Integration of power plant and amine scrubbing to reduce CO2

capture costs

Luis M. Romeo*, Irene Bolea, Jesús M. Escosa

Centro de Investigación de Recursos y Consumos Energéticos (CIRCE).

Universidad de Zaragoza. Centro Politécnico Superior. María de Luna, 3, 50018 Zaragoza.

Abstract

Due to security, sustainability of supply, strategic and energetic dependence reasons, it

is well accepted the necessity to continue using coal as main fuel for producing electricity from

power plants. In order to reduce CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, it is essential to develop

carbon capture and storage technologies that lead to zero emissions fossil fuels power plants.

Absorption by chemical solvents combined with CO2 long-term storage appears to offer

interesting and commercial applicable CO2 capture technology. However the high regeneration

energy requirements make necessary a process optimization in large-scale power plants.

Although actual CO2 capture cost remain around 55 €/Ton CO2, the target is to maintain this

cost below 25 €/Ton CO2.

This paper proposes different possibilities to overcome the energy requirements by

means of amine scrubbing integration into a commercial power plant, and presents a technical

and economical analysis of the performance of these approaches. Although some schemes

show small efficiency penalties, it becomes essential to calculate specific cost per ton CO2, the

main aim is to chose the proper configuration to implement large-scale cost-effective schemes

that leads to CO2 capture demonstration projects.

Keywords: MEA scrubbing, CO2 capture, power plant, energy integration, capture costs

*
Corresponding author (e-mail: luismi@unizar.es). Phone +34 976 762570 Fax +34 976 732078

1
1. INTRODUCTION

Today, fossil fuels produce over 60% of the world’s electricity. Coal is the most

abundant fossil fuel, playing an essential role as fuel for power plant operation and contributing

to about 38% of the total electricity generation [1]. For the coming decades it is expected to

continue as a prominent fuel for electricity production [2]. However, CO2 has the greatest

negative impact on the observed greenhouse effect, causing approximately 55% of the global

warming [3]. As a consequence, European National Allocation Plans have considered an

important reduction in the utilization of coal, especially in power plants.

In order to maintain the increasing rate of electricity production based on coal is

necessary the development of clean fossil fuels power plants. The development of zero and

near zero emissions power plant technologies is gaining importance worldwide and large

demonstration projects are expected in the coming decade for new plants [3]. But if drastic

reductions are requested in the medium term, it is also necessary to support and study

technologies that could be able to capture any percentage of CO2 from existing power plants.

In a post-combustion capture, CO2 is directly isolated from a stream of flue gases once

combustion is completed; then, a recovery process is applied to the CO2 captured. Among

those methods, CO2 absorption by amine derived chemical solvents appears to offer an

interesting and practical alternative from combustion flue gases at power stations. Besides

absorption technology is commercially applicable, there are a lot of experiences with a

conventional chemical solvent, like monoethanolamine and research projects are planned to be

executed for new plants during the next years [4,5]. The main disadvantage of amine scrubbing

is the cost, which is perceived too high to be economically attractive. A practical research

objective is the analysis of the CO2 capture process integration with a view towards minimizing

the cost of implementation, operation and the cost per ton of CO2 avoided. Obviously intensive

research is necessary to reduce its current cost from 40-70 €/ton CO2 [2] to values well under

25 €/ton CO2.

CO2 absorption by amine scrubbing has been extensively studied by many researchers

but studies are mainly focused on chemical reaction mechanism, mass transfer, gas/liquid

equilibrium, and other related aspects of CO2 absorption [6-9]. Nevertheless one of the main

2
problems is related to the large quantities of heat required to regenerate the amine solvent

within the CO2 capture process. A typical range is between 0.72 and 1.74 MWt per MWe

generated in a coal-fired power plant [10]. The economical cost of this energy requirement,

mainly in the Stripper reboiler and CO2 compression, is usually higher than capital cost.

Outstanding studies have analyzed different alternatives to reduce the heat duty on the reboiler

and the thermal integration requirements on the power cycle [11-15]. These studies have been

focused in the location of steam extraction at steam turbine and the re-injection of condensate

from stripper to steam cycle. It seems evident that the optimal option is to extract saturated

steam midway through the low pressure section of the turbine [11-14] with a pressure between

1.8 and 2.8 bar using the lowest quality steam available to fit with the reboiler requirements [14].

