International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 113 (2022) 103534

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijggc

Creative absorber design and optimization for CO2 capture with

aqueous piperazine
Tianyu Gao , Gary T. Rochelle *
Texas Carbon Management Program, McKetta Department of Chemical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, 10500 Exploration Way, Austin, TX 78758,
United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The Texas Carbon Management Program is preparing a Front-End Engineering Design (FEED) of the PZASTM
Carbon capture (Piperazine with the Advanced StripperTM) for CO2 capture at a natural gas combined cycle power plant in West
Piperazine Texas. This paper develops the absorber design for the capture system and studies the operational strategies of
Absorber design
the absorber in response to ambient temperature swing. The design uses 2 absorber trains, and each train in­
NGCC
Pump-around
tegrates absorption and a water-wash section in one column. Each column has a cross-section area of 174 m2 and
consists of 3 sections of MellapakPlus® 252Y structured packing. Packing heights for each section are 3, 4.9, and
2.7 m from top to bottom. A pump-around intercooler applied at the bottom bed circulates solvent and eliminates
the direct contact cooler. The baseline CO2 removal rate is 90% and will vary between 78% and 90% with
ambient temperature. The system uses air cooling to eliminate cooling water usage. The water balance in the
system will be managed by operating the water wash at a high circulation rate (1300 kg/h) to condense water
during the night and make up for water loss during the day. The proposed design reduces the capital cost of the
absorber column by minimizing the packing height and eliminating the direct contact cooler (DCC), and im­
proves the energy cost by lowering the pump-around intercooling temperature and increasing the pump-around
rate.

1. Introduction flue gas (4.3 mol% CO2) at the National Carbon Capture Center (NCCC)
in Wilsonville, Alabama in 2019 (Rochelle et al., 2021). During about
Amine scrubbing for CO2 capture from power plants using the nat­ 2000 hrs of operation, system performance was tested at various oper­
ural gas combined cycle (NGCC) is now being considered for commercial ating conditions including gas temperature, absorber intercooling tem­
application with a number of Front End Engineering Designs (FEED) perature, solvent flowrate, and lean loading.
completed (Awtry et al., 2021; Bhown et al., 2021; OBrien et al., 2021; A rigorous, rate-based absorber model for PZAS was validated with
Oddvar Lie et al., 2021) or in process. Practically all of these FEEDs these and other pilot plant results and can accurately predict the CO2
evaluate proprietary systems so there have not been and will probably removal and temperature profile over a wide range of conditions. With
not be any significant public reports on the detailed process evaluations the validated model, the effects of key process variables including flue
required to set the design conditions of the absorber. This work presents gas temperature, liquid flowrate, intercooling temperature, and pump-
the detailed evaluation of the absorber design for a FEED using the around flowrate were accurately predicted (Gao and Rochelle, 2020).
Piperazine with the Advanced StripperTM (PZASTM) process. A FEED is being developed using PZAS to capture CO2 from a 460
The PZAS process has been demonstrated and published as a MW NGCC in west Texas (Clossman et al., 2021). The site is character­
benchmark for second-generation amine scrubbing with many pilot ized by low fuel cost. The site includes two gas turbine generators and
plant experiments and modeling results (Chen et al., 2014; Gao and one steam turbine generator. Duct burners are installed and use sup­
Rochelle, 2020; Gao et al., 2019; Rochelle et al., 2019; Sachde et al., plementary firing to increase electricity output. The site has a semi-arid
2013; Zhang et al., 2017). 5 m PZ (30 wt%) is known for its fast kinetics, climate with limited annual precipitation, so air cooling will be used to
good energy performance, resistance to thermal and oxidative degra­ reduce freshwater usage. The ambient temperature varies dramatically
dation, and low corrosivity. PZAS was operated with simulated NGCC annually, with a high daily averaged temperature of 34 ◦ C during hot

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (G.T. Rochelle).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2021.103534
Received 2 July 2021; Received in revised form 16 November 2021; Accepted 21 November 2021
Available online 29 November 2021
1750-5836/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T. Gao and G.T. Rochelle International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 113 (2022) 103534

Fig. 1. The absorber configuration for the FEED.

summers and a low daily averaged temperature of -2 ◦ C in cold winters.

