
components and C lft is the total molar concentration in the
liquid lm.
The electrolytes effect should be included in this analysis and
for dilute electrolyte systems, the diffusional interactions can be
neglected giving the generalized Maxwell Stefan equations
reduced to the following Nernst Planck equation:
nlfi C lft Dli;ef f
F
xlfi xlfi zi xlfi nlfm
RT
xi z i 0
i1
550
I.P. Koronaki et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 547566
dxA
dC
DA;B A ;
dx
dx
0 o x o n
At x 1; C A C Ao 0
DA;B
2 C A C A
t
x2
At t 0; C A C Ao 0
At x 0; C A C i
I.P. Koronaki et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 547566
activity coefcients. Through UNIQUAC, activity coefcients are calculated in relation to the excess Gibbs free energy. UNIFAC is another
model that can be described as a group contribution method. While
being based on essentially the same model as UNIQUAC it considers
molecules as a set of groups. By obtaining data for segments of
molecules it is possible to predict the activity of any molecule
composed of groups of which parameters are known. This gives
UNIFAC predictive properties that UNIQUAC does not have [26].
551
All reactions are performed within the liquid lm. The liquid
bulk is at chemical equilibrium.
The diffusion in the axial direction and the solvent evaporations are negligible.
Ideal phases
4.7. Dynamic modeling
The majority of models refer to steady state conditions. However,
the CO2 absorption process should be coupled with the power plant
(or other industry) real time operation. In case of biofuels and coalbased power plants, the parameters of the fuel might vary during
operation leading to uctuations in ue gas composition [29]. The
effect of these uctuations is crucial to be reected by the model. A
dynamic simulation tool can include three factors [30]; optimal
design of the absorption/desorption column often interferes with
each other, the load variation and the emerging technologies that
make the process more complex. Dynamic simulation will play a
pivotal role in identifying any operational bottlenecks at transient
conditions for the integrated power and CO2 capture plants. However, as mentioned, the validation of such models is not always
possible, as dynamic experimental data are very scarce.
5. Models review
An extensive literature review is included in this section,
providing information for a wide range of models examined.
5.1. Rational for this review
During the last decade, an increment of interest on modeling
post-combustion CO2 capture is observed. Numerous researchers
develop models covering all simulation approaches, different
solvents, evaluating different parameters aiming to the optimization of the process and the effective junction with the power plant.
Searching literature there are only few attempts to list these
projects [29,31]. Existing reviews address mainly dynamic modeling and are providing brief descriptions of the studied models. The
current work attempts to describe in detail and compare in a
quantitative approach a number of fundamental models while also
providing tables presenting in short more models.
5.2. Chemical absorption models literature review
An extensive literature survey has been carried out, listing a
number of representative prototype models developed by
researchers based on previous work. The current work aims to
cover the spectrum of different solvents and modeling approaches.
5.2.1. Steady state models
At rst, Table 1 encompasses 7 steady state models that are
going to be further described in following. Following, the models
are further described and tables with main correlations applied are
presented (Tables 214).
Equilibrium models, as mentioned before, are not very applicable as equilibrium is very unlike to be reached. However, a
representative equilibrium stage model is presented.
552
I.P. Koronaki et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 547566
Table 1
Overview of the studied steady state models.
Researcher
Model
type
Solvent
Sensitivity analysis
[Mores et al.
[32]]
MEA
Absorber/
Desorber
Not performed
[Khan et al.,
[41]]
MEA
Absorber
[Kucka et al.,
[49]]
Amines
Absorber
[Bolhr4
Nordenkampf et al.,
[52]]
[Gabrielsen
4
et al. [5]]
MDEA
Absorber
/Desorber
AMP
Absorber
[Puxty et al.,
[57]]
Absorber
[Al-Baghli
et al., [58]]
Amines/
Ammmonia
mixtures
MEA and
DEA
Absorber
Not available
Not performed
Table 2
Mores model correlations.