Most of the steam turbines do not have an extraction at this pressure range, as a consequence,

perfect integration is only possible when steam cycle is designed taking into account a future

amine scrubbing installation. For existing power plants, researchers have analyzed different

options to integrate amine scrubbing with a small efficiency reduction in the original power plant

performance. Power reductions around 17% has been reported, for a 900 MW coal-fired power

plant, [11], where 611 t/h of CO2 are captured and compressed, using 737 t/h of steam, which

is the 54% of the steam leaving the boiler. Other studies increase the power reduction up to

26%, with a reduction in power plant efficiency of 11.6 points for a 320 MW coal-fired power

plant [12]. In this case 335.2 t/h of steam were extracted at 5 bar, in low pressure turbine stage,

33% of the steam leaving the boiler, to capture 213.1 t/h of CO2 and the condensate was re-

injected into the deaerator. A novel strategy to reduce the efficiency losses is based on an

extraction from an IP/LP crossover pipe and an expansion through a new auxiliary turbine [14],

to get the adequate conditions for the steam to the reboiler. In this case, 79% of the steam is

drawn-off from a 450 MW power plant. Finally, some researchers [15] have increased the

complexity of the installation adding an auxiliary gas turbine and natural gas boiler for the

stripper energy requirements. In this case, CO2 avoided was reduced due to emissions from

these equipments, which were not captured.

In order to completely analyze the amine capture process the CO2 compression

installation, the cooling equipment must be taken into account. Power reduction due to

3
compression could represent around 10% of the electrical power and refrigeration necessities

could increase up to 60%. In spite of these data and some studies [12,15] that have considered

the compression necessities, there is still a lack of information and studies that include the

integration of the heat from the compression stages into the steam cycle in order to reduce the

cooling requirements and the efficiency penalty into the steam cycle. Generally, neither the CO2

compression power nor the cooling equipment and its effect on power plant performance are

taken into account, in the way of improving the power plant performance, once the capture

system is included.

The objective of this paper is to compare the power plant performance, with special

attention on the power output and efficiency penalty, and investment cost and specific price of

CO2 when MEA scrubbing is integrated with the steam cycle. Different alternatives to provide

heat and power have been evaluated in order to minimize the cost of CO2 avoided and the cost

of electricity, after adding the capture process to the power plant. Reboiler heat duty provided

by an external auxiliary steam boiler, by a steam turbine extraction or even by heat provided by

a gas turbine that also satisfies the power requirements for CO2 compression. Finally, cost

calculations have been developed taking into account the total annual costs of each

configuration and the total CO2 avoided, in order to achieve a specific value, price per ton of

CO2 avoided, to be able to compare the different alternatives.

2. CASE STUDY

The simulated power plant arranges three similar pulverized coal-fired units with a 350

MWe reheat steam turbine featuring six stages of regenerative preheating, three low pressure,

two high pressure and deaerator. At base load, the steam conditions at the turbine admission

valves supplied from each of the three fired boilers are 311.2 kg/s of live and reheat steam at

168 bar/540ºC and 39 bar/540ºC respectively. The net efficiency of such units amounts to

36.93% (LHV). The combustion of coal supplied to each fired boiler produces 982.89 MWt at

base load and yields approximately 630,0 kg/s (1,990,000 Nm3/h) of flue gas being 96,3 kg/s of

CO2 (194,224 Nm3/h, 9.76 %v). This emission CO2 values is low compared to regular flue gases

from coal firing but the coal used for calculations was a low-rank Spanish lignite with low carbon

4
content (40%C, 20%H2O, 25% ash). A power plant simulation has been developed to provide a

base case and essential information on coal consumption, thermal efficiency, net plant

efficiency and electricity output. Simulations can also provide the quality and quantity of steam

throughout power cycle as well as the emission rate, temperature, and composition of the flue

gas.

3. CAPTURE PLANT SIMULATION

Initial condition of the simulation has been to capture between 60 and 65% of CO2

produced, owed to economical reasons. In a medium-age power plant (typical for the majority of

installation in Europe) a high investment in CO2 capture cost could not be cost-effective. In

these situation seems reasonable to reduce the capture rate just to fulfill National Allocations

Plans for each installation. The hypothesis considered has been that medium-age power plants

are forced to reduce a maximum of 60% of CO2 emissions.

It is used a pure 30%w MEA aqueous solution. An absorber packed column could treat

a maximum volume flow rate around 300,000 m3/h [12], so that the equipment sizing becomes

technical and economically feasible. Four trains of 10 m diameter each absorber were used [15]

to treat 1,284,371 m3/h. With these values six separate absorption/regeneration column trains

were necessary, treating one sixth of the gases flow each one (331,600 m3/h). Flue gas, with a

mass flow of 105 kg/s (331,666 Nm3/h) is drawn-off after desulphurization unit at 55ºC and 1

atm. It is assumed no pollutants in flue gas such NOx and SOx. A purge of 5% of degraded

MEA will be also included within the model. Absorption process flowsheet is shown in figure 1.