Table 1
The primary objective for the FEED is to develop a detailed and
Flue gas specifications for 1 NGCC unit (1 absorber train).
comprehensive cost estimate of the PZASTMsystem on a commercial
scale (Clossman et al., 2021). For NGCC flue gas, the absorber will be the Case E-007 (Base) E-004 E-001 E-010 E-013

largest cost center (around 30–40% of the equipment cost) for the Ambient Temperature ( ◦ C) 18.3 13.8 -13.3 35.0 40.6
capture plant, and the optimization of the absorber will be important to Flue Gas Temperature ( ◦ C) 104.4 105.0 107.2 103.3 102.8
Flue Gas Rate (kg/s) 399.3 403.8 429.0 382.4 376.9
reduce cost.
CO2 (vol%) 3.81 3.81 3.78 3.79 3.78
In this work, the rigorous absorber model is used to design and H2O (vol%) 8.45 8.26 7.45 9.49 9.99
explore the operating conditions of the absorber. Previous simulation of O2 (vol%) 13.35 13.39 13.62 13.16 13.06
the absorber shows the importance of intercooling for NGCC flue gas and
the benefits of the pump-around configuration. The enhanced solvent
flow in the bottom section cools the gas effectively and eliminates the Table 2
direct contact cooler (Sachde and Rochelle, 2014; Zhang, 2018; Zhang Flue gas specifications for 1 gas-fired boiler (1 absorber
et al., 2016). This pump-around intercooling reduces absorber packing train).
and improves performance and is adopted for this FEED.
Flue Gas Temperature ( ◦ C) 121.1
The conventional absorber section design consists of a direct contact
cooler (DCC), an absorber, and a water wash (Faramarzi et al., 2017; Flue Gas Rate (kg/s) 31.2
Vol% CO2 8.28
Gjernes et al., 2017; LLC, 2020; Morgan et al., 2018). Simple in-and-out Vol% H2O 16.46
intercooling is usually applied to mitigate temperature bulge and Vol% N2 72.35
improve performance. For the conventional design, water balance is Vol% O2 2.41
maintained by setting the temperature of the DCC, trim cooler, and
water wash to around 40 ◦ C to control the water content in the gas
rigorous, rate-based absorber model was developed and reconciled with
streams. Based on previous pilot plant results and process modeling, this
previous campaign data from the National Carbon Capture Center
FEED proposes a first-of-its-kind absorber design using a pump-around
(NCCC). The model consists of the solvent model “Independence”
intercooler without DCC or trim cooler on a commercial scale. The
(Frailie, 2014) and packing characterization models. The reaction ki­
column temperature and water balance are managed by pump-around
netics were regressed from wetted wall column measurements and
intercooling and water wash. This design reduces the absorber pack­
modeled as fast reaction in the boundary layer. The packing perfor­
ing requirement and capital cost, and improves performance. Real flue
mance model developed by Song was regressed from pilot plant results
gas conditions at different ambient temperatures are used in the design
(Song, 2017; Song et al., 2014). An adjustment of 1.08 on PZ weight
to demonstrate the flexible operating strategy in response to seasonal
fraction was made to match the 2019 pilot plant results at 4% CO2 in the
and diurnal ambient temperature swings. In this paper, important var­
flue gas (Gao and Rochelle, 2020).
iables affecting absorber performance will be studied to select condi­
tions expected to produce lower cost. Risk of the proposed design is
evaluated based on model predictions and pilot plant results.
2.2. Design basis
2. Methods
A simplified process diagram of the absorber and water wash is
shown in Fig. 1. The flue gas from the NGCC unit is mixed with the flue
2.1. Simulation methods
gas from the gas boilers, which were added to the scope of the FEED
(Closmann et al., 2021) to provide steam for solvent regeneration. Two
Aspen Plus® was used for the absorber and water wash modeling. A
absorber trains will be designed to reduce the size and the cost of each

2
T. Gao and G.T. Rochelle International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 113 (2022) 103534

Table 3 3. Results and discussion

Gas production or consumption rate in 1 duct burner.
Production/consumption kg/s 3.1. Process description
H2O 1.9
CO2 2.4 The hot flue gas from turbines (104 ◦ C) and boilers (121 ◦ C) is mixed
N2 0.08 and fed to the absorber bottom directly. Flue gas flows upward through
O2 3.9 two sections of packing and counter-currently contacts with the solvent.
The bottom pump-around intercooling enhances the solvent rate and
provides adequate cooling to cool the hot flue gas and to remove the heat
absorber column.
generated during absorption. The gas then flows through another sec­
The flue gas specifications are provided by the host site and listed in
tion of packing to remove PZ and excess water. The lean solvent leaving
Table 1. The case E-007 represents the median year-round temperature
the cold cross exchanger feeds into the absorber at about 52 ◦ C. All the
and is taken as the base case. Cases E-004 and E-001 are two lower
cooling in the absorber section including pump-around and water wash
temperature cases and cases E-010 and E-013 are two higher tempera­
uses air-cooling. The air cooler is designed to cool the liquid with a
ture cases.
temperature approach of 11 ◦ C to ambient.