Mores model
Parameter
Correlation
Nomenclature
Stage efciency
aiz: activity
D: diffusivity of CO2 in MEA
: enhancement factor
G and L:gas and liquid velocities
kL,G: mass transfer coefcient for liquid and gas phase respectively
kr: forward reaction constant
L: liquid molar ow
V: vapour molar ow
vi: estequiometric coefcient
yniz : equilibrium composition of molecular specie considered leaving the
stage z
iz : coefcient activity
: stripping factor
: gas and liquid densities
z
Enhancement factor
Ez
V z yiz V z 1 yiz 1
V z yniz V z 1 yiz 1
1e
h=a
or
G' =RTkG G
L' =kL L E
p
DCO2 kr;CO2 MEA MEA kr;CO2 OH CO2
i !
z
kL
I.P. Koronaki et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 547566
553
Table 3
Khan model correlations.
Khan model
Parameter
Correlation
Enhancement factor
E 1 h
Nomenclature
1
E1 1
1:35
1
1 1:35
E1 1
where:
C Bl DB
;
E1 1 bD
C Ai
Al
E1
Rate constant
CO
r CO2 2
H
1
kg a
i1=1:35
p
M
p;
tanh M
M 2 DAl k02C2Bl
kl
CO2
k0 aE
1
Henrys constant
Mass balance equation
d uz C CO2;g
dz
GY CO2 C pg
dT g
dz
l
LC pl dT
dz
dN CO2;g
SCO2
hg a T g T l
dz
dT
GY CO2 C pg dzg GHR
dY CO
H S dz 2
Table 4
Kucka model correlations.
Kucka model
Parameter
Correlation
K r e xpv
p xvp;r vpp;r
v
ep;r ep;r
Lxlb
i
z
lb l
i
nlb
i a Ac Ri Ac
Gygb
i
z
Lhlb
z
Ghgb
z
Nomenclature
i
ngb
i a Ac
qlf ai Ac
qgf ai Ac
nlft
p
z
clft Dlef f ;i
xlfi
l
xlfi zi RGF T
xlfi nlft
l
f L; G; l; g;
lf
q l
lf
a: specic area
AC: cross-section area of column
Deff: effective diffusion coefcient
F: Faradays constant
h: molar enthalpy
ni molar ux of component i
p: product index
q: heat ux
RG: gas constant
r: reaction index
R: reaction rate
t: total
: activity coefcients
: lm thickness
: dimensionless lm co-ordinate
: thermal conductivity
: volumetric hold-up
T l
gf
qgf g
nl
P
i1
T g
g
ng
P
i1
lf
nlfi hi
gf
ngf
i hi
554
I.P. Koronaki et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 547566
Table 5
Bolhr Nordenkampf model correlations.
Bolhr Nordenkampf model
Parameter
Correlation
Nomenclature
Overall mass and energy transfer rates through the interfacial area on
stage k of the column
Hi;k xli;k
Enhancement factor
ECO2
Ek H k 1 V k 1 H k V k
yl
H: specic enthalpy
Hi: Henry-coefcient of component i
i;k
1
1
E1
Ha3=2
1
Film thickness
2=3
1
E 1 3=2
q
3wL
3
2 , w aint u sin
L
aint g sin
Table 6
Gabrielsen model correlations.
Gabrielsen model
Parameter
Correlation
Nomenclature
Molar ux of CO2
NCO2 aAc
B
1L dx
L dxH2O L dX CO2
1
dz 1 dz 1 dz
dG
N CO2 N H2 O aAc
dz
dyCO
2
dz
C inf
CO2 : concentration of molecular CO2 at the liquid interphase
dyH O
NH O aAc yH O 1 N CO2 yH O aAc
2
2
2
2
G
dz
dL
N
aA
c
CO2
dz
dxCO2
dz
dxH2 O
dz
qaAc
GC
p;G
N CO2 C p;CO2 N H2 O C p;H2 O aAc T L T G
dT L
LC p;L
dz
qaAc N CO2 H CO2 N H2 O HH2 O
LC p;L
LC p;L
dT G
dz
Enhancement factor
tanh
where:
E1 1
Equilibrium partial pressure
Heat of absorption
q: heat ux
XCO2: mole fraction of chemically bound CO2 in the bulk of the liquid phase
E1 E
M E1
E
1
q
E
M EE1
1 E
DAMP;L C 0AMP
2DCO2 ;L C inf
CO
k2 DCO2 ;L C 0AMP
, M
2
kL;CO
Table 7
Puxty model correlations.
