Power Plant Co2 Capture Heat Integration - Ccc260

Power plant CO2 capture
heat integration
Colin Henderson
CCC/260
October 2015
© IEA Clean Coal Centre

Power plant CO2 capture heat
integration
Author: Colin Henderson
IEACCC Ref: CCC/260
ISBN: 978–92–9029–583-9
Copyright: © IEA Clean Coal Centre
Published Date: November 2015
IEA Clean Coal Centre

14 Northfields
London SW18 1DD
United Kingdom
Telephone: +44(0)20 8877 6280
www.iea-coal.org
IEA Clean Coal Centre –Power plant CO2 capture heat integration 2
Preface
This report has been produced by IEA Clean Coal Centre and is based on a survey and analysis of published
literature, and on information gathered in discussions with interested organisations and individuals. Their
assistance is gratefully acknowledged. It should be understood that the views expressed in this report are our
own, and are not necessarily shared by those who supplied the information, nor by our member countries.
IEA Clean Coal Centre is an organisation set up under the auspices of the International Energy Agency (IEA)
which was itself founded in 1974 by member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD). The purpose of the IEA is to explore means by which countries interested in minimising
their dependence on imported oil can co-operate. In the field of Research, Development and Demonstration
over fifty individual projects have been established in partnership between member countries of the IEA.
IEA Clean Coal Centre began in 1975 and has contracting parties and sponsors from: Australia, Austria, China,
the European Commission, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, South Africa, Thailand,
the UK and the USA. The Service provides information and assessments on all aspects of coal from supply and
transport, through markets and end-use technologies, to environmental issues and waste utilisation.
Neither IEA Clean Coal Centre nor any of its employees nor any supporting country or organisation, nor any
employee or contractor of IEA Clean Coal Centre, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any
legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus,
product or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately-owned rights.
Abstract
The output and efficiency of a coal-fired power station unit fitted with CO2 capture equipment will be
significantly lower than that of a similar plant without capture because some of the energy produced by
burning the fuel will be needed to operate the added systems. Incorporating an aqueous amine-based CO2
scrubbing system in a simple arrangement could decrease the efficiency by as much as 30% of value.
However, work at various research institutes and universities shows that the decrease in performance
could be reduced by improved heat integration and other techniques. The present report reviews these
studies.
Acknowledgements
Jarad Daniels – US DOE, USA
Trent Harkin – UNO, Australia
Steve Hodges – HRL, Australia
Mathieu Lucquiaud – University of Edinburgh, UK
Bhima Sastri – US DOE, USA
Acronyms and abbreviations
AHP absorption heat pump
AHP absorption heat transformer
A-USC advanced ultra-supercritical
CCU CO2 compression unit
CHP combined heat and power
CCS carbon (dioxide) capture and storage
CO2 carbon dioxide
DCOE differential cost of electricity
EUF energy utilisation factor (a measure of efficiency of CHP)
FEED front end engineering and design
FGD flue gas desulphurisation
GW gigawatts
HE heat exchanger
HENS heat exchanger network synthesis
HP high pressure
IEA International Energy Agency
IEA CCC IEA Clean Coal Centre
IEAGHG IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme
IP intermediate pressure
kJ kilojoule
kPa kilopascal
kW kilowatt
kWh kilowatt hours
LHV lower heating value
LIGA Lithographie, Galvanik und Abformung (German acronym for lithography, electroplating and
moulding)
LP low pressure
MEA monoethanolamine
MJe megajoules electrical
MOO multi-objective optimisation
MPa megapascals
MW megawatts
MWe megawatts electrical
MWth megawatts thermal
PC pulverised coal
PCC pulverised coal combustion
PMV pressure maintaining (control) valve
USC ultra-supercritical
US DOE US Department of Energy
Contents
Preface 3
Abstract 4
Acknowledgements 4
Acronyms and abbreviations 5
Contents 6
List of Figures 7
List of Tables 8
1 Introduction 9
2 Post-combustion CO2 capture systems 11
2.1 General configuration of post-combustion capture systems using scrubbing 11
2.2 Effect of adding CO2 capture systems on efficiency 12
3 Integration studies 15
3.1 General integration studies 15
3.2 Allowing for plant flexibility 19
3.3 Retrofitting CO2 capture to existing units 20
3.3.1 Effect of steam turbine parameters of original plant on efficiency penalty from CO2 capture 20
3.4 Incorporation of heat pumps 23
3.5 Studies based on an Indian supercritical plant 29
3.6 Studies involving changes to the capture system configuration 32
3.7 Future A-USC plants with CO2 capture and heat integration 33
3.8 Utilising CO2 compression heat effectively 33
3.9 Combined heat and power 34
3.10 Addition of a low-temperature power generation cycle 36
3.11 Lignite plants 37
3.11.1 Effect of incorporating lignite pre-drying 40
3.12 Comments 41
4 Alternative technologies for heat exchangers and compressors 42
4.1 Micro-channel heat exchangers 42
4.2 Other methods of heat utilisation 43
4.3 CO2 compression developments 43
5 Summary and conclusions 46
6 References 48
List of Figures
Figure 1 Simplified diagram showing post-combustion CO2 capture on a coal-fired plant using
solvent scrubbing 12
Figure 2 Location of throttle and pressure control (maintaining) valve 16
Figure 3 Steam cycle of plant with heat integrated from the capture and compression plant 17
Figure 4 Simplified flowsheet of CO2 capture unit 18
Figure 5 Schematic diagram of multiple modifications (absorber intercooling, condensate evaporation
and lean amine flash) 19
Figure 6 Options to maintain the reboiler steam pressure at different loads. a) steam extraction pressure
governing valve; b) steam bleed with control (throttling) valve at reboiler branch pipe;
c) combination of a) and b) 20
Figure 7 Steam turbine CO2 capture retrofit with a fixed IP turbine outlet and two let-down
back-pressure turbines 21
Figure 8 Steam turbine CO2 capture retrofit with a floating intermediate pressure turbine and
a let-down back-pressure turbine 22
Figure 9 Comparison of performance of steam turbine CO2 capture retrofit options for a range
of steam cycle configurations 22
Figure 10 Steam turbine CO2 capture retrofit with a fixed crossover pressure and a let-down
back-pressure turbine 23
Figure 11 Steam-water schematic for PCC + CO2 capture using let-down turbine 24
Figure 12 Steam-water schematic for PCC + CO2 capture using AHT/AHP 25
Figure 13 Ejector heat pump 26
Figure 14 Ejector heat pump integrated into CO2 stripper 27
Figure 15 Use of steam ejectors in heat integrated flowscheme 28
Figure 16 Simplified process flow diagram of CO2 capture connected to a reference Indian supercritical
plant (Hanak and others, 2014) 29
Figure 17 Heat exchanger network design for utilising flue gas and CO2 compression unit waste heat
to heat rich amine solvent and feedwater 31
Figure 18 Stripper staged feed arrangement for a CO2 capture system 32
Figure 19 A-USC unit fitted with CO2 capture – net efficiency as a function of IP/LP crossover pressure 33
Figure 20 Relative energy flows of MEA-based CO2 capture 35
Figure 21 Integrated system with power generation, CO2 capture, and district heating supply 36
Figure 22 Incorporation of a low temperature ammonia cycle for low-grade heat utilisation 36
Figure 23 Example of composite curves (Harkin and others, 2010) 37
Figure 24 Structure of multi-objective optimisation sequence (MOO) using simulation and heat
integration 40
Figure 25 Principle of Ramgen compression system 44
Figure 26 Integration of Ramgen compressor intercooler heat production 45
List of Tables
Table 1 Temperatures of heat sources and sinks for a pulverised coal combustion plus CO2 capture
plant of 660°MWe 14
Table 2 Quantities and temperatures of available heat from CO2 capture on a 600 MWe gross
reference plant 18
Table 3 Predicted performance of configurations with and without heat pumps 26
Table 4 Steam ejector parameters 28
Table 5 Hot and cold streams identified in advanced heat integration analyses on a 660 MWe
supercritical plant in India (Hanak and others, 2014) 30
Table 6 Predicted performance for reference Indian 660 MWe supercritical unit and CO2 capture cases
(see text) using various heat integration options 31
Table 7 Effect of varying the number of CO2 compressor intercoolers in heat integration analysis
of the CO2 capture on a 600 MWe gross reference plant 34
Table 8 Predicted energy penalties for steam extraction to amine-based CO2 capture for various
options at two lignite-fired plant sizes (A=200 M; B=500 MW) 38
Table 9 List and range of variables used in the optimisations for potassium carbonate-based
capture on a 500 MW lignite plant 39
Table 10 Effect on overall electrical output of using Ramgen compressor in comparison with use of
integrally-geared and in-line compressors 45
Introduction
1 Introduction
Incorporation of carbon dioxide (CO2) capture systems will be required on coal-fired power plants to
address concerns over climate change. The maximum net electrical output from a coal-based power plant
employing currently available CO2 capture and compression technologies will be significantly lower than
that of a similar plant firing the same quantity of coal without capture. This is because some of the energy
– thermal and electrical – produced at the plant will be needed to operate the CO2 capture and
compression processes. One of the most tested systems for capture of the CO2 from pulverised coal
combustion plants is chemical absorption of the gas from the flue gases using a solvent, and the
commonest suggested reagent for this purpose is an aqueous solution of monoethanolamine (MEA). The
solvent will have to be regenerated to release the CO2 as a concentrated stream for storage as well as for
recycling of the solvent. The energy required for this will be provided by a major extraction of steam from
the power plant, reducing generation, while the additional auxiliary power demand will directly reduce
the net electrical output.
While good chemical engineering practice means that, after giving up its heat, the condensed steam would
ultimately be returned to the main feedwater flow, closer examination of the changed energy flows in a
CO2 capture plant has pointed to ways to further reduce the energy penalty of incorporating CO2 capture:
some heat that would otherwise be rejected by the capture plant could be re-used. However, a
constraining factor is the low-grade nature of much of the heat that is available. Economics must play a
part in selecting the optimum solutions, but there is definite scope for some worthwhile utilisation. The
additional approaches to energy utilisation by the CO2 capture plant, and recovery of energy from it, form
the subject of the present report.
There are other potential means to reduce the energy penalties of CO2 capture, for example, employing
improved solvents and using totally different capture technologies, such as membranes. However,
reconsidering the scope for better integration can be relevant to these also.
Recently, heat exchanger network synthesis (HENS) has become a tool for optimising heat exchange
between multiple streams of plants, and its application to CO2 capture is reported. There are also a
number of breakthrough technologies, including heat exchangers with micro-channels and those using
novel materials, such as ceramic matrix composites, that might be considered for some components. In
the course of this review, such systems were investigated, but there appear to be limited possibilities of
taking advantage of these technologies in this sphere. Other approaches to saving energy include using a
new type of CO2 compressor, and this is also discussed.
Although not within the scope of this review, it is also possible to supply the energy required for solvent
regeneration by other means entirely, for example, using a separate coal- or gas-fired boiler, which could
itself be fitted with a CO2 capture system. Another way could be to use a gas turbine in a windbox system,
where the gas turbine’s partially oxygen depleted flue gases are used as combustion air in the coal-fired
plant (Sanchez del Rio and others, 2013). This could maintain, or even increase, the site power output.
9
IEA Clean Coal Centre –Power plant CO2 capture heat integration
Introduction
The gas turbine could be integrated with the existing coal plant in various ways to supply the heat and the
power required for the capture systems. The post-combustion capture plant on the final flue gases would
capture the CO2 from both processes in a single system. Such repowering, without CO2 capture, has been
applied in Germany to increase efficiency, but not yet combined with CO2 capture.
This report is structured in the following way. In Chapter 2, an introduction is given to post-combustion
CO2 capture systems by solvent scrubbing. Chapter 3 contains descriptions of work on heat integration.
Chapter 4 reviews some developments in novel heat exchangers, novel CO2 compression systems and
other areas. The overall summary and conclusions are in Chapter 5.
10
Post-combustion CO2 capture systems
2 Post-combustion CO2 capture systems