CO2 capture is modeled using chemical-absorption with MEA. The ASPEN PLUS block

[16] used for the simulations, Aspen RadFrac, is a rigorous model for simulating multistage

vapor-liquid fractionation operations, in particular: absorption, reboiled absorption, stripping and

reboiled stripping. It has been assumed no pollutant in the flue gases and an adiabatic

absorption process. Main simulation variables and results are shown in table 1. Electricity and

heat consumption per ton of CO2 captured are calculated with ASPEN and values are

comparable but slightly lower than those reported by other authors [11-13]. Total energy

requirements, electricity and heat consumption, amounts approximately 4,0 GJ/tCO2 with an

5
electricity consumption of 112 kWh/tCO2 and heat required similar to [13]. The discrepancy with

the value of 2.76 is due to the use of KS-1 solvent in [11]. Although the heat for stripper reboiler

can be reduced using different amines and blends, the objective of present work is to minimize

its effects in the power plant performance.

Total compression energy required to CO2 conditioning for transport, 140 bar and

ambient temperature, is 70.5 MWe, which represents about 7% of the power plant energy

output. The compression process requires intercooling stages, to reduce compression

requirements and to avoid excessive CO2 temperature.

4. INTEGRATION OF POWER PLANT AND MEA SCRUBBING

CO2 capture process requires a great amount of supplementary energy to avoid

excessive power output penalty. For amine scrubbing, thermal energy is needed for amine

regeneration, electricity consumption for CO2 compression and cooling necessities for

refrigeration. An important consideration to select steam quality for the stripper is the steam

pressure. The consensus is that the reboiler temperature must not overcome 122ºC, value

above which degradation of MEA and corrosion becomes intolerable. Assuming 10ºC as hot

side temperature approach in the reboiler, the steam conditions of the saturation temperature

amounts to 132ºC [14]. Saturation pressure at this temperature is 2.8 bar. This thermal energy

can be supplied from either an auxiliary boiler, or from a power plant steam extraction. Finding

the optimum way to extract this steam becomes essential in order to get the less power plant

energy penalty.

Before the compression process, it is required to dry the captured CO2 stream, cooling it

down until around 30ºC. A valuable heat stream is produced cooling down the stream in a first

stage to 50ºC and in a second stage to 25ºC. Such stream could be integrated into the low

pressure steam cycle lowering the heating requirements. Two low-pressure heaters could be

eliminated from steam cycle and the extraction steam mass flow feeds the LP steam turbine to

increase electricity production. This fact will be taking into account along the different

configurations simulated.

6
 Some researchers have considered in their analysis to maintain the power plant original

output to the grid [15], resulting that a considerable amount of supplementary energy must be

supplied for the CO2 separation processes using gas turbine or natural gas boilers. The

drawback is that CO2 generated by the combustion of natural gas used in these systems is not

captured, consequently the CO2 avoided is reduced and the capture cost per ton of CO2 is

increased. In this study it is assumed a power plant output reduction owes to steam de-rate and

compression electricity requirements. In order to supply this energy and minimize the impact on

power output, efficiency and capture cost, three possible options are simulated and integrated

into the original power station for comparison, figure 2:

- The first one uses a natural gas auxiliary boiler to produce steam for the

absorption process avoiding the negative effect in original plant steam cycle efficiency

and power output.

- The second one is integrating the absorption process into the original power

plant optimizing the overall efficiency, but also reducing power output.

- Finally, supplementary energy is generated using a gas turbine in partial

repowering of the power plant.

Results show the power plant performance for one power plant unit.

4.1. Auxiliary boiler

A natural gas boiler has been modeled to supply heat requirements to the stripper

boilers. Compression energy and other auxiliary equipment are driven by the original steam

turbine. Table 2 shows a comparison between the base case without capture and the use of a

natural gas boiler for thermal energy requirements in stripper boiler. As expected, there is a

drop of 10 points in the power plant global efficiency, due to the rise of fuel thermal energy. Net

power output decreased, 23.6 MWe, because the compression energy requirements are

provided by the steam turbine generator. Although 60% of CO2 is captured, the boiler flue gases

increase the specific value of emissions per kWh up to 0.469 kg/kWh.

4.2. Power plant internal flows integration

7
 Integration based on power plant internal streams, depends upon the plant

configuration. Ideally, best results would be obtained from an extraction at the pressure of 2.8

bar, at which saturation temperature is 130ºC. Most of existing power plants will not have this

condition in any extraction and should adapt them to the required conditions. Stripper boiler

conditions can be achieved after first low-pressure turbine extraction, 2.8 bar and 208.5 ºC. This

flow needs to be cooled down until saturation temperature (130ºC), before getting into the

desorber, because of degradation problems. It is proposed to mix this steam flow with

condensate re-injection from reboiler in order to increase the mass flow to stripper and reduce

the extraction mass flow necessary for regeneration.

Thermal energy from the first compression intercooling in the compression stage is

used also to improve the cycle efficiency. Two low-pressure heaters are eliminated from steam

cycle as is shown in figure 3, reducing output penalty in low pressure turbines.