Puxty model
Parameter
Correlation
Nomenclature
Differential equations
ci
t
Di xc2i r i
DCO R t cCO
N te 2 0e x 2 dt
2
Ratio of diffusion coefcients between N2O and CO2in DCO2; Am DN2O;Am DCO2; W
DN2O;W
water
I.P. Koronaki et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 547566
555
Table 8
Al-Baghli model correlations.
Al-Baghli model
Parameter
Correlation
Enhancement factor
Nomenclature
DidCi=dzj z 0 ri j z 0
kl Ci; int Ci;blk
N i;z V in yi;in V out yi;out kg;i a P i;out P i;int
0
kl;i aEi C i;int C i;bulk
Ci,int and Ci,bulk the interfacial and bulk molar concentration of the solute gas
Di is the diffusivity of solute gas i in the liquid
kg,i and kl,i: gas and liquid phase physical mass transfer coefcients of the solute gas i
For DEA
Table 9
Overview of the studied dynamic models.
Researcher
Model
type
4
[Kvamsdal
et al.,
[30]]
4
[Ghaemi
et al.
[61]]
[Kenig et al. 5
[15]]
4
[Harun
et al.
[63]]
[Jayarathna 4
et al.,
2013]
[Lawal et al. 5
[70]]
Solvent
MEA
Absorber
Partially
carbonated
ammonia
Aqueous
ammonia
Absorber
Not
Pilot Plant from Separation Research
Program (SRP) at the University of Texas at performed
Austin [Dugas, [38]]
Absorption column pilot plant
Not
performed
Absorber
MEA
Absorber/
Desorber
MEA
Absorber
Time dependency of temperature proles, CO2 loading, CO2 Pilot Plant Study at the University of Texas, Not
removal efciency, re-boiler heat duty
Austin [Dugas, [38]]
performed
MEA
Absorber/
Desorber
Temperature proles along the column height, water mass Pilot plant of Separations Research
Program at the University of Texas at
fraction, lean loading, CO2 capture level, reboiler duty
Austin
through time
Sensitivity
analysis
Not
performed
Not
performed
Not
performed
the column, negligible evaporation of solvent and constant pressure. Mass and energy balance equations were solved for different
heights of the absorption column to calculate CO2 concentration
prole along the column.
The comparisons of simulation predictions with the experimental data showed the following: for Tontiwachwuthikul pilot
plant (random packing), overall agreement between the prediction
and measurement is satisfactory for CO2 and MEA concentration
along the column. The CO2 concentration is slightly underpredicted for the bottom part of the column and for MEA overpredicted respectively. However, this part is crucial as prediction
results showed that the major absorption process takes place in
the bottom part of the column as the concentrations decrease
rapidly. In addition, in these areas, the predicted solvent temperature deviates from experimental data. This deviation is according
to the authors due to the neglection of the solvent evaporation in
the energy balance. The temperature prole conrms that the
main exothermic absorption occurs in the same column heights, as
a rapid temperature drop is predicted. The predictions are also in a
very good agreement with experimental data for Aroonwilas pilot
plant (structured packing). For the industrial plant experimental
data were not available. Predictions were only validated against
the CO2 exit concentration with very good results.
A sensitivity analysis is also performed using different correlations
for mass transfer coefcients. The correlations for the gas and
556
I.P. Koronaki et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 547566
Table 10
Kvamsdal model correlations.