Fig. 2. Power requirements for flue gas blowers with 70% isentropic efficiency at different pressure head (2 absorber trains).

Fig. 3. Sensitivity analysis of absorber packing height for 90% CO2 removal.

3
T. Gao and G.T. Rochelle International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 113 (2022) 103534

Fig. 4. Optimization of the pump-around location for 3 total packing heights (6.1 m: blue, 7.6 m: red, 9.1 m: green). (For interpretation of the references to color in
this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

3.2. Absorber design in the absorber bottom, the liquid rate is increased, and the flooding will
be greater than in the top section. Objectives for the absorber design are
The absorber design includes the column configuration (column to balance the flooding in both sections and to minimize the pressure
diameter, packing height, packing type, packing area, and intercooling drop in the column.
location) and the operating conditions (lean loading, lean solvent Electricity-driven blowers are used to provide header pressure for the
flowrate, pump-around rate, and cooling temperature). flue gas, and they require a large power input. The power inputs for
blowers with 70% isentropic efficiency at different pressure heads are
3.2.1. Column internal and diameter shown in Fig. 2. The electricity consumption for blowers is about 5–7
The absorber diameter is primarily determined by the gas rate, and it MW for reasonable pressure drops and is on the same order as the power
affects the capital cost of the packing and the column flooding. The cost for CO2 compression (around 10 MW). The capital cost for blowers is
associated with flooding is reflected in the gas pressure drop. The liquid also significant. According to the techno-economic analysis (TEA) done
rate also affects the gas velocity and the flooding. With the pump-around with PZAS at 12% CO2 conditions (Farmer et al., 2019), the blower

Fig. 5. Effects of trim cooler temperature on solvent flowrate (blue dots, primary y axis), and water content (red squares, secondary axis) of the gas leaving absorber.
(For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

4
T. Gao and G.T. Rochelle International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 113 (2022) 103534

3.2.3. Pump-around location

The pump-around intercooling breaks the packing and introduces
the pump-around location as another variable for the column design.
Fig. 4 shows the optimization of the pump-around location for three
values of total packing height. At constant lean solvent flow, the
absorber shows maximum CO2 removal when the pump-around location
varies, as indicated by the ratio of the height above the pump-around to
the total height. For three different total packing heights (6.1 m, 7.6 m,
and 9.1 m), the optimal pump-around location is at the bottom one third
of the column. The optimum configuration for 7.6 m of total packing is
4.9 m above the pump-around and 2.7 m below.

3.2.4. Trim cooler temperature

The effect of lean solvent temperature is studied to explore oppor­
tunities to simplify the air-cooling loop and to predict system perfor­
mance at high ambient temperature. Fig. 5 shows the effect of trim
cooler temperature on solvent flowrate and water content of the gas
Fig. 6. Heat duties of three cooling inputs in the absorber section at variable leaving the absorber. The flowrate increases by less than 1% when the
trim cooler temperature. temperature increases from 40 to 62 ◦ C, and the water concentration
increases from 10 to 14%. It is important to monitor the water flow to
Purchased Equipment Cost (PEC) takes up 3.4% of the PEC for the CO2 make sure there is more water leaving than coming into the absorber, so
capture plant. At the same basis of CO2 production rate, an NGCC cap­ there is enough water to run the water wash. When the flue gas contains
ture unit treats about 3 times more flue gas than a coal plant. The blower more water during summer because of the high ambient temperature,
PEC is projected to be around 9–10% of the total PEC for the capture the water wash needs to be run at a higher temperature to maintain the
unit. water balance.
Multiple types of packing were simulated for the absorber column, The lean temperature has little effect on CO2 removal, but it affects
including structured packing (Mellapak® series and MellapakPlus® se­ how the heat is removed from the system. Fig. 6 shows the heat duties of
ries) and random packing (Raschig Super Ring® series). The Mella­ the three cooling inputs in the absorber section at variable trim cooler
pakPlus® packing has the same metal area as the Mellapak® but it is temperature. In the design without a trim cooler, the heat is transferred
modified to increase the packing capacity and to reduce the gas pressure to and removed from the water wash while the total duty remains
drop. Coarse random packing increases the capacity at a cost of high constant. Therefore, eliminating the trim cooler does not reduce the cost
pressure drop. M252Y packing is chosen for the absorber column to of the heat exchangers. However, this design is adopted over the tradi­
minimize the pressure drop. tional design for three reasons.

