Table of Contents

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................................. 2

ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................................................... 3
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1
2. CCS SYSTEM OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 1
2.1 CO2 CAPTURING PROCESSES ............................................................................................................ 1
2.2 CO2 TRANSPORTATION..................................................................................................................... 2
2.3 CO2 STORAGE AND UTILIZATION ..................................................................................................... 2
3 OVERVIEW OF MEA-CO2 CAPTURE PROCESS ....................................................................................... 2
3.1 MEA-CO2 ABSORPTION REACTION MECHANISMS .......................................................................... 3
4 FLUE GAS PROCESS SPECIFICATIONS FOR SIMULATION MODELS ...................................................... 4
4.1 ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE SIMULATION PROCESS ............................................................................. 4
5 PROCESS SIMULATION MODELS DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................ 5
5.1 FLUE GAS PRE-COOLING (FGP) SECTION .......................................................................................... 5
5.2 CONVENTIONAL PROCESS SIMULATION MODEL (BASE MODEL) ................................................... 6
5.3 LEAN VAPOR COMPRESSION (LVC) SIMULATION MODEL .............................................................. 7
5.4 CO2 COMPRESSION SYSTEM............................................................................................................. 7
5.5 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ON PROCESS MODELS ........................................................................ 8
6 ECONOMICS OF CO2 CAPTURE SYSTEM ............................................................................................... 9
7 CCS FUTURE OUTLOOK ......................................................................................................................... 9
8 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................................... 10
BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................................................ 11
APPENDIXES ................................................................................................................................................ 14
Appendix I: Flue Gas Cooling System......................................................................................................... 14
Appendix II: Conventional MEA CO2 Capture System ............................................................................... 15
Appendix III: Lean Vapor Compression (LVC) MEA CO2 System ............................................................... 19
Appendix IV: CO2 Compression System ..................................................................................................... 21
Appendix V: Detailed Cost Results ............................................................................................................ 23
Appendix VI: Utility & Operating Cost & Emission Basis: ......................................................................... 25
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
CCS Carbon Capture and Storage
MEA Monoethanolamine
SRD Specific Reboiler Duty
EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery
GHG Greenhouse Gas
DCC Direct Contact Cooler
CWS Cooling Water Supply
CWR Cooling Water Return
HPS High Pressure Steam
MPS Medium Pressure Steam
LVC Lean Vapor Compression
MMV Monitor, Measurement and Verification
R&D Research and Development
ABSTRACT
Worldwide energy demand has been rising at an unprecedented rate. While the world is largely reliant on
the use of fossil fuel, its by-product CO2 accounted for three quarters of the global GHG emissions.
Significant opportunities exist through CCS to reduce CO2 emissions and allow extended use of fossil fuel
as a source of energy in the carbon- constrained environment. However, Economic feasibility, regulatory
framework, perceived risks, and public acceptance are the key factors influencing commercial scale CCS
implementation. Investment in CCS facilities is capital-intensive, and thus incentives can be provided
through government intervention such as low-carbon policies and funding subsidies.
The scope of this paper is to discuss post-combustion CO2 capture from NG fired power plant flue gases
and removal of CO2 from flue gases, by chemical absorption process, using Monoethanolamine (MEA) as
an absorbent has become a challenging method due to low pressure of the flue gas that affects the driving
force for CO2 molecules to get absorbed by amine. Although various licensors have developed specialized
solvents and technologies to counter this affect and thus improving the overall process efficiency hence
reducing the overall cost of CCS system, however R&D is still going on not only in improving the process
but also to find alternate technologies to remove CO2 at low pressure and concentrations.
In this report a comparative study of Monoethanolamine (MEA) for Post Combustion CO 2 capture with
different process configurations was done to study the effect between various process configurations and
evaluate the energy requirements. The steady state process model of the conventional MEA-based
process was developed in Aspen HYSYS® and results were compared with published literature values and
found to be consistence with the published literature. Then another process configuration i.e., Lean Vapor
Compression (LVC) was simulated, and performance was compared in terms of reboiler duty with
conventional process. It was found that Lean Vapor Compression (LVC) configuration provided 10.709%
energy saving compared to conventional MEA process. However, LVC process resulted not only in higher
capital investment but also higher operating expenses. Therefore, Conventional MEA based process was
chosen to be the most cost effective in our project study.
Finally, future outlook of CCS is also briefly discussed at the end of project report.
1. INTRODUCTION
Why Carbon Dioxide matters?
CO2 is a greenhouse gas that absorbs and radiates heat. Most solar radiation passes through the clear
atmosphere; some is Some part of heat radiation
is absorbed and re-emitted by the greenhouse gases; consequently, the heat will trap in the atmosphere and
[1]. That is the reason that CO2 is a key contributor to global
warming. Driven by the increasing worldwide energy demand, CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion
account for 78% of the global GHG emissions through electricity generation, and industrial plants amongst
the largest emitters of anthropogenic CO2 [2]. Globally, governments and organizations have started to
recognize and promote CCS as one of the viable options to achieve the climate goals set forth by the Paris
Agreement to mitigate CO2 emissions, and if commercially deployed to large-scale industrial facilities, CCS
could provide a significant contribution in combating global warming [3]. This report will evaluate the process
of post-combustion CO2 capture from natural gas-fired power plant flue gases using amine solvent. Technical
comparison of various process schemes will be made along with economic analysis of the suitable process.