Kvamsdal model
Parameter
Correlation
dC gi
dt
Species molar ux
Enhancement factor
C i
ug
z ug z
ag=l N i
C gi
Nomenclature
C li
n
P gi
N i K tot;i P eq;
i
p
kr;CO2 C nMEA DCO2
ECO2
l
kCO
n
f ree
l
P eq;
CO2 H E;CO2 C tot xCO2 CO2
N i : ux of component i
n
P eq;
xi i P i
i
n
P eq;
: Equilibrium pressure
i
P gi : partial pressure of
each component
ug ; ul : gas and liquid velocities
H r : heat of absorption of CO2
H vap : Heat of vapourization of H2O
H out : heat transfer coefcient for heat transferred from the absorber to the
surroundings
ree
: free CO2 mole fraction at equilibrium coefcient
xfCO
2
: activity coefcient
Table 11
Ghaemi model correlations.
Ghaemi model
Parameter
Dynamic mass balance equations
Correlation
Nomenclature
d
1
U z
Lj 1 xi;j 1 Lj xi;j nBi;j al RBLi;j L A
dt i;j
U Li;j xi;j U Lt;j xi;j L cLt;j A
h
i
1
0 z Gj 1 ys;j 1 Gj ys;j nBs;j al RBGi;j G A
h
i
B
B
1
z
Lj 1 hL;j 1 Lj hL;j qBL al RBL L oRL A
h
i
B
B
1
Gj 1 hG;j 1 Lj hG;j qBG al RBG G oRG A
0 z
P
m
gf
gf
ngf
qgf gf T i T gb
i hi
dEL
dt
i1
P
m
lf
lf
nlfi hi
qlf lf T lb T i
Molar concentration across the lm
Enhancement factor
C ; t
1
P
n1
i1
i
1 hR
P
t Q n t
f n d
0e
hn 1
i
sinn C l t C B t C l t
e Q n t sinnn
p
p
k2 DCO2 NH3
1 Ha2 ; Ha
kL
q: heat ux
R: reaction rate
U: spedic molar holdup
: lm thickness
: volumetric holdup
calculation. Contrary to the majority of models using an enhancement factor, this model considers mass and heat transfer resistances according to the lm theory by explicit calculation of the
interfacial uxes. The inuence of electrolytes is also included,
correlating the lm equations with reaction and diffusion kinetics.
The reaction rates are implemented as terms into the mass
transfer equations describing lm phenomena and into the balances describing liquid and bulk behavior. Bulk and liquid balance
equations are solved as well as correlations for enthalpy balance
and pressure drop in the gas bulk phase. In addition, mass transfer
phenomena across the interface are described by MaxwellStefan
I.P. Koronaki et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 547566
557
Table 12
Harun model correlations.
Harun model
Parameter
Correlation
dC i;g
dt
dC i;l
dt
ul
Nomenclature
C i;g ug
z ag=l N i
C i;l
z ag=l N i
h a T T
T
ug zg gl glPl g C i;g C p;i
T l
t
agl
l
P
C nCO2 : molar concentration of CO2 at the liquid side interface
C i;l C p;i
ul T
z
hgl T l T g Hrxn N CO2 H vap N H2 O hout T l T amb
k1g;i kHiE
l;i
p
k2 C nMEA DCO2
Eabs
k
1
K g;i
l;CO2
Estr 1
DMEACOO
DCO
2
D
1 2 MEACOO
DCO
2
C i;g ; C i;l : the molar concentrations of component i in gas and liquid phases
T g
t
D: diffusivity
K eq C MEA
p
p
p
n
n
K eq C CO
C CO
2
C CO2
dM i;reb
F in xi;in F v yi;out F l xi;out
dt
dEreb
F in H in F v H v F l H l Q reb
dt
2
M i;reb 4 dc LB m xi
2
Ereb 4 dc LB H l m
1 Q
2
AL
z Q f lux r
Q Tube;f lux U Tube T metal T tube
Q Shell;f lux ntube U Shell T metal T Shell
For tube metal:
Q
lux
metal
L Q Tube;f lux Shell;f
mmetal C p;metal dTdt
ntube
2
2
mmetal Lmetal 4 do;tube di;tube
dEh;x
dt
Table 13
Kenig model correlations.