3.2.2. Height of packing 1 Eliminating the trim cooler simplifies the cooling loop in the system.
Fig. 3 shows the sensitivity analysis of packing height to define the 2 The design simplifies the solvent loop and reduces the solvent holdup
tradeoff between capital cost and energy cost. Points to the left use less in the trim cooler. Avoiding the circulation of solvent to air coolers,
packing and require more energy for regeneration. As the packing height which are located away from the capture plant, reduces the envi­
increases, the solvent requirement for 90% removal decreases and ap­ ronmental risks associated with solvent leaking.
proaches a minimum value, Lmin. At 7.6 m packing as the design point, 3 Cooling water wash is more effective. The liquid is dilute PZ in water
the L/Lmin equals 1.16, indicating a reasonable tradeoff between the and is less viscous, so the heat transfer is better. The water wash runs
capital cost and the energy cost. at higher temperature and provides a larger temperature approach.

Fig. 7. Vapor temperature (red), liquid temperature (blue), and mass transfer rate (orange) profile in the absorber with trim cooler at 40 ◦ C (solid) and without trim
cooler (dashed). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

5
T. Gao and G.T. Rochelle International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 113 (2022) 103534

Fig. 8. Vapor temperature (red), liquid temperature (blue), and PZ concentration in the vapor (orange) in the water wash section. (For interpretation of the ref­
erences to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

the temperature approach on the top, which helps maintain the water
balance during high ambient temperature conditions.

3.2.5. Pump-around temperature and flowrate

Pump-around intercooling is designed to improve absorber perfor­
mance. The effects of cooling temperature and pump-around circulation
rate are studied through sensitivity analysis. As shown in Fig. 9,
lowering the pump-around temperature improves absorber performance
significantly. By reducing the temperature from 40 to 30 ◦ C, the solvent
flowrate decreases by about 13%. Since the solvent at the intercooling is
semi-lean and the risk of precipitation is minimized, it is always better to
run the intercooling as cold as possible to improve the performance.
The sensitivity analysis of pump-around flowrate for fixed absorber
column configuration and CO2 removal is shown in Fig. 10. As the
pump-around rate increases, the lean solvent flowrate decreases and
approaches a minimum value. At high pump-around rate, the local
cooling cost of the absorber, including the cost of the intercooling pump
Fig. 9. Effects of pump-around temperature on solvent flowrate (blue triangles,
distributors, chimney trays, and air cooler increases while the global
primary y axis) and rich loading (red dots, secondary y axis) for fixed column
configuration and 90% removal. (For interpretation of the references to color in cost of the system, including the capital cost of heat exchangers, sensible
this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.) heat loss, and steam consumption is minimized. Without the detailed
cost analysis acquired at the end of the FEED, it is reasonable to save the
The temperature and mass transfer rate profiles in the absorber global cost by using a high circulation rate. In the base case design, the
shown in Fig. 7 explain the effect of the trim cooler. The solid lines are pump-around rate is 1400 kg/s and leads to a L/Lmin = 1.03 based on the
pump-around rate.
the profiles for the absorber with the trim cooler and the dashed are
without. The temperature profile and mass transfer rate for the two cases The effects of pump-around conditions on heat duty in the absorber
section are shown in Fig. 11. When pump-around intercooling is at a
are similar except in the top sections, which explains the minor effect of
trim temperature. At the low liquid rate for NGCC flue gas, column lower temperature and a higher flowrate, more heat is removed from the
intercooler, but the total heat duty in the system remains the same. The
temperature is primarily determined by the gas enthalpy. The cooling
provided by lean solvent cannot propagate to the column because of the increase in cost when the intercooling is designed at maximum duty is
caused by a lower temperature approach and worse heat transfer per­
low L/G. This also justifies the choice of pump-around intercooling
because a greater solvent rate is required to provide effective cooling. At formance because of viscosity, instead of a greater total duty.
the bottom section, where the solvent flowrate is greater, the liquid
temperature is flat, and the gas is cooled quickly in the bottom. 3.3. Comparison with conventional design
The main disadvantage of eliminating the trim cooler is more PZ in
the flue gas leaving the absorber. The water wash needs to be designed The conventional absorber design uses a DCC to chill the flue gas
to remove more volatile PZ. Gaseous PZ and the temperature profile in before it enters the absorber. An in-and-out intercooler is used in the
the water wash section are shown in Fig. 8. The PZ decreases to 1 ppm absorber to remove the heat and improve the performance. However, at
using about 1.5 m packing, and the gas and liquid temperatures are the low L/G ratio for NGCC, the in-and-out intercooler and DCC do not
pinched in the middle of the column. The profiles indicate 3.0 m packing cool as effectively as a pump-around intercooler. Fig. 12 shows the
is excessive for gaseous PZ removal and for heat transfer. The water temperature profiles and CO2 transfer flux in the conventional absorber
wash is overdesigned and is able to remove volatile PZ even without the design with DCC and in-and-out intercooler. The conventional design
trim cooler. The excess packing benefits the aerosol removal and reduces uses the same amount of packing as the pump-around for CO2 absorption