In this chapter, a summary is provided of the configuration of post-combustion capture using solvent
scrubbing without advanced heat integration. For more details, the reader is referred to other IEA Clean
Coal Centre reports (see, for example, Davidson, 2007, 2009, 2012). There is also an introduction to the
issues concerning heat integration with the host plant.
2.1 General configuration of post-combustion capture systems using scrubbing

Figure 1 shows an outline of generic post-combustion CO2 capture on a coal-fired plant using solvent
scrubbing. The key feature is that the CO2 is scrubbed from the flue gases after they emerge from the
essentially conventional gas cleaning systems. Although the coal-fired power unit appears to be
unchanged, there are important modifications that have to be made to produce a workable system. In
particular, the CO2 capture system requires substantial inputs of energy to operate.
In solvent scrubbing systems, a solvent consisting of an aqueous alkanolamine (generally referred to in

this context, simply, as an amine) solution is contacted at about 40°C with the cooled flue gas in an
absorber, where the CO2 reacts with the amine and is thereby chemically captured. The CO2-rich solvent
is then passed to a stripping column (desorber), where the absorbed CO2 is released as a concentrated
stream by adding heat to reverse the chemical reaction of capture. Substantial quantities of steam have to
be taken from the main plant to provide heat for the stripper reboiler, because major flow rates of
reagent are needed for absorbing the quantities of CO2 produced in combustion, plus the fact that the
specific energy of regeneration is high. The stripping column typically operates at around 120°C and
0.15 MPa, and the steam extracted from the power plant, which needs to be at adequate temperature and
pressure, is taken from the IP/LP crossover pipe. The CO2-lean solvent is recirculated to the absorber
after cooling, by heat exchange with the CO2-rich solvent as well as through further cooling, to about 40°C.
In addition, additional electrical power is drawn, to drive fans and pumps and to compress the CO2
typically to over 10 MPa for transport as a supercritical fluid to geological storage. The cooling duty of the
site can be significantly increased as a result of adding CO2 capture systems.
11
Figure 1 Simplified diagram showing post-combustion CO2 capture on a coal-fired plant using solvent
scrubbing (capture systems section based on Davidson, 2007)
2.2 Effect of adding CO2 capture systems on efficiency

The energy usages and losses associated with the CO2 capture systems will impact on plant output and
efficiency in a major way, with up to 30% loss of efficiency in the absence of full heat integration. This can
be equivalent to a percentage points decrease in efficiency of 12–13%. The steam extraction has the
greatest effect, in the form of lost output, as extraction of up to 50% of the steam that would normally
enter the LP turbine cylinder can be necessary to feed the CO2 capture systems (Xu and others, 2014). The
loss of power output from the turbine typically accounts for about two thirds of the overall energy
penalty of post-combustion capture, the remainder consisting of electrical power needed for the pumps,
fans and compressors. However, there is considerable scope to lessen the energy penalties, particularly
through utilising in the water-steam cycle some of the low-grade sources of heat that will exist within the
capture plant. This will then reduce the required rate of steam extraction and associated drop in gross
power. This report looks at the studies by various workers to achieve this improved heat integration. A
literature search of papers and other proceedings from the last five years showed that there was
considerable activity in the field up to about 2013. There was work at a reduced level in the following few
years, with less activity currently, as the main issues have been identified and commercial demonstration
plants are needed to develop them further.
The main scope for better heat integration lies in exploiting the low-grade heat availability in certain
streams of the CO2 capture and compression systems. Some recent studies have considered the
application of heat pumps in different forms. Different situations, locations and coal types will have
marked effects on the possibilities for integration. For example, in some locations, very low temperature
12
heat availability could be used as part of the input to district heating systems, while, in tropical regions,
the availability of cooling in the condenser is more limited, increasing condensate temperature and
reducing the amount of heat that can be recovered. In others, for example Australia, taking in additional
heat from solar thermal equipment has shown promise for limiting the increase in specific coal
requirement.
There are also ways to reduce energy usage in solvent scrubbing through changing to alternative solvents
that have lower chemical energies of regeneration, but the MEA solvent appears still to be widely
regarded as very suitable for first generation capture plants. For example, it was selected in the FEED
(front end engineering and design) study of CCS demonstrations at Longannet power station in the UK
(IEAGHG, 2013) and for the ROAD project at Maasvlakte Power Plant 3 in Rotterdam in the Netherlands.
It was selected for the latter as representing the most extensively characterised solvent (for example,
with respect to degradation and emissions) (GCCSI, 2012). Changing the solvent changes the
temperatures of heat requirements and availability also. In the majority of the studies reviewed in this
report, MEA was the solvent.
Ahn and others (2013) summarise the situation regarding using alternative solvents with lower heat of
reaction in order to reduce the energy consumption for solvent regeneration as follows:
While significant effort has been devoted to [alternative solvents], such approaches mostly result in an
increase in the size of columns and other equipment in the amine process to compensate for the weak
reactivity. This makes it difficult to apply these solutions to large sources emitting flue gases at very high
flow rates. In this respect, MEA (monoethanolamine), which is relatively cheap and has very strong reactivity
to CO2 even at very low CO2 partial pressures, is still being considered as a first choice in designing an amine
process for CO2 capture from coal-fired power plants.
Neveux and others (2013a and 2013b) have pointed out that improved heat integration and
consideration of alternative absorbents should be considered together, because solvent properties affect
the integration possibilities: for example, the solvent’s temperature of thermal degradation may limit
conditions that can be used in the stripper column.
Table 1 shows the inlet and outlet temperature ranges of some major heat sources and sinks for a
pulverised coal combustion plus CO2 capture plant from a heat integration assessment by Hanak and
others (2014) of a 660 MWe supercritical unit in India. Associated heat availabilities or sinks are included
in the table.
13
Table 1 Temperatures of heat sources and sinks for a pulverised coal combustion plus
CO2 capture plant of 660°MWe (Hanak and others, 2014)
Stream Inlet Outlet Associated heat
temperature, °C temperature, °C change, MW
Hot streams
Lean solvent 122.3 40.0 ‒928.45
CO2 compressor intercooling (8 stages) 82.1‒84.5 40.0 Total of ‒46.38
CO2 cooling 82.1 33.0 ‒6.31
Stripper overhead condenser 107.8 40.0 ‒278.44
Cold streams
Rich solvent 50.7 105.9 642.00
LP feedwater 46.5 151.5 71.20
The temperatures here apply to the particular situation, naturally, but they are broadly similar to data
from other sources (for example, from Harkin and others, 2012a; Pfaff and others, 2010). The table is
included here to illustrate the challenge with utilisation of the heats, in that there are large quantities
available, but that their temperatures are not high.
In their paper, Hanak and others (2014) provide a valuable summary of integration improvements by
several workers to date. The position of steam extraction greatly influences the performance of the
integrated system, and the point at which the reboiler condensate is returned to the steam cycle is also
important. The reboiler condensate has particularly to be returned at a point of similar temperature
range to minimise the exergy (available energy) loss. Duan and others (2012) highlight that, while an
optimal option for obtaining the saturated steam for stripper heating may be to extract it from the LP
turbine within a pressure range between 0.18 and 0.28 MPa, so using the lowest quality steam available
to match the energy requirements, most existing steam turbines do not have an extraction point in this
pressure range. As already observed, taking steam at a higher pressure from the crossover pipe that
connects the IP and LP turbines is the generally accepted solution.
Novel CO2 compression systems could potentially reduce the cost and overall efficiency penalty of CO2
capture. An example of this is shown later (in Chapter 4), where revisions to heat integration
configurations can then be made, as the temperature ranges of available heat are changed.
14
Integration studies
3 Integration studies
This chapter consists of a review of detailed studies (all in simulation) of heat integration of
post-combustion solvent scrubbing CO2 capture plants on pulverised coal power units. The work, by
its nature, can involve complex modelling and calculation procedures. The accounts here are
necessarily abbreviated introductions to such studies, to illustrate as far as possible the principles
involved and progress achieved, while minimising detail that might otherwise obscure.
3.1 General integration studies