2. CCS SYSTEM OVERVIEW

CCS is an enabling technology that aims to reduce atmospheric CO 2 emissions by capturing and transporting
CO2 to deep geological formations for permanent storage. The CCS system consists of three stages: 1) CO2
capture, 2) transportation, 3) storage and/or utilization [3].

2.1 CO2 CAPTURING PROCESSES

The separation of CO2 from gas streams produced by industrial CO2 emitters can be achieved mainly through
the capturing processes described in the next sections.
POST COMBUSTION CAPTURE: Post-combustion capture of CO2 occurs after the burning of fossil fuels. CO2
is separated from flue gas when it is passed through a liquid which causes a chemical reaction. The major
challenge with post-combustion capture is the need to process a large gas volume due to the low
concentrations of CO2 in the flue gas resulting in higher capital cost and also an increased amount of solvent
to dissolve the expected volume of gas, which drives a more significant energy requirement to regenerate
solvent and release CO2 [4].
PRE-COMBUSTION CAPTURE: The Pre-combustion capture is where CO2 is separated or removed prior to the
burning of fossil fuels. The pre-combustion technology converts fossil fuels into a gas made up of CO2 and

1
Hydrogen (H2). These gases are then separated, with H2 used to fuel the power plant. In this process, the
energy requirement is significantly reduced compared to post-combustion capture [5].
OXY FUELING: Oxyfuel combustion burns fossil fuels with nearly pure oxygen. The flue gas produced only
contains CO2 and steam. These are separated by a cooling process with the water condensing leaving a flue
gas of almost pure CO2. The limitation of Oxy fueling is the energy required to produce pure oxygen, typically
in a cryogenic separation unit, which decreases its economic advantage [6], [5].

2.2 CO2 TRANSPORTATION

To link CO2 under a safe and reliable transportation to its storage destination, gaseous CO2 compressed to
8Mpa or higher can be efficiently transported via pipelines [7] but significant capital investment in
transportation infrastructure is necessary [8] however, existing but abandoned natural gas or oil pipelines
can be re-commissioned to transport CO2, effectively reducing the demand for capital investment [9].

2.3 CO2 STORAGE AND UTILIZATION

The CO2 can be injected under pressure into deep underground geological formation with greater that 800
meters depth to retain CO2 in a liquid or super-critical state for safe and permanent storage. Options for
geological storage include depleted oil and gas reservoirs, deep saline aquifers, non-extractable coal veins,
salt caverns etc. [4], [7]. The captured CO2 can also be utilized for EOR, which is the earliest application of
CCS. Compared to sending CO2 for permanent storage, CO2 utilized in CO2-EOR offers added value, as
incremental oil production can offset some costs for CCS implementation.