6
T. Gao and G.T. Rochelle International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 113 (2022) 103534

Fig. 10. Sensitivity analysis of pump-around flowrate on lean solvent flowrate for fixed column configuration and 90% removal.

Fig. 11. Heat duties in the absorber section during the sensitivity analysis of pump-around intercooling temperature and flowrate.

with an additional DCC column to precool the flue gas to 40 ◦ C. The 3.4. CO2 removal
location of in-and-out intercooler is optimized to maximize removal and
the temperature is the same as the pump-around intercooler. At the same Fig. 13 shows the CO2 removal at different solvent flow rates for a
lean solvent flowrate as the pump-around design, the conventional fixed column. High temperature of the lean solvent affects CO2 ab­
design achieves 86% CO2 removal. With the same lean solvent and sorption at the top stages and makes high CO2 removal (>95%) difficult.
intercooling temperatures, the average liquid temperature in the column As the solvent rate increases, CO2 removal increases to a maximum and
for the in-and-out design is 45.5 ◦ C and 41.2 ◦ C for the pump-around. then drops. At high flowrate, the hot lean solvent brings more heat into
The pump-around is a better intercooling configuration for NGCC the system and reduces the CO2 absorption driving force.
because it enhances the liquid flow, provides more cooling, and im­ The absorber will be designed for 90% removal, and it is possible to
proves the absorption driving force. The FEED combines gas cooling and increase the CO2 capture rate by increasing the solvent flowrate, e.g.,
intercooling into one section using pump-around intercooling and 95% capture rate can be achieved by increasing the flow by 18%. For the
eliminates the DCC column. Although pump-around requires a greater first-of-its-kind commercial scale design, many of the equipment are
circulation rate, the total cost is offset by the significant reduction in the designed with relatively large margin in the FEED to reduce the project
capital cost of the column. This paper mainly focuses on the process risk. The ramping-up will take advantage of the fact that equipment will
design and absorber performance and the economic benefits of the be overdesigned for the FEED and increase the cash flow and profit­
pump-around absorber will be discussed in detail after the FEED is ability of the project.
completed. Removing more than 95% CO2 is difficult in the base design for two

7
T. Gao and G.T. Rochelle International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 113 (2022) 103534

Fig. 12.. Vapor temperature (red), liquid temperature (blue), and mass transfer rate (orange) profile in the conventional absorber design with DCC and in-and-out
intercooler. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 13. CO2 removal (blue) and rich loading (orange) lean solvent flowrates for fixed column configuration. (For interpretation of the references to color in this
figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

reasons: the low CO2 driving force and the high temperature at the top of 3.5. Lean loading
absorber. Fig. 14 shows the temperature and CO2 transfer flux at 95.7%
removal. The high temperature reduces the absorption driving force, The overall lean loading optimization requires an economic analysis
and even strips CO2 out (negative flux). To achieve a higher removal, the of both the absorption and stripping sections. For the absorber, a lower
top section needs to be cooled to retain the driving force. Fig. 15 com­ lean loading is always beneficial because it provides greater driving
pares the absorber performance at high CO2 removal conditions for the force. The solvent circulation rate decreases at lower lean loading,
base case design and with additional trim cooler at 40 ◦ C. At a removal which reduces the pumping and piping cost and the heat exchanger area.
between 90% and 95%, adding the trim cooler for the lean solvent only The effects of lean loading on absorber packing height and solvent
makes minor improvement because of the low L/G ratio. As the solvent flowrate are shown in Fig. 16. The flowrate and packing height are
flowrate increases to achieve greater than 95% removal, the trim cooling optimized based on 1.16*Lmin. When the lean loading decreases from
becomes more effective, and the temperature bulge moves downwards. 0.24 to 0.2, absorber packing height decreases by 3.0 m and the solvent
The difficulty of high CO2 capture at NGCC conditions lies in cooling the rate decreases by 18%. Steam consumption in the stripper area goes up
top section of the absorber, and trim cooling has greater benefits when slightly to get lower lean loading because of the over-stripping, but the
the target is greater than 95% capture. cost for cross exchangers goes down and sensible heat loss is minimized.
The cost for CO2 compression increases because the stripper operating