The various investigators in the field have tended to arrive at similar key areas to consider, but there
are naturally variations. This first section discusses, as examples, the work of four research groups
that have worked on integration. The work of other researchers appears in succeeding sections.
The interplay of different factors on the CO2 capture retrofit efficiency penalty is shown in work by
Liebenthal and others (2011) at Hamburg University of Technology, Germany. These researchers
modelled a state-of-the-art 1015 MW (net output, before capture) 28 MPa/600°C/620°C USC plant
with an IP/LP crossover pressure of 0.39 MPa, retrofitted with 90% CO2 capture. Commercial
software (EBSILONProfessional® 8.00) was used to develop a detailed model of the overall process.
They calculated the effect of using different stripper reboiler temperatures in the range 70‒160°C and
steam extraction rates between 190 and 960 MWth.
This work can be used to illustrate the way the extraction steam pressure is selected. For the typical
reboiler temperature of 120°C, Liebenthal and others (2011) assumed the feed steam at the reboiler
to be at 130°C, assuming a (conventional) 10°C temperature approach in the heat exchanger. This
temperature corresponds to a pressure for the saturated steam of 0.27 MPa at the inlet. For a typical
pressure loss of 0.04 MPa in the connecting pipe, a steam pressure of 0.31MPa would then be
required at the crossover. The temperature would be above saturation. To ensure that steam could be
provided at the necessary pressure, a throttle and/or a pressure control (or, as called in this paper, a
pressure maintaining valve – PMV) would normally be needed (see Figure 2). The throttle would take
the pressure down for use by the reboiler if it operated at a lower temperature, while the pressure
control valve would keep pressure to the reboiler higher if a higher reboiler temperature were
needed (Liebenthal and others, 2011). The valves would also allow variable load operation, while
keeping to a required steam condition at the reboiler. This is discussed in Section 3.2. Note that many
modellers have referred to the pressure control valve added before the LP cylinders as a throttle, also.
Since the crossover steam is above saturation temperature, energy in this superheated steam may be
exploited using a heat exchanger for LP feedwater heating or a let-down turbine – see Section 3.3.1.
Incorporation of the above components can have effects on the overall energy penalty that may not
be immediately expected. For example, for reboiler temperatures between 130°C and 160°C, the
power generation loss actually decreased with increasing rate of steam extraction due to lower losses
in the pressure control valve. For reboiler temperatures below 130°C, the power generation loss still
15
Integration studies
decreased with increasing steam extraction when the pressure in the IP/LP crossover pipe was
sufficient for solvent regeneration, but when the pressure control valve needed to be activated, the
generation decrease increased with increasing steam extraction (Liebenthal and others, 2011).
An interesting observation was that using a plant’s existing cooling system to provide the required
additional 30% in cooling duty from adding CO2 capture could result in an increase in condenser
pressure. However, if instead an additional cooling system were to be installed, the condenser
pressure could decrease because steam flow to the condenser is lower with CO2 capture. Either of
these possibilities could require modifications to the LP turbine.
Not all is unexpected: the power drawn by the CO2 compressor decreased for the higher reboiler
temperatures associated with higher inlet pressures, and, as a result, the cooling duty of the CO2
compressor decreased at higher inlet pressure (Liebenthal and others, 2011). But it was also noted
that power plants with different design pressures in the IP/LP crossover pipe exhibited different
characteristics with regard to generation decrease and that operation at part load would affect the
results.
Figure 2 Location of throttle and pressure control (maintaining) valve (Liebenthal and others, 2011)
Lucquiaud and Gibbins (2011a), at the University of Edinburgh, UK, showed that advances in
integration had, by 2011, resulted in the electricity penalty decreasing from 410‒470 kWh/tCO2 to
280‒320 kWh/tCO2. They then carried out further analyses in considering, among other aspects, the
assessment of alternative chemical absorption solvents. Their model was used to calculate the overall
net electrical output penalty as total kWh of lost output per tonne of CO2 captured, including ancillary
power and compression, for likely example combinations of solvent energy of regeneration, solvent
regeneration temperature and desorber (stripper) pressure. The range of solvent regeneration
temperatures considered was actually similar to those examined by Liebenthal and others (2011) –
from 90‒170°C.
16
Integration studies
Integration features included return of the reboiler condensate to the water circuit of the power plant
at as high a temperature as possible at an intermediate point in the LP feedwater heating train, rather
than the main condenser, and using low-grade heat from the compressor intercoolers and from the
reflux condenser cooling the CO2 leaving the solvent desorber to heat feedwater leaving the
condenser (see Figure 3). The temperature of the condensate return will depend on the solvent used
and on the pressure ratio of the compression train, and this would affect the position for addition
back to the feedwater flow.
Lucquiaud and Gibbins (2011a) also showed that use of vapour recompression on the moist CO2
product stream (while omitting the use of the stripper overhead condenser shown in Figure 1) could
be worthwhile, but was unlikely to be advantageous for solvents regenerated at lower temperatures
(120°C and below).
Figure 3 Steam cycle of plant with heat integrated from the capture and compression plant (Lucquiaud
and Gibbins, 2011a)
Pfaff and others (2010), at Hamburg University, also identified the intercoolers of the CO2 compressor
and the stripper overhead condenser as suitable locations to extract waste heat from CO2 capture
systems at reasonable temperature levels (see Figure 4 and Table 2). The water wash cooling was
necessary to ensure water balance. The results and data on the compressor intercoolers are discussed
later in Section 3.8. Without integration, Pfaff and others (2010) had predicted a moderate efficiency
penalty of 10.63% points compared with the equivalent non-capture plant. Recovering the waste heat
of the stripper overhead condenser by preheating the LP boiler feedwater stream to a temperature of
~90°C, and by bypassing LP feedwater heaters 1 and 2, reduced the energy penalty and increased the
efficiency of the overall capture retrofitted plant by 0.31% points.
17
Integration studies
Figure 4 Simplified flowsheet of CO2 capture unit (Pfaff and others, 2010)
Table 2 Quantities and temperatures of available heat from CO2 capture on

a 600 MWe gross reference plant (Pfaff and others, 2010)
Location (see Figure 4) Upper Lower Available heat,
temperature, °C temperature, °C MWth
Flue gas cooler 29.8 23.0 79.7
Water wash cooler 46.8 24.4 210.0
Solvent cooler 49.3 40.0 48.8
Stripper overhead condenser 105.7 40.0 98.2
Total 436.7
There was found to be a limited choice of places to use the waste heat because of the low LP
feedwater flow, but preheating the combustion air was identified as a possibility. In combination with
feedwater preheating, the gain in efficiency was up to 1.02% points. To achieve heat transfer to
combustion air, LP feedwater would be heated in the stripper condenser then passed to a heat
exchanger to heat the air before being returned to the water-steam-cycle. This would allow the steam
bleed to the normal steam air heater to be closed, leading to an increase in power output as well as an
efficiency gain of ~0.29% points. The flue gas would need to be split so less was used for air heating,
with some of it used to preheat feedwater. By maximising the use of the waste heat for heating the
combustion air, the efficiency gain could be raised to 0.52% points.
It was found that the total heat rejected to cooling water was higher by 39.0% than for the same plant
without capture. Only one third of the total cooling duty of the CO2 capture-fitted plant occurred in
the main condenser of the plant, since only about half of the steam mass flow remained after
extraction for expansion in the LP turbine. The remaining cooling duty was for the CO2 capture and
compression systems. An increase in the cooling water temperature gain from 10°C in the base case
18
Integration studies
to 25°C (considered possible, and corresponding to a cooling water outlet temperature of 43°C)
would lead to an increase in net efficiency of 0.23% points (Pfaff and others, 2010).
Ahn and others (2013), at the University of Edinburgh, used process flowsheeting in Honeywell
UniSim to evaluate ten configurations, eight of them based on literature and two using alternative
systems, for amine post-combustion CO2 capture on a subcritical (16.7 MPa/565.6°C/565.6°C) unit.
The plant was based on a detailed configuration described in a major US DOE study including CO2
capture (US DOE, 2007). The IP/LP crossover pressure was 1.2 MPa, and this was reduced to 310 kPa
by a let-down turbine and a desuperheater in the bleed steam flow to the reboiler, to suit the stripper
reboiler temperature of 120°C, with an approach temperature of 14°C.
The base case absorber/stripper configuration, including the let-down turbine, reduced the net HHV
efficiency of the power plant, compared with no capture, by 9% points (from 36.9%). One of the
alternative designs, using an advanced amine process, and combining many of the enhancements in
the literature configurations (see Figure 5), achieved the same 90% capture rate with a reduction in
steam consumption of up to 37% as a result of these perhaps rather complex changes. However, CO2
compressor power was increased, and the overall net efficiency of the cycle was just 0.9% points
higher than for the base CO2 capture case.
Figure 5 Schematic diagram of multiple modifications (absorber intercooling, condensate evaporation

and lean amine flash) (Ahn and others, 2013)
3.2 Allowing for plant flexibility

Variable load operation is associated with steam turbine pressure changes, and this has to be allowed
for in the design of a CO2 capture plant, to avoid unacceptable variations in the quality of steam
supply to the stripper reboiler. For the planned Maasvlakte 3 ROAD CO2 capture retrofit, this will be
achieved by taking the steam supply from different available extraction points as the load changes
(GCCSI, 2012). However, designing for operation at variable load would normally be done by keeping
19
Integration studies
to the crossover as the point of steam extraction and using other means. Pfaff and others (2010)
suggest installing pressure governing (control) and throttling valves, both to protect the turbine and
to optimise efficiency (option (c) in Figure 6). In their modelling work, on a new 600 MWe gross
(before capture) unit, this was assumed, together with spray injection of reboiler condensate for
attemperation for a crossover pressure of 0.55 MPa. They decided not to use a let-down turbine, a
method frequently suggested, citing reduced flexibility and greater investment cost. This is in
contrast to a suggested advantage of let-down turbines for providing flexibility with retrofitted CO2
capture, as described by Lucquiaud and Gibbins (2011b) (see Section 3.3.1).
Figure 6 Options to maintain the reboiler steam pressure at different loads. a) steam extraction
pressure governing valve; b) steam bleed with control (throttling) valve at reboiler branch
pipe; c) combination of a) and b) (Pfaff and others, 2010)
3.3 Retrofitting CO2 capture to existing units

Lucquiaud and Gibbins (2011b) have examined the retrofitting of post-combustion capture to coal-
fired plants that had not been specifically designed to accommodate CO2 capture (ie not ‘capture-
ready’). The extracted steam would first be passed through a heat exchanger to recover the superheat
available for feedwater heating (similar to the configuration shown in Figure 3), before use of its
latent heat in the reboiler to release the CO2. The condensate from the reboiler would be returned to
the water-steam cycle at a point after the low pressure feedwater heater train. Again, as other
workers such as Pfaff and others (2010) have found, some heat would also be recoverable from the
CO2 stream leaving the stripper column and from the CO2 compressor intercoolers, for feedwater
heating.
3.3.1 Effect of steam turbine parameters of original plant on efficiency penalty from CO2
capture
While low plant efficiency and poor performance with capture, compared to new-build projects, are
often regarded as barriers to CO2 capture retrofits, the work of Lucquiaud and Gibbins (2011b)
indicated that steam turbine retrofits could allow surprisingly good integration for a wide range of
steam turbine designs. Another conclusion was that, with effective heat integration, the abatement
costs were independent of initial plant efficiency, rendering a wider choice of retrofit sites as suitable
than had hitherto been assumed, including at subcritical plants. This was for using the same coal, with
constant boiler efficiency and cooling system conditions and identical steam extraction pressures and
capture unit designs. Then, the amount of heat extracted from the steam cycle and the ancillary power
20
Integration studies
for capture for the same fuel input remained the same. The analyses showed that initial plant
efficiency, could have no significant direct effect on the efficiency penalty in percentage points of a
capture retrofit. Moreover the effects of site-specific parameters were said to be likely to be small
compared to the influence of the capture system characteristics.
However, note the condition that the steam extraction pressure is the same for the subcritical and
supercritical plants. That condition appears unlikely to be met in many cases, because existing coal-
fired plants have a wide range of crossover pressures. This can necessitate adding valves, as
discussed earlier. However, backpressure let-down turbine(s) may alternatively be incorporated
(see Figures 7 and 8). For maximum upgradability, flexibility and efficiency, CO2 capture retrofits need
to leave the full steam swallowing capacity of the LP turbine available without using additional valves.
Using a pressure control valve leads to part-load efficiency being reduced more at part load than at
full load, as throttling losses at the LP turbine inlet increase because less steam is flowing to the
turbine at part-load (Lucquiaud and Gibbins, 2011b; Linnenberg and Kather, 2009).
Figure 7 Steam turbine CO2 capture retrofit with a fixed IP turbine outlet and two let-down
back-pressure turbines (Lucquiaud and Gibbins, 2011b)
In the configuration shown in Figure 7, with a fixed IP turbine outlet pressure, the let-down turbine at
the inlet of the LP turbine would be bypassed if capture were to be temporarily suspended for a short
term increase in power. At capture levels between 0 and 90% both additional turbines would be
partially bypassed. In the configuration shown in Figure 8, the supply pressure to the reboiler is not
controlled by a valve but rather by the amount of steam extracted at the IP outlet. At intermediate
capture levels the crossover pressure would float, and the let-down turbine would be throttled. To
keep the figures simple, the bypasses and valves are not shown.
21
Integration studies
Figure 8 Steam turbine CO2 capture retrofit with a floating intermediate pressure turbine and a let-
down back-pressure turbine (Lucquiaud and Gibbins, 2011b)
Lucquiaud and Gibbins (2011b) analysed these options using gPROMs software. The solvent
regeneration temperature was the typical 120°C, the temperature difference in the reboiler was 15°C
and the pressure drop from the turbine to the reboiler was 0.05 MPa. The modelling results at a 90%
capture rate are shown in Figure 9 for a range of initial (before capture) crossover pressures, both
with and without heat recovery from the capture and compression units.
Figure 9 Comparison of performance of steam turbine CO2 capture retrofit options for a range of
steam cycle configurations (Lucquiaud and Gibbins, 2011b)
22
Integration studies
Included in Figure 9 are the results of analysis of another option using a pressure control valve, based
on a study by the US DOE, described by Ramezan and others (2007). In that case, flow through the LP
turbines was throttled using a pressure control valve to maintain the IP outlet pressure
(see Figure 10). The energy penalty was independent of the IP turbine outlet pressure. There was a
throttling loss in the valve of 30 kWh/tCO2 compared to the option in Figure 7 with two let-down
turbines. The floating pressure system with a back-pressure turbine in Figure 8 provided a constant
energy penalty of 257 kWh/tCO2 for pressures above 0.9 MPa.
Figure 10 Steam turbine CO2 capture retrofit with a fixed crossover pressure and a let-down
back-pressure turbine (Lucquaud and Gibbins, 2011b)
The dual back-pressure turbine system could provide spinning reserve to the grid if the LP
back-pressure turbine were bypassed, allowing more steam flow to the LP turbine. The floating
pressure system would also be able to change the steam flow to the LP turbine. In both cases, flow to
the reboiler would also need to be regulated by a throttle valve upstream of the back-pressure
turbine. In retrofits, allowing the IP outlet pressure to float could put excessive stresses on the
blading and, for single-flow systems, could lead to excessive end thrust, so this would need to be
addressed in design.
Sensitivity studies showed that an increase in pressure drop along the pipework to the reboiler of
0.05 MPa increased the energy penalty, so the authors suggested that the possibility of locating the
solvent stripper close to the turbine island could be considered.
3.4 Incorporation of heat pumps