3 OVERVIEW OF MEA-CO2 CAPTURE PROCESS

The idea of separating CO2 from flue gas streams started in the 1970s, as a potential economic source of CO2,
mainly for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) operations [10]. Among different kinds of amine, Monoethanolamine
(MEA) is considered the primary solvent in aqueous alkanolamine based capture processes because of its
high absorption rate. Typically, about 75-90% of the CO2 is captured using this technology with a purity of
product CO2 stream greater than 98%. The amine process has two main elements: the absorption and
stripping columns, as illustrated in Figure 1. Flue gas enters at the bottom of the absorber and flowing above
the column, CO2 is absorbed with MEA flowing counter currently downward. Rich solution from the absorber
bottom flows to a lean-rich heat exchanger, taking up heat from the lean solution and enters the stripper top

2
where CO2 is removed and flows at the top of the stripper towards the CO2 condenser. The lean solution is
removed from the stripper bottom, and after
exchanging heat with rich solution, is further cooled
in Lean cooler and flows back to the top of the
absorber to complete the CO2 removal process. The
main advantages of using MEA are its high CO2
reactivity, high limit load (0.5 mole of CO2 per mole

stability making the regeneration more heat

demanding to regenerate the solvent. Acid gases
Figure 1: Conventional CO2 capture process [10]
such as SO2 and NO2 react with MEA to form heat-
2 absorption and raise the MEA make-up to cover additional losses
[11] .

3.1 MEA-CO2 ABSORPTION REACTION MECHANISMS

When CO2 is absorbed into aqueous MEA solutions, the following two overall reactions should be considered
[12].
CO2 + 2RNH2 RNH3+ + RNHCOO Rxn-1
CO2 + RNHCOO- + 2H2O RNH3+ + 2HCO3 Rxn-2
Reaction (Rxn-1) takes place in two steps:
CO2 + RNH2 H+ + RNHCOO Rxn-3
H+ + RNH2 Rxn-4
The forward equilibrium of reaction (Rxn-1) which is favored under high pressure and low temperature
(typically < 40oC) conditions, represents the absorption step, and the reverse reaction that shifts to the left
under low pressure and high temperature conditions, represents the regeneration step. Therefore, CO2 can
be absorbed under high pressure, and low temperature conditions and, the CO2 loaded solvent can be
regenerated under low pressure and high temperature conditions in a stripping column [13]. Generally, the
primary amine (MEA) is found to be more corrosive than the secondary (DEA) and tertiary amines (MDEA),
and the maximum recommended amine is 30 % by weight to avoid any corrosion. Therefore, the use of
corrosion inhibitors is considered to be the most economical technique for corrosion control [14]. If the
loaded amine solution contacts with an oxygen-containing gas, the amine is subject to oxidative degradation
and proper treatment shall be considered, however, these systems have not been considered in this project
study [12].

3
4 FLUE GAS PROCESS SPECIFICATIONS FOR SIMULATION MODELS
This Project study is based on flue gases from a natural gas-based power plant with a power generation
capacity of 320 MW [15]and has the following flue gas specifications. Aspen HYSYS® simulation software has
been used to develop a simulation model of the MEA-based CO2 absorption process for the removal of CO2
from flue gases.
Parameter Unit Flue Gases at B. L Absorber Feed Gas
o
Temperature C 100 40
Pressure KPa 101.325 120 KPa
Mass Flow Rate Kg/hr 1,037,000 956,507.69
Molar Flow Rate Kgmole/hr 37,392.35 32,924.35
Component Mol. Basis
H2O % 17.42 6.21
CO2 % 8.71 9.89
O2 % 1.70 1.93
N2 % 72.17 81.97
Component Mass Basis
H2O % 11.31 3.85
CO2 % 13.82 14.98
O2 % 1.96 2.13
N2 % 72.90 79.04
Table 1: Flue Gas Analysis for Process Simulation

4.1 ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE SIMULATION PROCESS

The following assumptions have been for the development of the MEA based CO 2 absorption simulation
process and, all these values remain constant in all the process simulation scenarios:
The CO2 recovery is 85% and the inlet flue gas entering the blower is free from all contaminants (such
as SOx, NOx, Particulate matters, and other constituents).
The max. MEA solvent concentration is 30% (wt.), and the min. CO2 product purity of 98% (wt.).
The minimum AT for all cooling water exchangers is assumed to be 10 oC with CW (Supply @25 oC &
350 KPa) with
The Lean-Rich Exchanger minimum approach temperature is 5 oC to maximize the heat recovery from
the lean solution.
Lean solution on the shell side and, the rich solution through the t
175 KPa.

4
 Polytropic efficiency of compression equipment (blowers, compressors, etc.) is assumed to be 80%,
whereas centrifugal pumps efficiency is 75% as default value in Aspen HYSYS®.

in all simulation cases.