The possibility of extracting steam from an intermediate pressure point has been also

studied, figure 3, after medium pressure turbine, steam pressure is 7.3 bar. This flow is

expanded down to 3 bar in an auxiliary steam turbine, generating 20 MWe and reducing

compression power necessities. Saturated water is returned to the cycle through the deaerator.

Results are also presented in table 2. It is observed a reduction in steam turbine

production (around 18.5%) caused by the steam de-rate in last turbine stages as well as the use

of steam turbine generator output to provide electricity to the compression process. The first

option results on a increased efficiency of 0.61 points more than the second one, but it is 6.8

points lower than the reference case. Specific CO2 emissions are reduced to 0.450-0.460

kg/kWh

4.3. Gas Turbine

Adding gas turbines to existing steam power plants have been used to enhance their

performance since gas turbines were introduced to electric utilities in 1949 [17]. Repowering

projects have been both to increase capacity stations at higher efficiency and to reduce of

mainly NOx and SO2 emissions in a cost effective way. Presently, when carbon dioxide

8
emissions seem to have an important role in our society, repowering concept adds another

credit to be more attractive.

In repowering arrangement, gas turbine exhaust gas could be used as combustion air

for the coal fired power plant. This option would require excessively arrangements in the air-coal

system and in the steam boiler. Moreover hot windbox repowering arrangement was not survey

because of the lower oxygen concentration than ambient air and the increase of gasses volume

that could lead to erosion problems and different temperature profiles inside the boiler. Also gas

turbine exhaust gas, characterized by high temperature and large mass flow could be utilized to

either preheat part of the original steam water cycle or to raise steam for admission to the

turbine casings. On this paper, both possibilities have been simulated adding one Siemens

V64.3 gas turbine to the three steam cycles. On feed water repowering, gas turbine flue gases

are cooled down in three stages reducing steam turbine bleedings, figure 4. Also, a gas turbine

heat steam recovery generator is used to supply reheat steam to the turbine. Power delivered

by the gas turbine is used as auxiliary power for CO2 compression.

Results, showed in table 2, shows a small net output reduction of 9% (around 32 MWe)

but specific emissions remains in values similar to those presented above due to natural gas

combustion in gas turbines. Efficiency penalty is lower than previous configurations, almost 3.0

points over the steam cycle integration.

Even if gas turbine results are showed a minimum efficiency and output penalty, it

becomes necessary to value them into economical terms, in order to focus that configuration

that minimize the capture cost and the increase of electricity cost.

5. ECONOMIC EVALUATION

The target for the CO2 capture studies is to recover 60-65% of the original emissions

with the minimum cost per CO2 avoided.

The target for this analysis is to capture around 60-65% of the original emissions with

the minimum cost per CO2 avoided. It is evident that the majority of the studies raise this

quantity up to 90%,[3], in a medium, long-term analysis this could be the objective.

Nevertheless a short-term option for power companies is to reduce CO2 emissions in order to

9
carry out the National Allocations Plans without an important impact in their economic results. In

this scenario, a less intensive capture process could be economically attractive.

Capital costs were evaluated using different sources [16-21]. It has been used the “six-

tenth rule”, broadly used and explained [20]. Assumptions used in the economic evaluation

were:

- Existing power plant is paid off

- 5% interest rate

- 20 year project life with zero salvage value at the end of the project

- No taxation or depreciation calculations were included in this study

- Electricity price, 5.29 ¢/kWh

- Cost of coal for power plant boiler and the auxiliary power unit, 2 €/GJ

- Cost of natural gas for auxiliary power units, 4 €/GJ

- Cost of natural gas (NG) auxiliary boiler, 75 €/kWht

- Cost of gas turbine (GT) and heat recovery steam generator (HRSG), 265 €/kW

- Cost of the make-up water, 0.191 €/m3.

- Cost of the make-up MEA, 981 €/ton.

- The plant operates for 7500 hr/year, which gives time for maintenance.

- The maintenance costs are 2.2% of the fixed capital investment.

- The final CO2 product will be provided at 25 ºC and 139 bar

Equipment costs, table 3, are the main contribution to the total cost as was previously

showed by [12] and [15]. O&M cost are also itemized in table 3 for the absorption process. Total

annual cost amounts to 49 million euros per year. This is not the unique contribution to the

capture process, it is necessary to take into account the influences of the reduction of power

output, extra fuel for auxiliary equipment and the gas turbine and heat recovery steam

generator, auxiliary boiler or plant modifications. These quantities are shown in table 4.

Modifications of steam cycle for the stripper energy requirement is the cheaper option

but, as it was shown in table 2, have the maximum power output reduction and a loss of

efficiency of 6.8 points. As no extra CO2 emissions are needed the CO2 avoided amounts 4.8

10
million tons per year with a cost of 25.3 euros per ton CO2 avoided. This option seems to be the

preferred choice.