The effect of raising the temperature of recovered heat by employing heat pumps has also been
assessed. Duan and others (2012) used Aspen Plus software to develop models of a power plant with
MEA-based CO2 capture in various configurations. One of these (i) included a let-down turbine in the
bleed steam supply, while another (ii) used a let-down turbine together with AHT (Absorption Heat
23
Integration studies
Transformer) and AHP (Absorption Heat Pump) equipment. AHT is a modified form of AHP. The work
showed that the efficiency of a 600 MW coal-fired power unit (based on one of the
24.2 MPa/566°C/566°C supercritical units at Guigang, Guangxi Province, China), when retrofitted
with MEA systems for 85% CO2 capture, could be penalised by as little as 6% points.
In the first arrangement, incorporating the let-down turbine only (Figure 11), a throttling (pressure
control) valve is also used to protect the IP and LP turbines, as discussed earlier. Crossover pressure
was around 0.9 MPa.
Figure 11 Steam-water schematic for PCC + CO2 capture using let-down turbine (Duan and others, 2012)
New heat exchangers (HE1-HE4, using heat from the CO2 compressors and trimming the reboiler
steam temperature) take the place of the existing LP feedwater heaters, which here are taken
completely out of use.
24
Integration studies
Figure 12 Steam-water schematic for PCC + CO2 capture using AHT/AHP (Duan and others, 2012)
Features of the second configuration (Figure 12) include heat extraction from the gases leaving the
stripper to supply heat to the evaporator of the AHP then to HE2 for heating the feeding water leaving
HE1. Heat to the latter comes, via the AHT, from the solvent feed to the CO2 absorber column. The
AHP, driven by the steam extracted from the turbine, converts part of the lower grade heat from the
stripper gases to higher grade heat for raising the temperature of rich solvent before it enters the
stripper. The simulations showed that this reduced the energy needed for solvent regeneration from
2.83 GJ/tCO2 to 2.14 GJ/tCO2. The extraction steam flow was decreased from 30% of the original
specified flow to the LP turbine cylinder to only 18%. The latter also obviated the need for throttling,
with its attendant losses. Another feature was the utilisation of the CO2 compressor inter-cooling heat
in two ways as shown in the diagram. Table 3 shows the results of the simulations of the two
configurations. Efficiencies are believed to be on an LHV basis. The heat pumps increased the net
efficiency by around 2% points.
25
Integration studies
Table 3 Predicted performance of configurations with and without heat pumps

(Duan and others, 2012)
Unit PC PC+CCS PC+CCS+AHT
Gross power MW 604.30 533.16 564.6
Aux power consumption excl MW 30.22 30.22 30.22
CO2 capture
CO2 capture MW ‒ 21.28 25.69
CO2 compression MW ‒ 28.62 28.62
Aux power consumption MW 30.22 80.12 84.53
including CO2 capture
Net output MW 574.09 453.04 480.1
Net efficiency % 40.28 31.79 33.69
Efficiency penalty % points ‒ 8.49 6.59
CO2 removal ratio % ‒ 85 85
CO2 emissions (gross) g/kWh 566.3 94.9 89.6
CO2 avoided (gross) g/kWh ‒ 535.3 505.5
Another approach to reducing the steam requirement for the CO2 stripper reboiler employing heat
pumps was assessed in preliminary simulations by Reddick and others (2014a,b). Here, steam
ejectors were woven into a heat pump arrangement with the CO2 stripper and reflux condenser
system, with some steam injection directly into the stripper. Figure 13 shows the basic configuration
of an ejector heat pump. The primary working fluid, at a relatively high pressure, enters the ejector
through the primary nozzle along the central axis. The secondary fluid (from the evaporator), at a
pressure lower than the primary fluid, enters the annular chamber around the primary nozzle and is
drawn in by the flow of primary fluid. Thermal energy applied to the generator causes heat from the
lower temperature at the evaporator to be moved to the higher temperature at the condenser inlet.
Figure 13 Ejector heat pump (Reddick and others, 2014a)
Figure 14 shows the ejector heat pump integrated into the CO2 stripper systems. The waste heat is
assumed to be available at up to 100°C. A flash tank, heated with the waste heat and used to create
the secondary steam to the ejector, here plays the role of the evaporator. The motive steam entering
the primary nozzle of the ejector originates from the stripper overhead reflux condensate, first
preheated with waste heat in the primary steam preheater, and further vaporised using plant steam
26
Integration studies
in the primary steam generator. The stripper overhead condenser serves the same purpose as the
condenser in Figure 13. The thermal energy entering the primary steam generator causes heat at the
lower temperature of the flash tank to be fed at a higher temperature to the stripper.
Figure 14 Ejector heat pump integrated into CO2 stripper (Reddick and others, 2014a)
Modelling showed that ejector integration could give 10–25% reductions in the amount of steam
required from the power plant. The best results occurred when the steam injected into the stripper
was sent to the bottom of the tower. Three alternatives for the source of the liquid to the flash tank
were considered: stripper reflux condensate, CO2-lean solvent and CO2-rich solvent. Of these, the last
was not worthwhile. Various proportions of lean solvent taken off for sending to the flash tank were
simulated. Results indicated that the greater the ejector outlet flow rate, the lower the quantity of
valuable steam requiring extraction from the main water-steam cycle.
The use of steam ejectors to upgrade the heat in CO2 capture systems has also been examined in
Aspen Plus simulations based on a reference plant (before CO2 capture) of 1000 MWe by Xu and
others (2014). In this case, the low pressure steam to be upgraded in the inter-connected steam
ejectors was from existing LP feedwater bleed steam extraction points on the LP turbine as well as
steam flashed from the reboiler condensate (see Figure 15 for the configuration). Steam extracted
from the 1.11 MPa crossover provides the higher pressure steam feed (the working fluid) to the
ejectors, while a portion (14%) of flash-off water is mixed with the emerging steam (by then at a
pressure of 0.27 MPa) before feeding to the reboiler of the flash tank to utilise the steam’s surplus
heat. Table 4 shows the parameters (temperatures, pressures and mass flows) of the steam ejectors.
27
Integration studies
Figure 15 Use of steam ejectors in heat integrated flowscheme (Xu and others, 2014)
Table 4 Steam ejector parameters (Xu and others, 2014)
Item Stream Temperature, °C Pressure, MPa Flow, kg/s

th
Steam ejector 1 4 stage extracted steam 393 1.11 36.94
th
5 stage extracted steam 306 0.39 32.50
Mixed steam, ejector 1 351 0.5 69.44
Steam ejector 2 Mixed steam, ejector 1 351 0.5 69.44
th
th
th
th
Flash vapour 96.4 0.089 13.50
The rest of the flash-off water is sent to the inlet of one of the LP feedwater heaters. Low-temperature
heat from the CO2 capture process would also provide input heat, as indicated in the diagram.
The net LHV efficiency of the CO2 capture configuration without the ejectors, at 27.2%, was
16.3% points lower than that of the non-capture plant, which was 43.6%. In this totally
non-integrated case, no heat from the CO2 stripper condenser or from the CO2 compressors was used.
With the integration of such heats and the use of the ejectors, the efficiency penalty of CO2 capture
was reduced by 4.91% points, compared with non-integration, and net power was increased from
596.7 MW to 704.3 MW.
28
Integration studies
An economic analysis indicated that the system would add only 0.31% to the total investment cost, so
that the cost of CO2 avoided would be 33% lower. Of course, not all of the benefit came from the
ejectors, as CO2 compressor and stripper overhead condenser heats were also used.
3.5 Studies based on an Indian supercritical plant