Kenig model
Parameter
Mass balance equations for liquid and gas phases
Correlation
lb
t U i
Nomenclature
lb
lb
i
z Lxi nlb
i a Ri liq Ac
gb
gb i
gb
0
Gyi ni a Ri gas Ac
Driving force
Film balance equations
Reaction kinetics
xlfi
di RT 1lf
xlfi
l
xlfi zi RGF T
xlfi nlft
l
r 3 k3 T cCO2 cNH2 K1eq cH2NCOO cH3 O
nlft
equations, assuming local electroneutrality and neglecting diffusion interactions. Through these equations the two lm component uxes and the heat ux are determined. e-NTRL model is
used to describe thermodynamic non-idealities in the liquid phase
and for the gas phase the SoaveRedlichKwong equation of state
[50]. In order to simplify calculations, discretization of the lm
region is performed, dividing it to several balance regions. The
di
F 1 d
xlfi zi RT
d
lf d
clft Dlef f ;i
model was validated using two experimental data sets by Tontiwachwuthikul pilot plant and one data set from an industrial
plant. For the rst occasion, the inuence of the number of axial
segments on the gas composition is calculated, showing that the
minimum number of axial segments which provides results of
sufcient accuracy for both data sets is 15. Gas phase composition
and liquid phase temperature prole are presented along the
558
I.P. Koronaki et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 547566
Table 14
Jayarathna model correlations.
Jayarathna model
Parameter
Correlation
clj:Col
t
T lCol
t
U
l
ulCol cj:Col
1 0
C vj:Col
t
Nomenclature
ov
T vCol
h Aw
ulCol T lCol
Pn
zCol 3 l
C p:Col
T lCol
j 1
Condenser equations
Reboiler equations
Buffer tank equations
dclj:BT
dt
dT lBT
dt
ABT
1
ABT Z lBT
P
K ov
CO2
clj;Col
BT;Out
BT;In
u: velocity
_ lBT;In
n_ lj:BT;In ABT Z lBT n_ 0j:BT;gen m
l
P
r
l
l
v: is the stoichiometric matrix
l
l
H~ r;m r m
P T BT ;In T BT cl ABT Z lBT C~ p;j m 1 P
clj:BT C~ p;j
j:BT
clj:BT
l
l
n_ lj:BT;In C~ j:BT;In
1
1=K vCO
3
Pn
U
0
3
j 1 nj;Col; trans H vap:j
n0CO2;Col; trans H abs
P
P
C lp;Col nj 1 clj;Col
C lp;Col nj 1 clj;Col
ov
h Aw T vCol T lCol
uvCol T vCol
T vCol
P
cvj:Col C vp:j:Col
t 1 zCol
1
l
dZ lRD
_ lRD;In l V_ RD;Out
A 1 l m
dt
RD
dclj:RD
cl
1 l n_ lj:RD:In j:RD
mlRD;In
dt
l
ARD Z RD
P v
l
n_ j:RB H~ vap:j
Q_ RB mlRB;In C^ p RB H r
l
dZ lBT
_l
1 l m
l V_
dt
C: specie concentration
uvCol cj:Col
1
1
zCol 1 nj0 :Col;trans0
2
n_ 0gen vT r r
I.P. Koronaki et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 547566
559
560
I.P. Koronaki et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 547566
I.P. Koronaki et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 547566
561
562
I.P. Koronaki et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 547566
Fig. 3. Comparison of the temperature prole predictions of Khan and McDowell models and experimental data from Tontiwachwuthikul [T22].
Table 15
Lawal model correlations.