Gas turbine scheme shows a intermediate annual cost due to the size of GT+HRSG is

substantially lower than NG boiler. Although is the option with the higher efficiency and power

output, CO2 avoided is slightly lower than previous configuration. As a consequence, the cost

increases up to 31.0 euro per ton CO2 avoided.

Finally, the equipment ant operational cost of the auxiliary boiler option increase the

total annual cost for this configuration. Moreover, the CO2 emissions decrease the CO2 avoided

and increase the cost per ton CO2 avoided up to 60 euros. If coal is used instead NG cost is

reduced to 56 euros.

Despite expected steam turbine operational problems, the option of steam cycle

modifications with integration of intercooling compression into the low-pressure steam cycle

seems to be worthy compared with configurations including GT and/or steam generators.

6. CONCLUSIONS

Amine scrubbing is a well-known method for CO2 capture. Chemical reaction

mechanisms and solvent development have been studied in the last decade in order to reduce

energy regeneration requirements. However, the optimum integration of capture process into

the power plant has not been solved yet. The power output and efficiency penalties make that

the efficiency optimization and the economical optimization do not agree. This paper has

proposed different possibilities to overcome the energy requirements by means of amine

scrubbing integration into a commercial power plant, and has presented a technical and

economical analysis of the performance of these approaches. It should be noticed that

regeneration requirements and its effect on power plant performance can also be reduced using

different amines and blends. But in these cases, further research is needed in order to propose

several integration schemes.

Using a gas turbine to supply compression electrical energy requirements and

extracting steam from the steam cycle is the optimum option with regard to the efficiency

penalty on the power plant performance. Nevertheless, economic evaluation shows that GT

11
operation reduces the CO2 avoided and increases the capture cost up to 6 euros per ton CO2

with reference to a configuration with steam cycle modifications. These configurations have

shown the best results according the capture cost, even if larger penalties in efficiency and

power output are produced. Obviously, the less efficient and cost-effective option is the

installation of new steam generator for the stripper energy requirements. Efficiency reduction

amounts 10 points with reference to the base case, and a capture cost of 60 euros per ton CO2

avoided for NG and 56 for coal operation.

Although research is focused in the integration of capture process into the existing

power plants, more research is needed in order to design new power plant with integrated CO2

capture process. Efficiency penalty would be reduced and a cost-effective process could be

developed.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful for the financial support from the Spanish Government, without

which, this work could not have been undertaken. The work described in this paper was

supported by the R+D Spanish National Program from the Spanish Ministry of Science and

Education under project ENE2004-06053, Cuasi-zero CO2 emissions power plant technologies

research. The Spanish case.

References.

[1] F. Birol, M. Argiri, World energy prospects to 2020. Energy, 24, (1999) 905–918

[2] IEA. Annual Energy Outlook 2003. DOE/IEA-0383. January 2003

[3] IPCC Special Report on Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage. 2005

[4] European Commission. European CO2 Capture and Storage Projects. 2004

[5] P. Feron, Post-combustion capture. Presentation at joint ENCAP/CASTOR seminar. 2006

(www.encapco2.org)

[6] A. Aroonwilas, A. Chakma, P. Tontiwachwuthikul, A. Veawab, Mathematical modelling of

mass-transfer and hydrodynamics in CO2 absorbers packed with structured packings. Chemical

Engineering Science, 58 (2003) 4037-4053.

12
[7] G.Soave, J.A. Feliu, Saving energy in distillation towers by feed splitting. Applied Thermal

Engineering. 22 (2002) 889–896.

[8] S. Freguia, G.T. Rochelle, Modeling of CO2 absorption/stripping with monoethanolamine.

AIChE Journal, 49 (7) (2003) 1676–1687.

[9] T. Mimura, S. Shimojo, T. Suda, M. Iijima, S. Mitsuoka, Research and development on

energy saving technology for flue gas carbon dioxide recovery and steam system in power

plant. Energy Conversion and Management. 36 (6–9) (1995) 397–400.

[10] C. Ali, Simulation and optimization of a coal-fired power plant with integrated CO2 capture

using MEA scrubbing. 8th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies.

Trondheim, Norway. 2006 (www.ghgt8.no)

[11] T. Mimura, H. Simayoshi, T. Suda, M. Iijima, S. Mituoka, Development of Energy Saving

Technology for Flue Gas Carbon Dioxide Recovery in Power Plant by Chemical Absorption

Method and Steam System. Energy Conversion and Management, 38 (1997) S57-S62

[12] U. Desideri, A. Paolucci, Performance modelling of a carbon dioxide removal system for

power plants. Energy Conversion Management 40 (1999) 1899–915.