Hanak and others (2014) used Aspen Plus to simulate a 660 MW supercritical
(24.22 MPa/537°C/565°C) coal-fired power plant in India fired on indigenous high ash coal, with CO2
capture using aqueous MEA solvent. The general configuration modelled is shown in Figure 16. The
location at which the reboiler condensate was returned to the steam cycle was shown to be important.
Figure 16 Simplified process flow diagram of CO2 capture connected to a reference Indian supercritical
plant (Hanak and others, 2014)
Initial assessment showed that the highest gross power was obtained when the reboiler condensate
was returned to the fourth LP feedwater heater, so this was adopted for investigation of the
integrated designs.
For the latter, Hanak and others (2014) considered the temperatures of the various streams
(see Table 5) and used Aspen Energy Analyser to perform a pinch analysis and to plot composite
curves for a mean temperature difference of 10°C for all the heat exchangers. Section 3.11 has more
information on composite curves. The analyses showed that LP feedwater heating could be provided
partially by waste heat from the capture and compression plant and that there was an opportunity
also to use waste heat to preheat the rich solvent entering the stripper. No let-down turbine was
mentioned in the descriptions.
29
Integration studies
Table 5 Hot and cold streams identified in advanced heat integration analyses on a
660 MWe supercritical plant in India (Hanak and others, 2014)
Temperature,°C Specific heat, Heat capacity Heat load,
Stream
Inlet Outlet kJ/kg°C rate, kW/°C MWth
Cold streams
Rich solvent 50.7 105.9 3.48 11630.41 642.00
LP feedwater 46.5 151.5 4.25 677.80 71.20
Hot streams
CO2 intercooling 1 82.1 40.0 0.92 118.99 ‒5.01
CO2 intercooling 2 81.6 40.0 0.92 117.6 ‒4.89
CO2 intercooling 3 81.9 40.0 0.92 117.52 ‒4.93
CO2 intercooling 4 82.3 40.0 0.93 118.74 ‒5.02
CO2 intercooling 5 82.7 40.0 0.96 121.80 ‒5.20
CO2 intercooling 6 83.3 40.0 1.01 128.29 ‒5.55
CO2 intercooling 7 84.0 40.0 1.13 143.74 ‒6.32
CO2 intercooling 8 84.5 40.0 1.67 212.40 ‒9.46
CO2 cooling 82.1 33.0 1.01 128.50 ‒6.31
Direct contact
56.4 25.0 4.51 4186.86 ‒131.48
cooling water
Lean solvent 122.3 40.0 3.51 11276.82 ‒928.45
Flue gas 130.0 35.2 1.06 702.50 ‒66.56
Stripper overhead
107.8 40.0 17.8 4105.71 ‒278.44
condenser
Five scenarios were analysed in detail:
Case 1: Basic combination of supercritical plant with MEA CO2 capture (no integration);
Case 2: Utilisation of the CO2 compression unit waste heat for feedwater heating;
Case 3: Utilisation of flue gas waste heat for feedwater heating;
Case 4: Utilisation of the flue gas and CO2 compression unit waste heat to preheat the rich amine
solvent and for feedwater heating.
Case 5: A network developed for a mean temperature difference in the heat exchangers of 5°C, to
explore best performance with respect to energy saving and total cost.
Pinch analysis was performed to identify heating and cooling targets, and thus, waste heat available
for recovery in the system. Figure 17 is an example of the heat exchanger network design utilising
flue gas and CO2 compression unit waste heat to heat the rich amine solvent and feedwater (Case 4).
30
Integration studies
Figure 17 Heat exchanger network design for utilising flue gas and CO2 compression unit waste heat to
heat rich amine solvent and feedwater (Hanak and others, 2014)
Table 6 shows the predicted performance for all five cases. Without integration, the energy penalty
was calculated at 25% (Case 1). Application of heat integration was limited by the high ambient
temperature in India, so energy penalty savings from these measures were not major. The best design
with respect to performance and economics utilised the waste heat from the flue gas (Case 3). Net
efficiency was higher than for Case 1 by 0.41% points. Case 5 was slightly more efficient, but the
additional capital cost related to reducing the mean temperature difference in the heat exchangers
was not compensated by the higher revenue resulting from the reduced energy penalty.
Table 6 Predicted performance for reference Indian 660 MWe supercritical unit and CO2
capture cases (see text) using various heat integration options (Hanak and
others, 2014)
Parameter Reference Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5
plant
Gross power, MWe 660.11 548.65 549.87 555.09 553.55 555.84
Auxiliary power, MWe 49.26 90.46 90.50 90.56 90.54 90.97
Net power, MWe 610.84 458.19 459.37 464.53 463.01 464.87
Gross efficiency, %, LHV 42.20 35.08 35.16 35.49 35.39 35.54
Net efficiency, %, LHV 39.05 29.29 29.37 29.70 29.60 29.72
CO2 specific emissions, g/kWh 829.75 110.62 110.35 109.11 109.47 109.03
Net efficiency penalty, % points ‒ 9.76 9.68 9.35 9.45 9.33
HEN indicators
Heating utility fraction of target ‒ 3.333 2.498 1 1.448 0.841
Cooling utility fraction of target ‒ 1.065 1.042 1 1 0.996
Total cost indicator ‒ 0.823 0.798 0.656 0.736 0.677
31
Integration studies
3.6 Studies involving changes to the capture system configuration

Le Moullec and Kanniche (2011) compared various MEA CO2 capture configurations from the
literature, modelled as added to a supercritical plant of efficiency 44.5% LHV, net, in absence of
capture. Different cases were compared to a reference MEA CO2 scrubbing case representing good
performance, with an 11.95% points efficiency penalty. This included the commonly suggested
combination of a let-down turbine and subsequent heat exchange to feedwater, to leave saturated
steam suitable for a reboiler operating at about 120°C. The study was mainly concerning
modifications to the MEA process itself, for example including staged feed of the stripper: the
following summary discusses those variants most relevant to this report.
An improved approach temperature for the lean/rich solvent heat exchanger (5°C instead of 10°C)
was shown to allow a gain of approximately 0.15% points in overall efficiency. Used in conjunction
with a stripper staged feed (see Figure 18), indications were that it could even offer a much greater
gain of 1.5% points. Most of this would come from the revised stripper feed arrangement, which
would be able to take advantage of the closer pinch. The latter involved heating only part of the rich
solvent and feeding the cold flow near to the top of the stripper column.
Figure 18 Stripper staged feed arrangement for a CO2 capture system (Moullec and Kanniche, 2011)
Stripping under partial vacuum, to allow low pressure steam to be used to boil the solvent, resulted in
more power being produced by the let-down turbine. Negative effects were increases in CO2
compression energy and in the amount of steam needed for regeneration. Optimum pressure was
0.075 MPa (that is, a little below atmospheric), giving a gain of efficiency of approximately
0.7% points. The temperature to which the flue gas was pre-cooled before the absorber had a limited
impact, resulting in a change of approximately 0.1% points for a 10°C change.
The authors found that an efficiency penalty of 9% points was achievable with the ‘classic’ MEA
process by using combinations of modifications, but further gains, for example to reach many utilities’
target of a maximum efficiency loss of 5% points, would need innovative solvents and configurations
that would have the disadvantages of increased complexity and cost as well as low flexibility.
32
Integration studies
3.7 Future A-USC plants with CO2 capture and heat integration
Stępczyńska-Drygas and others (2013) studied the incorporation of amine-based CO2 capture on
conceptual 900 MW advanced ultra-supercritical (A-USC) coal units (employing 700°C+ steam), for
single and double reheat) using Ebsilon simulation software. For these future plants also, this
confirmed that the crossover pressure had a significant impact on overall efficiency when CO2 capture
was incorporated (see Figure 19). At a reduced design crossover pressure of 0.33 MPa, the efficiency
of the CO2 capture-fitted units would be around 10.5‒10.7% points lower than for the non-capture
single reheat and double reheat plants, respectively. For partial load operation, throttling was again
needed to ensure correct reboiler steam pressure, as was application of a pressure control valve to
ensure appropriate steam pressure to CO2 capture systems. The recovery of waste heat by preheating
feedwater was also modelled, returning it before the third LP feedwater heater, with the other LP
heaters bypassed. Waste heat from the CO2 compressor intercoolers and stripper overhead condenser
was also incorporated to increase the efficiency.
Figure 19 A-USC unit fitted with CO2 capture – net efficiency as a function of IP/LP crossover pressure
(Stpęczyńska-Drygas and others, 2013)
3.8 Utilising CO2 compression heat effectively

Pfaff and others (2010) examined the effect of using different compression intercooling arrangements
(Table 7). Omitting some intercoolers enabled the temperature level for waste heat recovery to be
increased, although at the cost of higher power consumption by the compressor. Four cases of this
were assessed:
• IC8_T40: Intercooling after each stage to 40°C (base case), with no waste heat recovery;
• IC8_T55: Intercooling after each stage to 55°C;
• IC4_T40: Intercooling after stage 2, 4, 6 and 8 to 40°C;
• IC2_T40: Intercooling after stage 4 and 8 to 40°C.
33
Integration studies
Using waste heat from the CO2 compressor intercoolers raised the power plant net efficiency by up to
0.31% points. Using heat from the stripper condenser as well as the compression heat gave a net
efficiency of 35.6% (LHV).
Table 7 Effect of varying the number of CO2 compressor intercoolers in heat integration
analysis of the CO2 capture on a 600 MWe gross reference plant (Pfaff and
others, 2010)
No of Inlet Outlet Compressor Heat available,
Identifier coolers temperature, temperature, power, MWth
°C °C MWe
IC8-T40 (base case, 8 76.7‒86.7 40 28.8 53.8
no waste heat
recovery)
IC8-T55 8 85.7‒108.4 55 30.8 55.7
IC4-T40 4 80.4‒133.3 40 31.6 56.5
IC2-T40 2 85.4‒237.6 40 37.5 62.2
Witkowski and Majkut (2012) looked at various CO2 compression options for post-combustion CO2
capture applications for a 900 MW PCC plant to quantify their energy consumptions and usable heats
of compression. To obtain heat at a sufficiently high temperature for useful integration, for example,
in providing heat for the reboiler or boiler feedwater, the final stage of intercooling in the compressor
was omitted in some of the options. This reduced the efficiency of the compressor, but it was
compensated by the advantage of greater heat recovery and power optimisation in the plant.
CO2 compression before liquefaction followed by pumping was among the variants analysed. This
allowed compression and pumping energy to be lower than for compression only options, but the
compression power reduction would be offset by the power decrease in the steam turbine (not
assessed) as a result of steam extraction required to drive the refrigeration cycle. Another system
examined used Ramgen’s developmental advanced shock wave compression technology. This
compressor has a very high pressure ratio, necessitating only two stages, and a potentially lower
capital cost. The discharge temperature is moreover high (eg 250°C), aiding heat integration.
Ramgen’s compressor is described in Section 4.3.
3.9 Combined heat and power