8
T. Gao and G.T. Rochelle International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 113 (2022) 103534

Fig. 14. Vapor temperature (red), liquid temperature (blue), and mass transfer rate (orange) profile in the absorber at 95.7% removal. (For interpretation of the
references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 15. Absorber performance at high CO2 removal for base case design (blue curve) and base case with additional trim cooler at 40 ◦ C (red curve). (For inter­
pretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

pressure will be lower. A lower lean loading improves the absorber Lean loading and absorber height are the two major differences be­
performance, but the risk of low lean loading includes PZ precipitation tween the FEED and the pilot plant long-term test. During parametric
and volatile PZ leaving the absorber. During the 2019 NCCC campaign, testing, a wide range of lean loading (0.19–0.25) was tested and used for
the system was operated at 0.2 lean loading without precipitation issues, model validation. The design point of 0.2 lean loading is therefore not
therefore a lean loading of 0.2 is recommended for the FEED. considered as an extrapolation and poses a limited risk. The pilot plant
experiments were conducted with 12 m (40 ft) M252Y packing that was
not varied, and the 7.6 m (25 ft) packing has not been tested before.
3.6. Risks of the design However, the packing performance has been validated through the
parametric testing. The FEED uses shorter packing sections (4.9 m and
The absorber performance for the FEED is simulated using the In­ 2.7 m) and will be more efficient because of the better liquid
dependence model. Although the model has been validated with pilot distribution.
plant results, some key process variables are extrapolated and the
impact or the risk of the extrapolation need to be evaluated. Fig. 17
summarizes the effect of the key process variables and compares them to 3.7. Seasonal and diurnal operation
the pilot plant results from NCCC. The delta loading from the long-term
test at NCCC is about 14% less than the design, and the difference can be The flue gas rate and composition vary at different ambient condi­
explained by different lean loading, pressure, packing height, pump- tions and operation modes of the power plant. At low ambient temper­
around temperature, flowrate, and trim cooler. The low lean loading, ature, turbines can handle more mass flowrate of the gas because of the
low pump-around temperature, and high flowrate improves absorber high density, and therefore produce more electricity and more flue gas.
performance, while the lower ambient pressure (12.95 psia) and shorter At low ambient temperature (-13.3 ◦ C), the flue gas mass flow increases
packing reduce performance. by about 8%. Using the same solvent flow as in the base case, the CO2

9
T. Gao and G.T. Rochelle International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 113 (2022) 103534

Fig. 16. Optimized absorber packing height and solvent flowrate based on 1.16*Lmin at varying lean loading for 90% CO2 removal.

Fig. 17.. Effects of key process variables on absorber performance.

removal will be 87% and the CO2 production rate will be 4% greater increasing the flowrate to 1800 kg/s, the system can maintain the water
than the base case. At high ambient temperature, the flue gas rate de­ balance below 33.3 ◦ C. A detailed analysis of the temperature profile at
creases, and the absorber column operates at higher temperature Denver City concluded an intermediate circulation of 1300 kg/s would
because the air cooling has a temperature approach of 11.1 ◦ C to the maintain the water balance most of the time.
ambient. At 40.5 ◦ C ambient temperature, the pump-around can only
cool the liquid to about 52 ◦ C, and removal drops to 77% because of the 4. Conclusions
lower CO2 transfer driving force at higher temperature.
Aside from lower CO2 removal, the high ambient temperature cre­ Based on the validated model for PZ at NGCC conditions, the
ates water balance issues in the absorber section. At high temperature, following integrated absorber and water wash design was proposed for
gas leaving the system contains a greater amount of water and creates a the NGCC power plant (1 out of 2 absorber trains):
net water loss in the system. Given the large temperature swing in
Denver City, the strategy to maintain the water in the summer is 1 Packing: M252Y, 3.0 m, 4.9 m, and 2.7 m from top to bottom
condensing water during the night when the ambient temperature is low 2 Column cross-section area: 174 m2
and making up water for daytime loss. Fig. 18 shows the water pro­ 3 No direct contact cooler, no trim cooler
duction or loss rate as a function of ambient temperature at two water 4 Lean solvent: 0.2 lean loading, 472 kg/s
wash circulation rates. A greater rate provides more cooling to the gas 5 Pump-around intercooling: return temperature: 30 ◦ C, flowrate:
and retains more water in the system. At a circulation rate of 800 kg/s, 1400 kg/s
the system starts to lose water around 26.6 ◦ C ambient temperature. By 6 Maximum column flooding: 83%