[13] C. R. Bozzuto, N. Nsakala, G. N. Liljedahl, M. Palkes, J. L. Marion. Engineering Feasibility

of CO2 Capture on an existing US coal-fired Power Plant. Final Report, Volume I. ALSTOM

Power Inc. 2001

[14] C. Ali, Simulation and optimisation of a coal-fired power plant with integrated CO2 capture

using MEA scrubbing. Master Thesis. University de Waterloo. 2004

[15] D. Singh, E. Croiset, P.L. Douglas, M.A. Douglas, Techno-economic study of CO2 capture

from an existing coal-fired power plant: MEA scrubbing vs. O2/CO2 recycle combustion. Energy

Conversion and Management. 44 (2003) 3073-3091

[16] Aspen Plus 12.1 User Guide. Aspen Technology, Inc. 2003

[17] H.G. Stoll, R.W. Smith, L.O. Tomlinson, Performance and Economic Considerations of

Repowering Steam Power Plants. GE Industrial & Power Systems Report GER-3644D. 1994

[18] K. Timmerhaus, Plant design and economics for chemical engineers. MacGraw-Hill. 1991

[19] Chemical Engineering. Updating the CE Plant Cost Index. Chemical Engineering, 2002

13
[20] A. Rao, E. Rubin, M. Berkenpas, An integrating modelling framework for carbon

management technology. US Department of Energy. 2004

[21] K. Fischer, C. Beitler, C. Rueter, K. Searcy, G. Rochelle, M. Jessim, Integrating MEA

Regeneration with CO2 compression and peaking to reduce capture costs. US Department of

Energy. 2005

14
 Q

COOL
REGABS

REGCOLD

GASOUT
MIXSOL
B4
CO2
B3
SOL
SOLIN
ABSORBER DESORBER

LIQHOT

W
LIQ2 REG5
GASIN1 REG
QREB
WPUMP
Q
LIQ1 PUMP REG2
SPLIT
MIX2

REG3 PURGA1

REGENERA
PURGA

Figure 1. MEA absorption process flowsheet

15
 CO2 emitted

Flue gas
CO2 absorption
Reference and compresion
MWe
Plant MWe
MWe

CO2 captured
Auxiliary boiler
Natural Gas MWt

Flue gas CO2 emitted

Reference CO2 absorption

and compresion
Plant MWe y MWt MWe

CO2 captured
Optimization

Flue gas CO2 emitted

CO2 absorption
Reference and compresion
Plant
MWt
MWe
MWe
Auxiliary gas turbine CO2 captured

Natural Gas
Flue gas

Figure 2. Integration using a natural gas auxiliary boiler, internal energy flows, natural gas
auxiliary gas turbine

16
 ηLHV = 36.93%
LP1 LP LP3 LP4
2

2
311 ºC 206,8 ºC 3 113.2 kg/s
1
7,3 bar 2,8 bar
8,3 kg/s
363 MWe
121.5 kg/s

HP IP1 IP2 LP1 LP2 LP3 LP4 LP REBOIL

extraction
267 MW
Flue gases

Condenser
Boiler 6 5 4 3 2 1
23 MW
Deareator (from intercooler)
COAL HEAT
845 MWt

IP2 LP1 LP2 LP3 LP4

121,5 kg/s

20 MWe
2 1

PRESAT

IP REBOIL
Deareator
HP Exchangers LP Exchangers extraction 264 MW

15,5 MW
23 MW
(from PRESAT)
(from intercooler)

Figure 3. Integration with internal flows

17
 Deareator
Condenser
Natural gas
6 5 4 3 2 1

Combustion
Chamber 246ºC 210ºC 169ºC 118ºC 81ºC 56ºC 38ºC

Wout= 67.5 MW
Compressor Turbine Q1 Q2
Q3

Air in

Flue gas 537ºC 240ºC 200ºC 111ºC

Figure 4. Using the heat from de gas turbine flue gas to minimize feed water heaters requirements

18
 Units This paper Mimura [11] Desideri [12] Bozzuto [13]

Base plant net generation MWe 1,069 900 321 434

Base plant efficiency (LHV) % 36.9 31.1 36.7
Flue gases CO2 concentration % v. 9.7 13.3 13.2 15.0
Technology MEA KS-1 Fluor Daniel Kerr-McGee
CO2 flow rate captured T/h 689,6 611,0 203,6 378,8
CO2. captured % 65 90 86.5 98
Electricity consumption per CO2 captured kWh/tCO2 111.93 119.00 91.50 118.84
Heat consumption per CO2 captured GJ/tCO2 3.57 2.76 3.95 -

Table 1. Main simulation parameters comparison

19
 Steam Turbines Aux. Electric. N.G. energy Net Output Global efficiency Specific CO2
Output (MWe) consump. (MWe) requirements (MWe) (LHV) Emited (kg
(MWt) CO2/kWh)
Base Plant 362.98 19.92/3 - 356.34 36.93% 0.969