The suitability of combined heat and power (CHP) as a means to improve heat utilisation is an option
that is dependent on the available heat market. A study by Ziębik and others (2013) of CO2 capture on
a combined heat and power (CHP) plant with a back-pressure turbine simulated three cases:
• a reference system – coal-fired CHP plant with an extracting back-pressure turbine and oil-fired
boiler covering the peak loads and providing stand-by;
• the above system plus CO2 capture unit without recovery of waste heat;
• a CHP system with a back-pressure turbine of higher back-pressure than in the reference plant
and with a peak oil-fired boiler: integrated with a CO2 capture unit, recovering the waste heat
both from the stripper reflux condenser and from the CO2 compressor inter-stage coolers.
34
Integration studies
The CHP system’s Energy Utilisation Factor, EUF (a measure of its overall efficiency), depended both
on waste heat recovery and on the specific regeneration energy of the solvent. In the variant without
waste heat recovery the index EUF dropped by 23‒25% points, depending on the solvent’s
regeneration heat requirement (3.15–4.0 MJ/kgCO2 removed). With waste heat recovery, the
decrease of EUF was less severe, at 3.5‒13.5% points, depending on the regeneration heat.
Kärki and others (2013) also examined the possibilities for CO2 capture waste heat utilisation in CHP
systems for municipal district heating supply and in steelmaking. The paper focused on the
economics of these systems. The simulations included use of heat from CO2 compression intercoolers
to preheat district heating return water.
Xu and others (2013) included the possibility of integration of the heat from CO2 capture for heating
the circulating water used in neighbouring floor district heating systems to make use of the large
quantity of heat released by the solvent cooler, which is at only 40‒65°C (see Figure 20). Heat from
the CO2 compressor intercoolers was included for feedwater heating. The efficiency penalty of CO2
capture was reduced from 14.8% points to 10.9% points by introducing CHP and heat integration
measures in which the heat from the solvent cooler and the remaining energy from the CO2 condenser
were used to provide heat to the floor heating system. The configuration, including other heat
integration links, is shown in Figure 21.
Figure 20 Relative energy flows of MEA-based CO2 capture (Xu and others, 2013)
35
Integration studies
Figure 21 Integrated system with power generation, CO2 capture, and district heating supply (Xu and
others, 2013)
3.10 Addition of a low-temperature power generation cycle

Another way to use the low-grade heat from the CO2 capture systems may be to add a separate,
low-temperature turbine driven by a low boiling point fluid. A few years ago, Stankewitz and others
(2009) simulated the incorporation of an ammonia cycle in a preliminary study (see Figure 22) for
this purpose. However, there does not appear to be a great deal of activity in that sphere currently.
The overall efficiency penalty of the capture systems on a new plant of efficiency 45.9% was
predicted to be reduced from 12–13% points to 10% points.
Figure 22 Incorporation of a low temperature ammonia cycle for low-grade heat utilisation (Stankewitz
and others, 2009)
36
Integration studies
3.11 Lignite plants

Modelling studies carried out by Harkin and others (2009, 2010) used as a basis the 200 MWe and
500 MWe lignite-fired power units in operation in Australia. Aspen Plus was used in the first part of
the analysis to develop models of the plants with CO2 capture. Composite curves and pinch analyses
were then employed to determine the potential for reducing the energy penalty and cost of retrofitted
CO2 capture. Composite curves place all hot and cold stream data on a single temperature-enthalpy
diagram (see Figure 23 for an example). Pinch analysis allows energy flows from the hot streams to
the cold streams to be maximised, while the use of the composite curves allows the utility
requirements to be minimised for specified pinch temperatures.
Figure 23 Example of composite curves (Harkin and others, 2010)
Because the extracted steam for providing the reboiler heat rejoins the steam cycle as condensate,
this complicates the pinch analysis. An iterative approach to determining the outcome was therefore
employed and it was assumed that all extraction steam would be cooled to the main condenser
temperature.
Linear programming was used to minimise the amount of power decrease from the turbine, subject to
a series of inequality equations based on the requirements that the extraction steam provides the
energy at sufficiently high temperatures. The only variables were the flow rates of steam extracted at
each steam condition.
A number of cases were examined for each size of unit:
1. Base case –existing plant with no FGD or CO2 capture;

2. CCS – CO2 capture and FGD with no heat integration;
3. Integrated CCS – CO2 capture and FGD with maximum heat integration;
37
Integration studies
4. Retrofit – CO2 capture and FGD but only allowing modifications downstream of the economiser
on the flue gas and up to the deaerator on the boiler feedwater;
5. CCS and drying – lignite dewatering and CO2 capture with maximum heat integration;
6. CCS/drying/increased steam – additional heat content in the pre-dried lignite used to produce
steam which is utilised in an auxiliary turbine for additional heat and power.
For each case the amount of raw lignite fed to the plant was held constant and the amount and quality
of steam produced from the boiler was constant for all but Case 6.
The results showed (see Table 8) that the energy penalty associated with CO2 capture could be
reduced by redesigning the power stations’ heat exchanger networks and good use of the available
waste heat and that, with heat integration and lignite pre-drying, a CO2 capture retrofit may not incur
the large energy penalties hitherto predicted.
Table 8 Predicted energy penalties for steam extraction to amine-based CO2 capture for
various options at two lignite-fired plant sizes (A=200 M; B=500 MW) (Harkin and
others, 2010)
Plant A Plant B
Case
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Moisture content 61 61 61 61 45 45 61 61 61 61 45 45
to mill, wt%
Steam production, 208 208 208 208 208 248 433 433 433 433 433 491
kg/s
Steam extraction rates, kg/s – optimised using linear programming method
HP exhaust 11 112 54 54 42 53 46 46 2.0 46 2.0 39
IP bleed 1 – – – – – – 20 20 21 20 4 23
IP bleed 2 – – – – – – 15 15 4 15 0 3
LP bleed 1 11 11 0.2 0.2 7 7 14 14 3 0 0 2
LP bleed 2 9 9 0 0 0 0 26 207 201 134 213 144
LP bleed 3 – – – – – – 15 15 0 0 0 0
Power output – based on steam extraction rates given
Gross power, 220 172 205 205 208 203 520 441 509 484 524 481
MWe
Auxiliary power 14 22 22 22 22 23 30 44 44 44 44 44
excluding
compressor, MWe
CO2 compression – 25 24 24 25 2* - 45 45 45 45 2*
power, MWe
Net power, MWe 206 125 158 158 161 178 490 352 420 435 435 436
Efficiency, %net, 23 14 18 18 18 20 28 20 24 25 25 25
HHV
Energy penalty, % – 39 23.5 23.5 22 14 – 28 14 19 11 11
CO2 emissions, 1.46 0.24 0.19 0.19 0.15 0.14 1.15 0.16 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.13
kg/kWh
* offset by addition of auxiliary turbine
In a later study, examining the trade-off between costs and net power from addition of CO2 capture,
Harkin and others (2012a) carried out multi-objective optimisation (MOO) for a 500 MW lignite-fired
38
Integration studies
unit. Aspen was used to develop enthalpy/temperature curves for the process streams. The overall
model then worked out the sensible heat in the generation and use of steam and used linear
programming to calculate the mass flow rates for maximum power. The study assumed equal ΔTmin
values for all heat exchangers, optimised either for minimum cost or minimum loss of net power.
Capital and operating costs were calculated from the output of the heat integration step.
In the final stage, the MOO program was used to analyse the trade-off between competing objectives.
The case study assumed a CO2 absorption system employing 30% potassium carbonate solution with
rate-promotion, because it offered some advantages compared to amine processes for Australian
lignite plants, although having a disadvantage of a higher energy of regeneration. The nine variables
studied are shown in Table 9. Two optimisations were carried out, both including maximising the
capture rate, one minimising efficiency penalty and the other minimising the differential cost of
electricity (DCOE).
Table 9 List and range of variables used in the optimisations for potassium
carbonate-based capture on a 500 MW lignite plant (Harkin and others,
2012a)
Variable Unit Range minimum Range maximum
– +
Solvent lean loading mol HCO3 /mol K 0.11 0.416
Solvent flow rate kg/s 800 5910
Solvent temperature °C 40 71.5
Absorber feed gas temperature °C 40 71.5
Stripper pressure MPa 0.05 0.8165
Stripper feed temperature °C 70 133.5
Absorber packing height m 10 47.5
Stripper packing height m 10 47.5
Heat exchanger approach °C 6 36
temperature
The study showed that 90% CO2 capture without heat integration gave an energy penalty of 38% of
value, with net power reduced to 310 MW. However, with maximum integration and optimisation, the
energy penalty could be reduced to 14–16%. For minimal DCOE and cost per tonne of CO2 captured
the energy penalty was 25–30%. One oddity was that, because the original units were not designed
for highest efficiency, it was found to be possible, when optimising for maximum net power, to add up
to 40% CO2 capture, yet achieve a higher efficiency than for non-capture. This was because of the
opportunities for increased heat utilisation. In practice, such an approach was considered unlikely
because it would require modifications to the turbine and generator.
Harkin and others (2012b) also carried out a multi-objective optimisation study of a 200 MW lignite-
fired unit, but without an economic analysis. The MOO (see Figure 24 for structure) identified that the
lean solvent loading and stripper pressure will have a large impact on net power output and amount
of CO2 captured.
39
Integration studies
Figure 24 Structure of multi-objective optimisation sequence (MOO) using simulation and heat
integration (Harkin and others, 2012b)
The paper showed the importance of optimising the whole process simultaneously. Both studies were
rather specific to the types of plant studied, with their lack of FGD, low sulphur fuels and therefore
particular appropriateness for use of potassium carbonate absorption for CO2 capture. The 200 MW
unit type was also an old non-reheat system, with no IP turbine.
3.11.1 Effect of incorporating lignite pre-drying
Lignite pre-drying is being developed to enable higher efficiencies, and so lower specific CO2
emissions, in power generation from the fuel, as latent heat losses can be reduced. For information on
lignite drying processes, the reader is referred to recent IEA Clean Coal Centre reports by Zhu (2012)
and Dong (2014). Some of these processes, such as RWE’s WTA fluidised bed lignite drying
technology in its open cycle variant, use low pressure steam extracted from the power plant to
perform the drying. This can make integration with amine-based CO2 capture more difficult as there
may be insufficient LP steam left to run the LP turbine, although another version of WTA uses
compression of much of the liberated vapour for heat release and so would use less steam. Popov
(2011) examined another lignite drying system, the DryFining process that does not need any steam
and could utilise low temperature waste heat from the capture plant. His simulation of a 210 MW
plant using such a system showed that all of the heating energy for drying the lignite (within the
range 10–90% removal of the moisture) could be provided by the waste heat from the MEA scrubbing
process. The penalty from addition of the CO2 capture at 90% drying was consequently only 9.3% of
value (efficiency was reduced from 32.9% LHV net to 29.8%). Further capacity and efficiency
penalties reductions were predicted through using low-grade heat from the stripper reflux and
compressor intercoolers and the condensate of the reboiler heating steam for combustion air
preheating. Combustion air preheating could allow the high pressure feedwater heaters to be
replaced by an additional economiser, allowing additional power to be generated from non-extracted
40
Integration studies
steam. The net effect was predicted to be that the power plant’s net efficiency (LHV) would fall only
modestly, from 32.9% to 30.7% (Popov, 2011).
3.12 Comments
The heat integration work discussed here shows that the efficiency penalty of adding CO2 capture
using the most widely assessed system of aqueous MEA scrubbing on a pulverised coal power plant
can be brought down by employing better heat integration by around a third. Actual outturn
efficiencies depend strongly on the type of plant assumed and other circumstances such as location.
Lignite-fired plants may offer additional opportunities for integration, especially if certain types of
lignite drying can be applied. Simulations of the use of heat pumps using different implementations
have also shown their potential. It should also be possible to accommodate flexibility in plants fitted
with MEA CO2 capture.
MEA scrubbing is likely to be the most frequently selected system in the first wave of commercial CCS
plants. Further improvements will probably be achievable eventually by using more advanced
solvents, but many of the same energy-saving principles currently identified are likely to remain
applicable.
41
Alternative technologies for heat exchangers and compressors
4 Alternative technologies for heat exchangers and