10
T. Gao and G.T. Rochelle International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 113 (2022) 103534

Fig. 18. Net water rate in the absorber section at varying ambient temperature.

7 Overall pressure drop of the flue gas through the absorber column: 2 Acknowledgments
kPa
8 Water wash circulation rate: 1300 kg/s The FEED is supported by Department of Energy (DOE) Award No.
DE-FE0031844 and by additional funding from ExxonMobil, Total,
Given the fast reaction rate of PZ, reducing the packing height saves Chevron, and Honeywell UOP. This report was prepared as an account of
on the capital cost of the absorber column. The design proposes a first-of- work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither
its-kind commercial scale absorber design using pump-around inter­ the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their
cooling to improve absorber performance and reduces capital costs. The employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any
lean loading, low pump-around temperature, and high circulation rate is legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or use­
designed to improve the absorber performance and to reduce the oper­ fulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or
ating cost. Compared to conventional absorber design with DCC and in- represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.
and-out intercooling, at similar operating conditions, the pump-around Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service
absorber design removes 4% more CO2 and eliminates the DCC column. by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not neces­
The absorber can operate with the varied gas flowrate resulting from sarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring
changes in ambient temperature. The base CO2 removal is 90% and by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and
varies from 78% to 90% depending on ambient temperature. During the opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect
summer, water balance can be maintained by condensing water during those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. The au­
the night to make up for the water lost during the day. A circulation rate thors have financial interests in intellectual property owned by the
of 1300 kg/s in the water wash enables operation most of the time. University of Texas that includes ideas reported in this paper.
Aspen Plus® proprietary software was provided by an academic li­
Funding sources cense from AspenTech®. AspenTech® and Aspen Plus® are trademarks
of Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved.
This work is supported by Department of Energy (DOE) Award No. One author of this publication consults for a process supplier on the
DE-FE0031844 and by additional funding from ExxonMobil, Total, development of amine scrubbing technology. The terms of this
Chevron, and Honeywell UOP. arrangement have been reviewed and approved by the University of
Texas at Austin in accordance with its policy on objectivity in research.
CRediT authorship contribution statement The authors have financial interests in intellectual property owned by
the University of Texas that includes ideas reported in this paper.
Tianyu Gao: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology.
Gary T. Rochelle: Conceptualization, Supervision. References

Awtry, A., Fine, N., Atcheson, J., Dinsdale, B., Kupfer, R., Silverman, T., Staab, G.,
CRediT authorship contribution statement Tomey, J., Meuleman, E., Brown, A., 2021. Design and costing of an ION clean
energy CO2 capture plant retrofitted to a 700 MW coal-fired power station. Available
at SSRN 3816716.
Tianyu Gao: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology. Bhown, A., Dillon, D., Berger, A.H., Du, Y., Haney, K., Carroll, B., Gilmartin, J.,
Gary T. Rochelle: Conceptualization, Supervision. Simonson, T., Reddy, S., 2021. Front end engineering design study for carbon
capture at a natural gas combined cycle power plant in California. Available at SSRN
3812087.
Declaration of Competing Interest Chen, E., Fulk, S., Sachde, D., Lin, Y.J., Rochelle, G.T., 2014. Pilot plant activities with
concentrated piperazine. Energy Proc. 63, 1376–1391.
Closmann, F., Rochelle, G.T., Gao, T., Suresh Babu, A., Abreu, M., Drewry, B.J., 2021.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial FEED for piperazine with the advanced stripper™ on NGCC at Denver City, Texas,
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence GHGT–15.

the work reported in this paper.