Auxiliary N.G. boiler 362.98 90.69/3 306.6/3 332.75 26.18% 0.469

From LP1 Extraction 320.50 89.82/3 - 290.57 30.11% 0.451

From IP2 Extraction 314.71 90.18/3 - 284.65 29.50% 0.460

Gas turbine HP and IP 394.18 19.92/3 137/3 320.04 33.27% 0.467

heaters bleed reduction
Gas turbine and extra 398.76 20.40/3 137/3 324.46 33.70% 0.464
steam generation

Table 2. Integration results summary

20
 Capital costs (€)
Blower 4,174,945
Absorber 33,399,560
Desorber 3,931,981
Reboiler 3,444,496
MEA plant and auxiliaries 16,052,668
Regenerator 2,355,650
Total capture equipment costs (€) 63,359,301
Total compression equipment costs (€) 167,770,755
Total equipment costs (€) 231,130,056
Instalation cost (14%) 32,358,208
Initial MEA 12,346,790
Instrumentation and control (10%); piping (17%) 62,405,115
Electrical equipment (8%); buildings and services (16%) 55,471,213

Capture plant and compression total cost (€) 393,711,382

Engineering and supervision cost (7%); process and project contingency (15%) 50,848,612
DIRECT AND INDIRECT TOTAL COST (€) 444,559,995
O&M fix cost
Total maintenance cost 2,2% plant total cost 10,220,571
Maintenance cost asigned to workers 12% maintenance total cost 1,226,469
Administration cost 30% worker asigned cost 367,941
Total O&M fix costs (€) 11,814,980
O&M variables cost
MEA Make-up 837,810
Water Make-up 1,188,628
Tota O&M variable cost (€) 2,026,438
TOTAL O&M COST (€) 13,841,418
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (€) 49,048,209

Table 3. Total annual costs (€)

21
 Total Annual Costs (€) CO2 avoided (t/year) Price per CO2 ton (€/t) Global efficiency (LHV)

Gas Natural Boiler 216,639,379 3,575,826 60.58 26.18%

Internal Flows 121,573,539 4,815,288 25.25 30.11%
Gas Turbine 137,465,238 4,401,810 31.23 33.70%

Table 4. Specific CO2 prices, calculated for each configuration

22
REVIEWERS

Dear Mr. Reay,

We are very grateful to the referees for the attention paid to our paper. A revision of the paper
number ATE-2006-602 “Integration of power plant and amine scrubbing to reduce CO2 capture costs”
has been prepared. All the points raised by the reviewers have been considered

REVIEWER 1
How did you obtain results for the pulverised coal power plant? With Aspen simulation
as well or with other tools?
We have obtained results with ASPEN simulations of the steam cycle and gas turbines. The
composition of flue gases is a real data from an existing power plant in Spain. We have also used
ASPEN for chemical simulations.

If I understood correctly you don't treat all the exhausts flow rate. Please express all the
streams the overall flue gases and the treated flue gases in the same unit (all in Nm3/h or all in
kg/s) in order to make possible an easy check of mass balance
Yes, you are all right. We do not treat the entire exhaust gases. We have included both units
in order to make possible mass balances and simplify reading.

In figure 1 you have a REGEN block: please explain what process performs this block
REGEN Block is a small packed tower, which make the thermal separation of degraded
amine. Purged amine flow rate is around 5%.

Did you simulate the intercooled compression in Aspen as well?

Yes, as above mentioned, all simulations have been carried out with ASPEN.

Please, use always the same unit to express co2 specific emission (always g/kWh or
always kg/kWh, etc..)
We have modified CO2 specific emissions and use kg/kWh

If I correctly understood you kept a given configuration of the removal system with 60%
CO2 removal efficiency and then you changed the way to supply energy to the boiler. Nothing
changed in the removal system in the three cases. Is it correct?
Yes, it is correct. Our main objective is to modify external configurations (with steam turbine
bleedings, gas turbines, natural gas boiler) in order to satisfy energy requirements for amine
regeneration. But in all cases the removal systems is the same.
 However, the use of MEA requires high energy for regeneration; cost can be reduced
using different amines and blends: you should mention this and consider this for further
development of your simulations.
Thank you very much for the idea. You are all right. We have corrected and mentioned in the
paper the possibility to use different amines and blends. We will also consider it for further
development. In this case the aim was to calculate efficiency and capture cost with different
configurations. It also should be noticed that solvents with high absorption capacity require high
energy for regeneration and it strongly affects capture cost.