compressors
The originally proposed scope of this study included consideration of new developments in heat
exchangers and compressors, as possible technologies to use in improving heat integration in CO2
capture systems.
Information from the preceding chapters shows that the types of heat exchangers that are needed
have to use ‘hot’ streams with low to moderate upper temperatures (around 80°C to 120°C) for
available heat and ‘cold’ streams with minimum temperatures higher than the temperatures to which
the ‘hot’ streams need ultimately to be cooled. So there will always be a need also for cooling water
streams. Heat duties are considerable, from the order of 10s of MWth to hundreds of MWth,
(see Table 5 in Chapter 3). This does not present a problem with utilising conventional heat
exchangers per se, but moving to very close temperature approaches could increase the heat
utilisation and so improve efficiency somewhat, and the types of innovations briefly covered in this
chapter may enable the costs normally associated with achieving close pinches to be moderated.
In a study for the US DOE of opportunities for waste heat recovery in industry (BCS, 2008), the
authors identified a number of areas for RD&D in the field of heat exchanger development. Of these,
those of relevance to post combustion CO2 capture included:
• developing and demonstrating low temperature heat recovery technologies, including heat
pumps, low temperature electricity generation, and new working fluids for more efficient
recovery of low temperature heat;
• improving heat transfer through novel heat exchanger designs with increased heat transfer
coefficients, including gas liquid heat exchangers;
• application of new recovery technologies such as solid state generation (thermo-electric devices).
The suggestions under the first bullet point have formed the subject of work by Reddick and others
(2014a), Xu and others (2014) and Stankewitz and others (2009), discussed in Chapter 3. The items
under the other two bullet points are briefly discussed below.
4.1 Micro-channel heat exchangers

Micro-channel heat transfer devices have smaller fluid channels than traditional systems, for example
less than 1 mm diameter. Micro-channel heat exchangers may be made of metals, ceramic (such as
alumina) or ceramic composite materials, and channels can be typically of 250–500 micrometre size.
Manufacturing methods for the ceramic systems include LIGA processing, tape casting or injection
moulding, followed by sintering. Manufacturing methods for metal heat exchangers include chemical
etching and LIGA processing (Sommers and others, 2010; Le Pierres and others, 2011).
42
Attributes of micro-channel heat exchangers have been described (MBI, 2015) as including:
• volume reduction factors of 5 to 10 with weight reduction factors of 2 to 5;

• low pressure drops, enabling reduced pumping power;
• expanded integration possibilities, from using complex networks in a single device.
More particularly of use here, they can also permit achievement of very small temperature pinches.
These characteristics mean that they might give a benefit in providing the heat exchange components
within CO2 capture plants. The overall effect on efficiency of a employing such components for closer
temperature approaches would depend on the particular design of the system. An example where
greater sensitivity has been predicted is for integration options employing modifications to the
conventional CO2 stripper system. This is the split feed arrangement referred to in Section 3.6 in the
discussion of work by Le Moullec and Kanniche (2011).
Further development in micro-channel heat exchangers would be needed to scale up the technology
for such applications. The current scale reached in the designs of such heat exchangers from research
institutes such as MBI is of the order of 5–10 kW, for example in modules that use heat at rather
higher temperatures. So despite their offering more compact modules with low pressure drops, their
application in the area that we are concerned with is still some time away and they are not discussed
further here.
4.2 Other methods of heat utilisation

Among other technologies not currently widely applied that could be used to recover the low grades
of energy encountered in CO2 capture systems, thermo-electrics and low temperature turbine cycles
are possibilities if their economics can be improved. An example of the latter, using ammonia, was
described in Section 3.10. Organic Rankine cycles are another possibility but unlikely to be
sufficiently efficient in using the low temperature heat availability that concerns us here (around
120°C maximum).
4.3 CO2 compression developments

Compression of the CO2 is the necessary final step before the gas can be piped to geological disposal.
Compression to supercritical conditions is likely to be the norm. The gas from the stripper overhead
condenser would generally be at a pressure of around 0.15 MPa, while the final delivery pressure,
ready for CO2 transportation as a supercritical fluid, will be typically 11 MPa. For practical reasons,
several stages of compression are needed to cover this overall pressure ratio of over 70:1 using
normal equipment, with cooling after each stage. The intercoolers are needed not only to reduce the
working temperature of the compressors, but also to reduce the electrical energy required (Harkin
and others, 2010). Utilisation of the heat from the coolers was included in many of the integration
studies described in Chapter 3.
43
The electrical energy consumed by CO2 compression is considerable (for example, for a 400 MWe net
plant, around 30 MWe), so it is worth evaluating alternative systems for their possible advantages. An
alternative type of compressor to the conventional geared types has been designed that reduces the
number of stages. This is the Ramgen system, based on ramjet aerospace technology. It uses shock
wave compression to offer a high efficiency of compression, a very high pressure ratio, necessitating
only two stages, and reduced capital cost. The discharge temperature is high (around 250°C), aiding
heat integration (Ramgen, 2008).
The Ramgen system has been described by IEAGHG (IEAGHG, 2011). The gas (here, CO2) flows into a
space between a rapidly rotating disc and its casing (see Figure 25), where three raised sections
suddenly constrict the flow. The rapid rotation of the disc acts analogously to the entry of air into the
obstructed chamber of a ramjet.
Figure 25 Principle of Ramgen compression system (IEAGHG, 2011)
The effect is to create shock waves giving a sudden pressure increase. Two stages of compression are
used, with pressure ratios each of 10:1. The temperature rises by around 200°C per stage, so higher
grade heat can be extracted by the compressor stage coolers. The compressor is also physically
smaller and so potentially less expensive than conventional systems.
The temperature of the heat (around 230°C), allowed it to be optimally employed for part of the CO2
capture stripper’s reboiler energy as well as for LP feedwater heating in the IEAGHG (2011) study.
Some cooling water was still needed (see Figure 26).
44
Figure 26 Integration of Ramgen compressor intercooler heat production (IEAGHG, 2011)
The study showed that, while electrical power demand for compression would actually be increased,
less steam would need to be taken from the water-steam cycle for heating the reboiler. The net effect
was an increase in overall net power from the CO2 capture-equipped power plant compared with
when it had more conventional compressors (Table 10). The basis for the comparison was a PCC-CO2
capture plant of 827 MWe gross, 666 MWe net output. Economic gains could make the benefits more
significant, but commercialisation of the technology will need deployment of CO2 capture on a
significant scale.
Table 10 Effect on overall electrical output of using Ramgen compressor in comparison

with use of integrally-geared and in-line compressors (IEAGHG, 2011)
Comparison with integrally Comparison with in-line
geared compressor compressor
Steam for LP feedwater heating +9.4 MWth +2.5 MWe ‒7.1 MWth ‒1.9 MWe
Steam for stripper reboiler ‒35.3 MWth +9.3 MWe ‒35.3 MWth +9.3 MWe
Cooling water consumption 0 t/h 0 MWe ‒1905 t/h ‒0.2 MWe
Change in compressor electrical
+5.4 MWe +11.1 MWe
consumption
Total change, whole plant ‒1.4 MWe ‒0.3 MWe
45
Summary and conclusions
5 Summary and conclusions

The output and efficiency of a coal-fired power station unit fitted with CO2 capture equipment will be
significantly lower than that of a similar plant without capture because some of the energy produced
by burning the fuel will be needed to operate the added systems. Incorporating an aqueous
amine-based CO2 scrubbing system in a simple arrangement on a bituminous coal-fired supercritical
or USC plant could decrease the efficiency considerably, by up to 30%, or typically 12‒13% points.
Simulation work at various research institutes and universities shows that the decrease in
performance could be reduced by using innovative ways of heat integration and other techniques.
The present report has reviewed these studies, and main findings are as follows:
The available heat is low grade, and only part of it is re-usable.
Local ambient conditions may restrict options or offer greater opportunities for improvements in
efficiency.
The efficiency penalty of adding CO2 capture to a bituminous coal-fired pulverised coal power plant
could be brought down to around 8% points, or even lower in some cases.
CO2 compression will be required before pumping as a supercritical fluid to geological storage.
Compression in eight stages is typically envisaged. Heat from the interstage cooling is at similar levels
(temperatures) to the other sources of waste heat from the process and would be incorporated into
integrated systems.
Heat pumps could aid waste heat utilisation and could be integrated in various ways.
Lignite-fired plants may offer more options for heat integration, especially if certain types of lignite
drying can be applied.
New designs of heat exchanger with micro-channels could allow closer temperature approaches, and
so, if used for this application, potentially increase the degree of heat transferable with some benefit,
though not major. This may also enable the costs normally associated with achieving close pinches to
be moderated. However, the key issue is not the lack of systems to give such close temperature
approaches, more the low temperature of the waste heat in the CO2 capture system. In any case,
micro-channel heat exchangers are currently too small in scale to use.
Low temperature bottoming cycles and thermo-electrics would introduce too much complication and
cost for the degree of likely benefit.
A two-stage CO2 compressor that is being developed offers simplicity and would provide higher
temperature heat than conventional compressors. It would reduce the loss of gross power, but would
use greater power for compression. The net effect would probably be a small gain in overall net
efficiency, with possible cost savings.
46
Summary and conclusions
It should be possible to accommodate flexibility in plants fitted with MEA CO2 capture, while
improving integration.
MEA scrubbing is the system most likely to be selected in the first wave of commercial CCS plants –
hence this report concentrates on it. Although further improvements will probably be achievable
eventually by using more advanced solvents, many of the energy-saving principles currently
identified are likely to remain applicable.
47
References
6 References
Ahn H, Luberti M, Liu Z, Brandani S (2013) Process configuration studies of the amine capture
process for coal-fired power plants. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control; 16; 29-40 (2013)
BCS (2008) Waste heat recovery: technology and opportunities in US industry. USDOE industrial
technologies program. BCS Incorporated, USA, 112 pp (March 2008)
Davidson R M (2007) Post-combustion carbon capture from coal fired plants – solvent scrubbing.
CCC/125, London, UK, IEA Clean Coal Centre, 58 pp (Jan 2007)
Davidson R M (2009) Post-combustion carbon capture –solid sorbents and membranes. CCC/144,
London, UK, IEA Clean Coal Centre, 64 pp (Jan 2009)
Davidson R M (2012) Hybrid carbon capture systems. CCC/204, London, UK, IEA Clean Coal Centre,
25 pp (Sep 2012)
Dong N (2014) Techno-economics of modern pre-drying technologies for lignite-fired power plants.
CCC/241 London, UK, IEA Clean Coal Centre, 46 pp (Aug 2014)
Duan L, Zhao M, Xu G, Yang Y (2011) Integration and optimization study on the coal fired power
plant with CO2 capture using MEA. Energy; 45; 107-116 (2012)
GCCSI (2012) Lessons learnt: ROAD. Special report for the Global Carbon Capture and Storage
Institute http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/road-ccs-project-lessons-learnt
(June 2012)
Hanak DP, Biliyok C, Yeung H, Białecki R (2014) Heat integration and exergy analysis for a
supercritical high-ash coal-fired power plant integrated with a post-combustion carbon capture
process. Fuel; 134; 126-139 (2014)
Harkin T, Hoadley A, Hooper B (2009) Redesigning the cold end of a lignite power station for CO2
capture. Fourth international conference on clean coal technologies CCT2009. Dresden, Germany,
18-21 May 2009. IEA Clean Coal Centre, London, UK (2009)
Harkin T, Hoadley A, Hooper B (2010) Reducing the energy penalty of CO2 capture and
compression using pinch analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production; 18; 857-866 (2010)
Harkin T, Hoadley A, Hooper B (2012a) Optimisation of power stations with carbon capture plants
– the trade-off between costs and net power. Journal of Cleaner Production; 34; 98-109 (2012)
Harkin T, Hoadley A, Hooper B (2012b) Using multi-objective optimisation in the design of CO2
capture systems for retrofit to coal power stations. Energy; 41; 228-235 (2012)
IEAGHG (2011) Rotating equipment for carbon dioxide capture and storage. IEA Greenhouse Gases
R&D Programme, Cheltenham, UK. Report 2010/7. 334 pp (September 2011)
IEAGHG (2013) UK FEED studies 2011 – a summary. IEA Greenhouse Gases R&D Programme,
Cheltenham, UK. Report 2013/12. 247 pp (October 2013)
Kärki J, Tsupari E, Arasto A (2013) CCS feasibility improvement in industrial and municipal
applications by heat utilisation. Energy Procedia; 37; 2611 – 2621 ( 2013 )
Le Moullec Y, Kanniche M (2011) Screening of flowsheet modifications for an efficient