11
T. Gao and G.T. Rochelle International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 113 (2022) 103534

Faramarzi, L., Thimsen, D., Hume, S., Maxon, A., Watson, G., Pedersen, S., Gjernes, E., generating station with an 816 MWe capture plant using mitsubishi heavy industries
Fostås, B.F., Lombardo, G., Cents, T., Morken, A.K., Shah, M.I., de Cazenove, T., engineering post-combustion CO2 capture technology. Available at SSRN 3815206.
Hamborg, E.S., 2017. Results from MEA testing at the CO2 technology centre Oddvar Lie, K., Gorset, O., Morten Bade, O., Askestad, I., Nygaard Knudsen, J.,
mongstad: verification of baseline results in 2015. Energy Proc. 114, 1128–1145. Andersson, V., 2021. Technology qualification to mitigate technical risk in CCS Front
Farmer, K., Steen, W., Bernau, M., Sexton, A., Dombrowski, K., Rochelle, G.T., Chen, E., end engineering design for the HeidelbergCement Norcem plant.
2019. Evaluation of Concentrated Piperazine for CO2 Capture from Coal-Fired Flue Rochelle, G.T., Akinpelumi, K., Gao, T., Liu, C.T., Suresh, A.B., Wu, Y., 2021. Pilot plant
Gas. URS Group. results with piperazine advanced stripper at NGCC conditions, GHGT–15.
Frailie, P.T., 2014. Modeling of carbon dioxide absorption/stripping by aqueous Rochelle, G.T., Wu, Y., Chen, E., Akinpelumi, K., Fischer, K.B., Gao, T., Liu, C.T.,
methyldiethanolamine/piperazine. The University of Texas at Austin. Ph.D. Selinger, J.L., 2019. Pilot plant demonstration of piperazine with the advanced flash
Dissertation. stripper. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 84, 72–81.
Gao, T., Rochelle, G.T., 2020. CO2 absorption from gas turbine flue gas by aqueous Sachde, D., Chen, E., Rochelle, G.T., 2013. Modeling pilot plant performance of an
piperazine with intercooling. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 59, 7174–7181. absorber with aqueous piperazine. Energy Proc. 37, 1987–2001.
Gao, T., Selinger, J.L., Rochelle, G.T., 2019. Demonstration of 99% CO2 removal from Sachde, D., Rochelle, G.T., 2014. Absorber intercooling configurations using aqueous
coal flue gas by amine scrubbing. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 83, 236–244. piperazine for capture from sources with 4 to 27% CO2. Energy Proc. 63, 1637–1656.
Gjernes, E., Pedersen, S., Cents, T., Watson, G., Fostås, B.F., Shah, M.I., Lombardo, G., Song, D., 2017. Effect of liquid viscosity on liquid film mass transfer for packings. The
Desvignes, C., Flø, N.E., Morken, A.K., de Cazenove, T., Faramarzi, L., Hamborg, E.S., University of Texas at Austin. Ph.D. Dissertation.
2017. Results from 30wt% MEA performance testing at the CO2 technology centre Song, D., Seibert, A.F., Rochelle, G.T., 2014. Effect of liquid viscosity on the liquid phase
mongstad. Energy Proc. 114, 1146–1157. mass transfer coefficient of packing. Energy Proc. 63, 1268–1286.
LLC, P.N.P.H., 2020. W.A. parish post-combustion CO2 capture and sequestration Zhang, Y., 2018. Absorber and aerosol modeling in amine scrubbing for carbon capture.
demonstration project, Final Scientific/Technical Report. The University of Texas at Austin. Ph.D. Dissertation.
Morgan, J.C., Soares Chinen, A., Omell, B., Bhattacharyya, D., Tong, C., Miller, D.C., Zhang, Y., Freeman, B., Hao, P., Rochelle, G.T., 2016. Absorber modeling for NGCC
Buschle, B., Lucquiaud, M., 2018. Development of a rigorous modeling framework carbon capture with aqueous piperazine. Faraday Discuss. 192, 459–477.
for solvent-based CO2 capture. Part 2: steady-state validation and uncertainty Zhang, Y., Sachde, D., Chen, E., Rochelle, G., 2017. Modeling of absorber pilot plant
quantification with pilot plant data. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 57, 10464–10481. performance for CO2 capture with aqueous piperazine. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control
OBrien, K., Lu, Y., Dietsch, J., Zhang, J., Wu, T., Thomas, T., Iwakura, K., Thomas, M., 64, 300–313.
Brown, A., Guletsky, P., 2021. Full-scale FEED study for retrofitting the prairie state

12