Lawal model
Parameter
Correlation
dMi
dt
Interface model
L U1A
Nomenclature
A: cross-sectional area
F Li
y N i U Sp U MW i U
V
F
L U1A yi
dU
dt
1 F H
L U A y
N i U Sp U MW i U
conv
Sp U U H cond
liq H liq H abs HL
F V
conv
0 LU 1A yH Sp U U H cond
vap H vap
L
2
habs R U 14281 1092554
6800882
32670:01 U
nc xM N xM N R
M
P
i
k
1 xi
1
T
i
k
i;k
298:15
z ct
k1
1 GT 1 H f lux
z z
L
V
f i xM;V
f i xM;L
i
i
the packed height of each absorber are 0.6 m and 3.9 m, respectively.
The inner diameter and the packed height of the stripper are 0.4 m and
3.5 m, respectively. The absorbers and stripper are both packed with
25 mm Pall rings.
I.P. Koronaki et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 547566
Table 16
Comparison of Munmorah simulations.
Case 31
CO2 absorption rate (kg/h)
Model prediction
Experimental
Relative deviation (%)
NH3 concentration in exit gas
Model prediction
Experimental
Relative deviation (%)
CO2 loading of rich solvent
Model prediction
Experimental
Relative deviation (%)
Case 31B
CO2 absorption rate (kg/h)
Model prediction
Experimental
Relative deviation (%)
NH3 concentration in exit gas
Model prediction
Experimental
Relative deviation (%)
CO2 loading of rich solvent
Model prediction
Experimental
Relative deviation (%)
Case 38
CO2 absorption rate (kg/h)
Model prediction
Experimental
Relative deviation (%)
NH3 concentration in exit gas
Model prediction
Experimental
Relative deviation (%)
CO2 loading of rich solvent
Model prediction
Experimental
Relative deviation (%)
Case 39
CO2 absorption rate (kg/h)
Model prediction
Experimental
Relative deviation (%)
NH3 concentration in exit gas
Model prediction
Experimental
Relative deviation (%)
CO2 loading of rich solvent
Model prediction
Experimental
Relative deviation (%)
563
Model
Qi
77.4
80
3.25
Zhang
83.49
80
4.36
18,589
19,463
4.491
14,415
19,463
25.936
0,338
0.345
2.029
0.36
0.345
4.348
61.8
68.2
9.384
66.2
68.2
2.933
8959
9173
2.333
7936
9173
13.485
0.25
0.34
26.471
0.33
0.34
2.941
80.8
75.44
7.105
75
75.44
0.583
3849
3756
2.476
5132
3756
36.635
0.22
0.42
47.619
0.4
0.42
4.762
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
87.8
85.6
2.570
87.33
85.6
2.021
8611
10,071
14.497
7740
10,071
23.146
0.284
0.38
25.263
0.38
0.38
0
(ppm)
Model
Jayarathna
96
95
1.053
Lawal
99.5
95
4.737
Jayarathna
0.448
0.428
4.673
Lawal
0.456
0.428
6.542
Jayarathna
0.285
0.279
2.151
Lawal
0.279
0.279
0
Jayarathna
314
314
0
Lawal
331
314
5.414
564
I.P. Koronaki et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 547566
Acknowledgements
The author acknowledge with appreciation the Laboratory of
Applied Thermodynamics, Thermal Engineering Section, School of
Mechanical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens,
for the support of the work on which this paper is based.
4
[Pintola
et al.,
[44]]
[Aboudheir 4
et al.,
[77]]
[Nittaya
4
et al.,
[78]]
MEA
Absorber
AMP
Absorber
MEA
Absorber/
Desorber
MEA and PZ
Absorber
MEA
Absorber
/Desorber
Alkanolamines Absorber
[Moioli
5
et al.,
[82]]
[Sema et al., 4
[84]]
PZ
Absorber
DEAB
Absorber
[Dugas and 5
Rochelle,
[79]]
[Saimpert
4
et al.,
[80]]
[Gaspar
et al.,
[81]]
I.P. Koronaki et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 547566
References
[1] Huaman RNE, Jun TX. Energy related CO2 emissions and the progress on CCS
projects: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;31:36885.