monoethanolamine (MEA) based post-combustion CO2 capture. International Journal of Greenhouse
Gas Control; 5(4); 727-740 (2011)
Le Pierres R, Southall D, Osborne S (2011) Impact of mechanical design issues on printed circuit
heat exchangers. Proceedings of SCO2 Power Cycle Symposium 2011, University of Colorado at
Boulder, CO, USA. 24-25 May, 2011 (2011)
48
References
Liebenthal U, Linnenberg S, Oexmann J, Kather A (2011) Derivation of correlations to evaluate the

impact of retrofitted post-combustion CO2 capture processes on steam power plant performance.
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control; 5; 1232–1239 (2011)
Linnenberg S, Kather A (2009) Evaluation of an integrated post-combustion CO2 capture process

for varying loads in a coal-fired power plant using monoethanolamine. Fourth international
conference on clean coal technologies CCT2009. Dresden, Germany, 18-21 May 2009. IEA Clean Coal
Centre, London, UK (2009)
Lucquiaud M, Gibbins J (2011a) On the integration of CO2 capture with coal-fired power plants: A
methodology to assess and optimise solvent-based post-combustion capture systems. Chemical
Engineering Research and Design (2011)
Lucquiaud M, Gibbins J (2011b) Effective retrofitting of post-combustion CO2 capture to coal-fired

power plants and insensitivity of CO2 abatement costs to base plant efficiency. International Journal of
Greenhouse Gas Control; 5; 427–438 (2011)
MBI (2015) Advanced microchannel heat exchangers. Microproducts Breakthrough Institute,

Corvallis, OR, USA. Available from: http://mbi-online.org/advanced-microchannel-heat-exchangers
(2015)
Neveux T, Le Moullec Y, Corriou J-P, Favre E (2013a) Energy performance of CO2 capture
processes: interaction between process design and solvent. Chemical Engineering Transactions; 35;
6 pp (2013)
Neveux T, Le Moullec Y, Corriou J-P, Favre E (2013b) A rigorous optimization method of operating
parameters for amine-based CO2 capture processes. Energy Procedia; 37; 1821 – 1829 (2013 )
Pfaff I, Oexmann J, Kather A (2009) Integration studies of post-combustion CO2-capture process by

wet chemical absorption into coal-fired power plant. In: Fourth international conference on clean coal
technologies, Dresden, Germany, 18 – 21 May 2009. London, UK, IEA Clean Coal Centre, 18 pp (2009)
Pfaff I, Oexmann J, Kather A (2010) Optimised integration of post-combustion CO2 capture process
in greenfield power plants. Energy; 35 (10); 4030-4041 (2010)
Popov D (2011) Coal drying as a tool for elimination of the energy penalty associated with post
combustion CO2 capture. Fifth international conference on clean coal technologies CCT2011. Zaragoza,
Spain, 8-12 May 2011. IEA Clean Coal Centre, London, UK (2011)
Ramezan M, Skone T J, Ya Nsakala N, Liljedahl G N, Gearhart L E, Hestermann R, Rederstorff B

(2007) Carbon dioxide capture from existing coal-fired power plants. US Department of Energy,
DOE/NETL-401/110907 (November 2007)
Ramgen (2008) Ramgen Power Systems. CO2 compressor. Available from:

http://www.ramgen.com/apps_comp_unique.html (2008)
Reddick C, Sorin M, Rheault F (2014a) Energy savings in CO2 (carbon dioxide) capture using
ejectors for waste heat upgrading. Energy; 65; 200-208 (2014)
Reddick C, Li C, Sorin M, Sapoundjiev H (2014b) Lowering the energy cost of carbon dioxide
capture using ejectors for waste heat upgrading. Energy Procedia; 63; 715 – 726 (2014)
Sanchez del Rio M, Lucquiaud M, Gibbins J (2013) Maintaining the power output of an existing coal
plant with the addition of CO2 capture: Retrofits options with gas turbine combined cycle plants. 12th
international conference on greenhouse gas technologies (2013)
Sommers A, Wang Q, Han X, T'Joen C, Park Y, Jacobi A (2010) Ceramics and ceramic matrix
composites for heat exchangers in advanced thermal systems – a review. Applied Thermal
Engineering; doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2010.02.018; 1-15 (2010)
49
References
Stankewitz C, Epp B, Fahlenkamp H (2009) Integration of a CO2 separation process in a coal fired
power plant. Fourth international conference on clean coal technologies CCT2009. Dresden, Germany,
18-21 May 2009. IEA Clean Coal Centre, London, UK (2009)
Stępczyńska-Drygas K, Łukowicz H Dykas S (2013) Calculation of an advanced ultra-supercritical

power unit with CO2 capture installation. Energy Conversion and Management; 74; 201-208 (2013)
US DOE (2007) Cost and performance baseline for fossil energy plants. Volume 1: Bituminous coal
and natural gas to electricity. Final Report, Revision 1, August 2007 DOE/NETL-2007/1281 (2007)
Witkowski A, Majkut, M (2012) The impact of CO2 compression systems on the compressor power
required for a pulverised coal-fired power plant in post-combustion carbon dioxide sequestration.
Archive of Mechanical Engineering; 59(3); 343-360 (2012)
Xu G, Wu Y, Yang Y, Zhang K, Song X (2013) A novel integrated system with power generation, CO2
capture, and heat supply. Applied Thermal Engineering; 61(2); 110-120 (2013)
Xu G, Hu Y, Tang B, Yang Y, Zhang K, Liu W (2014) Integration of the steam cycle and CO2 capture
process in a decarbonization power plant. Applied Thermal Engineering; 73(1); 277-286 (2014)
Zhu Q (2012) Update on lignite firing. CCC/201 London, UK, IEA Clean Coal Centre, 75 pp (Jun 2012)
Ziębik A, Budnik M, Liska M (2013) Thermodynamic indices assessing the integration of coal-fired
CHP plants with post-combustion CO2 processing units (CPU). Energy Conversion and Management;
73; 389-397
50

Power Plant Co2 Capture Heat Integration - Ccc260

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Power Plant Co2 Capture Heat Integration - Ccc260

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Power Plant Co2 Capture Heat Integration - Ccc260

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Power plant CO2 capture

© IEA Clean Coal Centre

IEACCC Ref: CCC/260

Copyright: © IEA Clean Coal Centre

Published Date: November 2015

IEA Clean Coal Centre

Telephone: +44(0)20 8877 6280

2 Post-combustion CO2 capture systems

2.1 General configuration of post-combustion capture systems using scrubbing

In solvent scrubbing systems, a solvent consisting of an aqueous alkanolamine (generally referred to in

2.2 Effect of adding CO2 capture systems on efficiency

3.1 General integration studies

Table 2 Quantities and temperatures of available heat from CO2 capture on

Figure 5 Schematic diagram of multiple modifications (absorber intercooling, condensate evaporation

3.2 Allowing for plant flexibility

3.3 Retrofitting CO2 capture to existing units

3.4 Incorporation of heat pumps

Table 3 Predicted performance of configurations with and without heat pumps

Figure 13 Ejector heat pump (Reddick and others, 2014a)

Table 4 Steam ejector parameters (Xu and others, 2014)

Item Stream Temperature, °C Pressure, MPa Flow, kg/s

3.5 Studies based on an Indian supercritical plant

Five scenarios were analysed in detail:

3.6 Studies involving changes to the capture system configuration

3.8 Utilising CO2 compression heat effectively

3.9 Combined heat and power

3.10 Addition of a low-temperature power generation cycle

3.11 Lignite plants

Figure 23 Example of composite curves (Harkin and others, 2010)

A number of cases were examined for each size of unit:

1. Base case –existing plant with no FGD or CO2 capture;

3.11.1 Effect of incorporating lignite pre-drying

4 Alternative technologies for heat exchangers and

4.1 Micro-channel heat exchangers

• volume reduction factors of 5 to 10 with weight reduction factors of 2 to 5;

4.2 Other methods of heat utilisation

4.3 CO2 compression developments

Figure 25 Principle of Ramgen compression system (IEAGHG, 2011)

Figure 26 Integration of Ramgen compressor intercooler heat production (IEAGHG, 2011)

Table 10 Effect on overall electrical output of using Ramgen compressor in comparison

5 Summary and conclusions

The available heat is low grade, and only part of it is re-usable.

Le Moullec Y, Kanniche M (2011) Screening of flowsheet modifications for an efficient

Liebenthal U, Linnenberg S, Oexmann J, Kather A (2011) Derivation of correlations to evaluate the

Linnenberg S, Kather A (2009) Evaluation of an integrated post-combustion CO2 capture process

Lucquiaud M, Gibbins J (2011b) Effective retrofitting of post-combustion CO2 capture to coal-fired

MBI (2015) Advanced microchannel heat exchangers. Microproducts Breakthrough Institute,

Pfaff I, Oexmann J, Kather A (2009) Integration studies of post-combustion CO2-capture process by

Ramezan M, Skone T J, Ya Nsakala N, Liljedahl G N, Gearhart L E, Hestermann R, Rederstorff B

Ramgen (2008) Ramgen Power Systems. CO2 compressor. Available from:

Stępczyńska-Drygas K, Łukowicz H Dykas S (2013) Calculation of an advanced ultra-supercritical

You might also like