Product CO2 is compressed to approx. 9000 KPa (90 bar) pressure using HP steam driven centrifugal
compressor.
Effect of Corrosion/Corrosion products, as well as MEA guard with additives to tolerate the presence
of O2 in the flue gas, have not been accounted for in simulation and evaluations.

5 PROCESS SIMULATION MODELS DEVELOPMENT

The simulation was developed based on the following conditions for the absorber and stripper [16]:
Parameter Unit Absorber Stripper
Ideal equilibrium stages - 10 15
Murphree efficiency value - 0.25 1
Operating pressure KPa 120 200
Table 2: Absorber and stripper operating conditions
Furthermore, following two process schemes are simulated and evaluated in detail for the post- combustion
CO2 capture from flue gases using MEA as the solvent:
1- Conventional CO2 capture process (as the base case)
2- Lean Vapor Compression (LVC) process
All operating conditions are assumed constant in the simulation models to make effective comparisons
among various schemes. However, the lean solution flows and relevant process parameters are adjusted to
achieve 85% CO2 recovery and to keep rich loading maximum at 0.5 mole CO2/mol MEA.

5.1 FLUE GAS PRE-COOLING (FGP) SECTION

A booster fan with a discharge pressure of 125 KPa is
considered to transport the flue gas from the power
plant exhaust duct to the CO2 absorber inlet. Before
entering the absorber, the flue gas is cooled to 40oC in a
direct contact cooler (DCC) with a of 5 KPa, as shown
in Figure 2, through a closed-loop cooling water
circulation system. The DCC is modeled as a packed bed
with three equilibrium stages. After contacting with hot
flue gas, the heated water leaves the DCC bottom and
Figure 2: Flue Gas Cooling System in DCC.
is pumped to DCC circulation water cooler, where it is
5
cooled to 35oC, and again enters the DCC resulting in the flue gas exiting temperature of 40 oC at the inlet of
CO2 absorber. During the flue gas cooling process, most of the water is condensed and subsequently purged
from the system. A makeup block is considered for the makeup/purge of water from the closed-loop water
circuit. The flue Gas cooling section is common for all the subsequent process schemes for CO 2 capturing
using MEA [Appendix I].

5.2 CONVENTIONAL PROCESS SIMULATION MODEL (BASE MODEL)

As discussed above, after cooling the flue gas in the direct contact cooler, the flue gas at 40 oC and 120 KPa
pressure enters at the bottom of the packed bed CO2 absorber (Refer Fig 3)and flows up counter currently to
the aqueous amine solution entering from the top of the absorber (stream#106). The MEA solution with lean
loading of 0.2609 mol CO2/mol MEA and containing 30% (wt.) of MEA as solvent enters the absorber at 35
o
C. MEA in Amine-water solution reacts with CO2, forming carbamate ion when it reacts with CO2. The purified
gas (Stream: Sweet Gas) is vented to the atmosphere. The solvent enriched by CO2 (Rich Loading 0.4936 mol
CO2/mol MEA) is withdrawn from the absorber bottom (stream #: 100) at about 52oC and then is pumped to
the rich solution pump at about 370 KPa (stream#: 101). Before entering the CO2 stripper, the rich stream is
preheated to about 105.56 oC in the lean/rich exchanger by the hot lean solution (stream#: 110) returning
from the stripper on its way back to the absorber.

Figure 3: Conventional MEA Process Simulation Model (PFD)

The rich solvent solution (stream#: 102) enters the top of the stripper, where it flows down through the
stripper counter currently to the stripping steam generated in the reboiler. Steam and solvent vapors move
up the stripper and condense as CO2 is liberated. Uncondensed steam and CO2 leave the top of the stripper
at 112oC and 190 KPa (Stream#: 107) and then enter the reflux condenser. The condensate at 35oC
6
(Stream#:115) is returned to the system through a reflux pump while the CO2 removed at 35oC from the reflux
separator (CO2 purity >98% wt.) is sent to the CO2 compression system. The lean solvent solution (stream#:
108) at 120 oC and 200 KPa withdrawn from the stripper bottom is pumped directly to the lean/rich heat
exchanger through a lean solution pump. The lean MEA solution leaves the lean/rich heat exchanger
(stream#: 103) after giving up heat to the rich solution and then enters a lean cooler, where its temperature
is further lowered from 57oC to 35oC before being returned to the absorber, thus completing the absorption
and stripping process removing CO2 from the flue gas as depicted in figure 3 [Appendix II].