[2] Ming Z, Shaojie O, Yingjie Z. CCS technology development in China: status,
problems and countermeasures-based on SWOT analysis. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2014;39:60416.
[3] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Special report on carbon
dioxide capture and storage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University press;
2005.
[4] Koroneos C, Grigoriadis Th, Kosmidou M. Energy analysis of a lignite power
plant with carbon sequestration. In: Proceedings of the 23rd international
conference on efciency, cost, optimization, simulation and environmental
impact of energy systems. Lausanne: ECOS; 2010.
[5] Gabrielsen J, Michelsen M, Stenby E, Kontogeorgis G. Modeling of CO2 absorber
using an AMP solution. AIChE J 2006;52:344351.
[6] Leung DYC, Caramanna G, Maroto-Valer MM. An overview of current status of
carbon dioxide and storage technologies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2014;39:42643.
[7] Sakwattanapong R, Aroonwilas A, Veawab A. Reaction rate of CO2 in aqueous
MEA-AMP solution: experiment and modeling. Energy Proc 2009;1:21724.
[8] Zhao B, Su Y, Tao W, Li L, Peng Y. Post-combustion CO2 capture by aqueous
ammonia: a state-of-the-art review. Int J Greenh Gas Control 2012;9:35571.
[9] Kenig EY, Schneider R, Gorak A. Reactive absorption: optimal process design
via optimal modelling. Chem Eng Sci 2001;56:34350.
[10] Vrachnos A. Absorption of acid gases into aqueous alkanolamine solutions:
experimental investigation and thermodynamic modeling. Athens: National
Technical University of Athens; 2007 PhD Thesis.
[11] Peng J, Lextrait S, Edgar T, Eldridge RB. A comparison of steady-state
equilibrium and rate-based models for packed reactive distillation columns.
Ind Eng Chem Res 2002;41:273544.
[12] Kucka L, Richter J, Kenig EY, Gorak A. Determination of gasliquid reaction
kinetics with a stirred cell reactor. Sep Purif Technol 2003;31:16375.
[13] Kenig EY, Seferlis P. Modeling reactive absorption. Chem Eng Prog
2009:6571.
[14] Park HM. Reduced-order modeling of carbon dioxide absorption and desorption with potassium carbonate promoted by piperazine. Int J Heat Mass
Transf 2014;73:60015.
[15] Kenig EY, Schneider R, Gorak A. Rigorous dynamic modelling of complex
reactive absorption processes. Chem Eng Sci 1999;54:5195203.
[16] Whitman WG. The two-lm theory of absorption. Chem Met Eng 1923;29:147.
[17] Astarita G. Mass transfer with chemical reaction. New York: Elsevier; 1967.
[18] Higbie R. The rate of absorption of pure gas into a still liquid during short
periods of exposure. Trans Am Inst Chem Eng 1935;31:365.
[19] Chen C, Song Y. Generalized electrolyte-NRTL model for mixed-solvent
electrolyte systems. www.interscience.wiley.com; 2004.
[20] Koronaki IP, Christodoulaki RI, Papaefthimiou VD, Rogdakis ED. Critical review
of coupled heat and mass transfer models for a liquid desiccant adiabatic
dehumidier and regenerator. Adv Build Energy Res 2014;8(2):11736.
[21] Koronaki IP, Christodoulaki RI, Papaefthimiou VD, Rogdakis ED. Thermodynamic analysis of a counter ow adiabatic dehumidier with different liquid
desiccant materials. Appl Therm Eng 2013;50(1):36173.
[22] Koronaki IP, Christodoulaki RI, Papaefthimiou VD, Rogdakis ED. Thermodynamic analysis of an internally heated regenerator using three liquid desiccant
solutions. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2012 Heat transfer summer conference
collocated with the ASME 2012 uids engineering division. Summer meeting
and the ASME 2012 10th international conference on nanochannels, microchannels and minichannels. HT; 2012.