REVIEWER 2
The CO2 concentration in the flue gas (9%) is low compared to regular flue gases from
coal firing. This deserves further explanation.
This CO2 concentration strongly depends on coal composition. Coal used for calculations was
a low-rank Spanish lignite with low carbon content, so a low concentration of CO2 in flue gases
(vol.9,7%, w.15,2%) is achieved when compared with a high-rank coal (high carbon content). The
composition of flue gases is a real data from an existing power plant in Spain (coal composition:
40%C, 20%H2O, 25% ash).
In the manuscript has been included: “This emission CO2 values is low compared to regular
flue gases from coal firing but the coal used for calculations was a low-rank Spanish lignite with low
carbon content (40%C, 20%H2O, 25% ash).”

Furthermore the capture rate is 60-65% where usually rates are 85-90%. These rates are
considered to be optimal. The choice for such a low capture rate should be further explained.
Yes, you are right; capture rate is low compared with state of the art. Our main hypothesis
requires further explanation. We have considered a medium-age power plant (typical for the majority
of installation in Europe), where a high investment in CO2 capture cost could not be cost-effective. In
these situation seems reasonable to reduce the capture rate just to fulfil NAP´s for each installation.
Our hypothesis is that medium-age power plants are forced to reduce a maximum of 60% of CO2
emissions.
In the manuscript has been included: “In a medium-age power plant (typical for the majority of
installation in Europe) a high investment in CO2 capture cost could not be cost-effective. In these
situation seems reasonable to reduce the capture rate just to fulfil National Allocations Plans for each
installation. The hypothesis considered has been that medium-age power plants are forced to reduce
a maximum of 60% of CO2 emissions.”

The amount of absorbers used (=6) seems rather excessive. Typically, absorbers
diameters can be up to 12 m and 2 absorbers are then sufficient.
 We are focused in energy requirements and how to solve (integrate) these necessities within
power plants. Energy requirements depend on the CO2 captured and this is our main input for
simulations.
Moreover, Desideri et al. [12] consider 300,000 m3/h as the maximum volume flow rate,
because size and economical reasons. In fact, they modelled capture process with three
absorber/stripper trains. Singh et al. [15] treat in their study 1,284,371 m3/h, and used four trains of 10
m diameter each absorber. In this case, we have 1,990,000 Nm3/h, treated in six trains. CO2
concentration in flow gases is especially low, compared with other coals, which increases the total flow
gases volume rate.
Manuscript has been modified: “An absorber packed column could treat a maximum volume
flow rate around 300,000 m3/h [12], so that the equipment sizing becomes technical and economically
feasible. Four trains of 10 m diameter each absorber were used [15] to treat 1,284,371 m3/h. With
these values six separate absorption/regeneration column trains were necessary, treating one sixth of
the gases flow each one (331,600 m3/h)”

The simulation results seem to be more or less in line with previous literature, although
perhaps somewhat on the optimistic side. The Fluor Econamine process required around 4.2
GJ/tonne CO2.
Total energy requirements (electricity and heat consumption amounts aprox 4,0 GJ/tCO2
(3,57+(111,9*3,6/1000)), that is a 5% lower than Fluor Econamine process requirements. We agree
that perhaps it is somewhat on the optimistic side, but we have used the value obtained with ASPEN
simulations.
Manuscript has been modified: “Electricity and heat consumption per ton of CO2 captured are
calculated with ASPEN and values are comparable but slightly lower than those reported by other
authors [11-13]. Total energy requirements, electricity and heat consumption, amounts approximately
4,0 GJ/tCO2 with an electricity consumption of 112 kWh/tCO2 and heat required similar to [13].”

In the case where the gas turbine supplies the heat for the solvent regeneration
process, it would be advantageous to use the gas turbine exhaust as combustion air for the
coal fired power plant. This is often used as a topping cycle. It is a pity the authors have not
explored this option, because it might have lead to lower costs per tonne avoided.
Such option was not considered because it would require excessively arrangements in the air-
coal system and in the steam boiler. It is important to notice that the study was undertaken in an
existing coal power plant constraining some designs. One of the main reasons why hot windbox
repowering arrangement was not survey is that flue gas from the gas turbine has lower oxygen
concentration than ambient air. That leads to increasing the volume of gases entering the boiler to
keep the oxygen/coal ratio. An important consequence of this enlarge volume would be the increase of
the flue gas velocity inside the boiler rising erosion problems. Moreover, different temperature profiles
inside the boiler would be performed being required arrangements in some of the boiler heat
exchangers.
 In the manuscript has been included: “In repowering arrangement, gas turbine exhaust gas
could be used as combustion air for the coal fired power plant. This option would require excessively
arrangements in the air-coal system and in the steam boiler. Moreover hot windbox repowering
arrangement was not survey because of the lower oxygen concentration than ambient air and the
increase of gasses volume that could lead to erosion problems and different temperature profiles
inside the boiler.”

In the economic evaluation section, the investment costs of the gas turbine and boiler
are estimated per kWh and this should be per kW.
Yes, this is a mistake. We have corrected it.

Yours sincerely,
Luis M Romeo