5.3 LEAN VAPOR COMPRESSION (LVC) SIMULATION MODEL

Lean vapor compression is one of the most widely suggested modifications in a variety of literatures and
patents. As Fig. 4 shows, the principle is to flash the hot lean solvent at a lower pressure, then compress the
hot vapor generated and re-inject it into the bottom
of the stripper. As the vapour benefits from the
sensible heat of hot lean solvent as well as
recompression, it can reach very high pressure and
temperature, which can provide additional steam
and heat in the column for stripping. In the
simulation model developed, overall process flow
configuration and operating conditions remain the
Figure 4: Lean Vapor Compression (LVC) [10]
same as explained above in conventional process;
however, in this process, the hot lean solvent is flashed to 110 KPa, where the flashed liquid goes to CO2
absorber while the flashed vapors are recompressed through a centrifugal compressor and are re-injected at
the bottom of the stripper. The discharge pressure of the vapor compressor is adjusted as per Stripper
bottom pressure, which has been fixed at 200 KPa, same as the conventional MEA process [Appendix III].

5.4 CO2 COMPRESSION SYSTEM

For this study project, the produced CO2 is compressed to 9,000 KPa (90 Bar) using a 4-stage centrifugal
compressor driven by a steam turbine, which uses High Pressure (HP) steam at 4024 KPa pressure and 380
o
C temperature as driving fluid. The discharge pressure of each respective stage is based on 150 oC stage
discharge operating temperature according to GPSA guidelines [17]. The condensate is assumed to be
recycled back to the system. Average steam consumption is about 3.315 t Steam/t CO2. The CO2 compression
system is evaluated for the conventional MEA process [Appendix IV].

7
5.5 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ON PROCESS MODELS
The booster blower location, either at the DCC upstream or downstream, was determined by a detailed
evaluation of the overall effects on the process and energy requirements in the reboiler. Conventional CO2
removal scheme was evaluated for this purpose; it was observed that increased flue gas temperature at
absorber inlet resulted in higher reboiler duty and pumping power for the same CO2 85% recovery. Therefore,
a booster fan upstream of the DCC was preferred, as represented in the Aspen HYSYS® PFD in section 5.1. As
highlighted above, various process configurations are available for CO2 capture from the flue gases using MEA
solvent. According to the literature survey, operating conditions also vary based on the flue gas composition,
CO2 recovery required, absorber and stripper operating pressures, and the Amine solution strength and effect
of these process conditions were evaluated for conventional MEA process configuration. Finally process
conditions for the simulations were selected based on the optimum parameters studied as well as from
literature survey and the same selected process conditions were also used for the Lean Vapor Compression
as well for better comparative analysis. Summary of analysis is presented in table 3.
Parameter Unit Conventional Process Lean Vapor Compression
CO2 Removal Efficiency % 85.043 85.070
CO2 Removed Ton/hr 121.878 121.917
Reboiler Duty MW 176.000 157.202
Specific Reboiler Duty (SRD) GJ/Ton 5.199 4.642
Specific Electrical Power Consumption KW/Ton 23.754 40.028
Total CAPEX $ MM 70.063 79.241

Total Operating Cost (annual) $ MM 20.804 21.975

Table 3: Summary of Techno-Economic Evaluation

As we can see from the above summary table, for the conventional MEA process, the specific reboiler duty is
5.2 GJ/ t CO2, whereas the Lean Vapor Compression process has 10.71 % less duty requirement (i.e., 4.642
GJ/t CO2) as compared to Conventional MEA Process. Although the Lean Vapor Compression scheme shows
significant savings in reboiler duty, however, it results in increased electricity consumption compared to the
conventional process. Similarly, with added equipment, the overall CAPEX of the LVC process increased by
13% compared to the conventional process. Furthermore, less reboiler energy demand in the LVC process
offset by higher electricity demand, increased its annual operating cost. Consequently, based on CAPEX and
OPEX point of view, CONVENTIONAL PROCESS FLOW SCHEME seems more feasible and is selected as the final
process for CO2 recovery from Flue gases using MEA as the solvent.
Specific Reboiler Duty (GJ/t CO2) of conventional process is also comparable with literature published values
as can be observed in table 4:

8
 Authors Solvent Flue Gas Composition Reboiler Duty /t CO2
Current Study Project 30% MEA ~20 KPa CO2 = 8.71% Mol: O2 = 1.7% Vol 5.199 L/G = 2.534
Wiggins and Bixler Dow FT-IL 13.8 CO2 = 10% Vol: O2 = 3% Vol 3.69
Pauley Dow FT-IL 14 - 34 CO2 = 8.5% Vol: O2 = 3.5% Vol 5.3 ~ 4.2
Steinberg et al. 30% MEA CO2 = 8 - 15% by Mass 5.697
Sander and Mariz Econamine FG - CO2 = 8% Vol: O2 = 2% Vol 4.066 Base Plant
Umberto and Alberto 30% MEA 20 CO2 = 8.5% by mole 4.22 L/G = 2
Umberto et al. 30% MEA 20 CO2 = 10 % Vol. 5.87 L/G = 2.32

Table 4: Reboiler Specific Duty Comparison [15]

6 ECONOMICS OF CO2 CAPTURE SYSTEM

Although CCS is considered technically feasible, its economic efficiency is not well established [18]. Large
investments are needed; therefore, plants with CCS are burdened with additional capital investment and
operation costs compared to the plants without CCS. From Aspen HYSYS® simulation heat & material balance,
utilities such as the steam for booster fan turbine, CO2 compressor turbine and stripper reboiler, electricity
for all the CO2 removal system pumps, inclusive of power requirement for cooling water supply pump, were
determined. For preliminary equipment sizing and cost analysis, Aspen HYSYS® economic analyzer was used.
However, equipment such as CO2 compressor steam turbine, flue gas booster fan, and the associated steam
turbine were not evaluated by economic analyzer due to the higher power rating of these kinds of equipment.
Hence, the cost of these is not included in the overall CAPEX values reported here. For estimation of the CO2
generated due to Steam consumption and electricity utilization, conversion factors were taken from ec.11
slide 6 by Dr. Elgarni [Appendix VI]. A brief summary of cost analysis for Convectional MEA process is stated
in table 5 whereas, detail cost analysis is presented in [Appendix V].

Parameter Unit Value

Total Operating Cost $ /Year 20,804,040
Total Capital Cost $ 70,063,110
Capital Cost per annum (Estimated @ 10% rate of CAPEX) $ 7,006,311
Total CAPEX & OPEX $ 27,810,351
CO2 Capture t CO2/annum 994,523.855
CO2 Avoided t CO2/annum 536,388.335
Cost of Capture $ /Ton CO2 27.963
Cost of Avoided CO2 $ /Ton CO2 51.847
Table 5: CO2 Cost Estimation

7 CCS FUTURE OUTLOOK

On the one hand, governmental policies need to be in place to promote CCS implementation and bridge the
financial gap; on the other hand, regulatory frameworks need to be developed to ensure the safe and reliable

9
development, operation, and closure of CCS projects. While some existing regulations may be adopted to
cover CO2 capture and transportation, most jurisdictions do not have adequate regulations to address the
risks of sub-surface storage of CO2 [19]. One of the most contentious issues is the long-term storage liability.
Special provision is needed to ensure safe and secure containment of CO2.
In Alberta, the CCS Statutes Amendment Act dictates that while the government assumes long-term liability,
CCS operators need to make mandatory payment to the government to monitor, maintain and remediate
the storage sites post-closure [20]. In Alberta, the Carbon Sequestration Tenure Regulation establishes the
government ownership of subsurface pore spaces and that companies are required to obtain lease rights for
subsurface CO2 storage activities [21]. EOR can also provide a potential source of revenue for continued CCS
implementation. However, the potential economic benefit of EOR highly depends on oil prices, which must
be favorable and sustainable for industries to invest in CO2-EOR infrastructure and commit to long-term CO2
purchase contracts. CO2-EOR is seen as a short to a mid-term solution to GHG reduction with tangible
economic benefits [22]. Besides, it is anticipated that on-going research and development on CSS innovation
lable will further drive cost reduction
of CCS projects in the long term [23].