[23] Chen C, Britt HI, Boston JF, Evans LB. Local composition model for excess gibbs
energy of electrolyte systems. Part I: single solvent, Single Completely
Dissociated Electrolyte Systems. AIChE J 1982;28:588.
[24] Chen C, Evans LB. A local composition model for the excess Gibbs energy of
aqueous electrolyte systems. AIChE J 1986;32:444.
[25] Chunxi L, Furst W. Representations of CO2 solubility in aqueous MDEA
solutions using an electrolyte equation of state. Chem Eng Sci 2000;55:2975.
[26] Falck da Silva E. Modelling of activity coefcients using computational
chemistry. Report in DIK; 2002.
[27] Diamantonis N. Evaluation of statistical associating uid theory (SAFT) and
perturbed chain-SAFT equations of state for the calculation of thermodynamic
derivative properties of uids related to carbon capture and sequestration.
Energy Fuels 2011;25(7):333443.
[28] Vaidya PD, Kenig EY. CO2-alkanolamine reaction kinetics: a review of recent
studies. Chem Eng Technol 2007;30:146774.
[29] Chikukwa A, Enaasen N, Kvamsdal HM, Hillestad M. Dynamic modeling of
post-combustion CO2 capture using amines a review. Energy Proc
2012;23:8291.
[30] Kvamsdal HM, Jakobsen JP, Hoff KA. Dynamic modeling and simulation of a
CO2 absorber column for post-combustion CO2 capture. Chem Eng Process:
Process Intensif 2009;48(1):13544.
565
566
I.P. Koronaki et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 547566
[74] Zhang M, Guo Y. Rate based modeling of absorption and regeneration for CO2
capture by aqueous ammonia solution. Appl Energy 2013;111:14252.
[75] Qi G, Wang S, Yu H, Wardhaugh L, Feron P, Chen C. Development of a ratebased model for CO2 absorption using aqueous NH3 in a packed column. Int J
Greenh Gas Control 2013;17:45061.
[76] Lawal A, Wang M, Stephenson P, Yeung H. Dynamic modelling of CO2
absorption for post combustion capture in coal-red power plants. Fuel
2009;88:245562.
[77] Aboudheir A, Tontiwachwuthikul P, Idem R. Rigorous model for predicting the
behavior of CO2 absorption into AMP in packed-bed absorption columns. Ind
Eng Chem Res 2006;45:25537.
[78] Nittaya T, Douglas PL, Croiset E, Ricardez-Sandoval LA. Dynamic modelling and
control of MEA absorption processes for CO2 capture from power plants. Fuel
2014;116:67291.
[79] Dugas RE, Rochelle GT. Modeling CO2 absorption into concentrated aqueous
monoethanolamine and piperazine. Chem Eng Sci 2011;66:52128.
[80] Saimpert M, Puxty G, Qureshi S, Wardhaugh L, Cousins A. A new rate based
absorber and desorber modelling tool. Chem Eng Sci 2013;96:1025.
[81] Gaspar J, Cormos AM. Dynamic modeling and absorption capacity assessment
of CO2 capture process. Int J Greenh Gas Control 2012;8:4555.
[82] Moioli S, Pellegrini LA. Improved rate-based modeling of the process of CO2
capture with PZ solution. Chem Eng Res Des; 2014.
[83] Plaza JM. Modeling of carbon dioxide absorption using aqueous monoethanolamine. piperazine and promoted potassium carbonate [Ph.D. Thesis].
Austin: University of Texas; 2012.
[84] Sema T, Naami A, Liang Z, Idem R, Tontiwachwuthikul P, Shi H, et al. Analysis
of reaction kinetics of CO2 absorption into a novel reactive 4-diethylamino-2butanol solvent. Chem Eng Sci 2012;81:2519.
[85] Shi H, Liang Z, Sema T, Naami A, Usubharatana P, Idem R, Saiwan C,
Tontiwachwuthikul P. Solvent chemistry: NMR analysis and studies for
amine-CO2-H2O systems with VLE modeling for CO2 capture process. Carbon
Manage 2012;3:185200.