8 CONCLUSION
Global warming due to CO2 emissions is a real threat to the global environment, and fossil fuel consumption
is the major contributing factor to global warming. Therefore, large-scale deployment of CCS technology will
allow the continued use of fossil fuel to meet the increasing world energy demands while achieving emission
reduction goals. CO2 can be separated from post-combustion, pre-combustion, and oxy-combustion systems.
MEA is the most widely used solvent for the removal of CO 2 from flue gases generated from coal or natural
gas combustion power plants. There are various process configurations of MEA capture process which can
be used for CO2 removal from flue gases. However, each process configuration has advantage and
disadvantage over others, one process scheme may give lower specific reboiler duty however, it may have
higher CAPEX & OPEX reducing its economic viability. During this project's study, the conventional process
scheme was found to be more economically viable despite its higher energy consumption in reboiler
compared to the Lean Vapor Compression process scheme. Once CO2 is separated from the process stream,
it can be compressed into a dense state, transported to a geological formation for storage, or be utilized in
enhanced hydrocarbon recovery such as EOR.
The economics of the CCS projects is the main contributing barrier in the development of the CCS. Currently,
on an economic scale, government intervention in policy and funding can incentivize CCS projects. On-going
R&D in CCS technology can provide long-term, cost-effective solutions, and a mature regulatory framework
will aim to adopt best practices, address risks, and protect the public and the environment.
10
BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1] R. Lindsey, "Climate.gov," 14 August 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.climate.gov/news-

features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide. [Accessed 07 Nov.
2020].

[2] International Energy Agency, "Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data," IPCC , [Online]. Available:
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data. [Accessed 06 November
2020].

[3] "Global Status of CCS: Targeting Climate Change," Global CCS Institute, 2019.

[4] J. M. M.-D. Ricardo Guerrero-Lemus, Renewable Energies and CO2, London: Springer-Verlag , 2013.

[5] H. C. Jon Gibbins, "Carbon capture and storage," Energy Policy, vol. 36, no. 12, pp. 4317-4322,
December 2008.

[6] M. K. Mondal, H. K. Balsora and P. Varshney, "Progress and trends in CO2 capture/separation
technologies: A review," Energy, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 431-441, October 2012.

[7] Working Group III of the IPCC, "Carbon dioxide capture and storage: special report of the
intergovernrmental panel on climate change," Intergovernrmental Panel on Climate Change, 2005.

[8] Global CCS Institute, "Fact Sheet: Transporting CO2," Global CCS Institute, [Online]. Available:
https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/archive/hub/publications/191083/fact-sheet-transporting-
co2.pdf. [Accessed 10 November 2020].

[9] L. S. M. a. J. S. F. Richard A. Esposito, "Deployment Models for Commercialized Carbon Capture and
Storage," Environtal Science & Technology, vol. 45, no. 1, p. 139 146, 2011.

[10] B. Xue, Y. Yu and X. L. M. W. Jian Chen, "A comparative study of MEA and DEA for post-combustion
CO2 capture with different process configurations," International Journal of Coal Science &
Technology , vol. 4, p. 15 24, 2017.

[11] E. b. P. H. Feron, Absorption-based Post-combustion Capture of Carbon Dioxide, Cambridge: joe

hayton, Elsevier Ltd., 2016.

[12] G.Astarita and G. &. F.Gioia, "The influence of carbonation ratio and total amine concentration on
carbon dioxide absorption in aqueous monoethanolamine solutions," Chemical Engineering Science,
vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 95-103, Feb 1964.

[13] A.Chakma and A. &. B.Nielsen, "Comparison of chemical solvents for mitigating CO2 emissions from
coal-fired power plants," Heat Recovery Systems and CHP, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 231-240, February 1995.

[14] A.Veawab, "Corrosion in CO2 Capture Unit for Coal-Fired Power Plant Flue Gas," Greenhouse Gas
Control Technologies - 6th International Conference, vol. II, pp. 1595-1598, October 2002.

11
[15] U. Desideri and A. Paolucci, "Performance modelling of a carbon dioxide removal system for power
plants," Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 40, no. 18, pp. 1899-1915, December 1999.

[16] J. Husebye and S. R. Z. Amy L. Brunsvold, "Techno Economic Evaluation of Amine based CO2 Capture:
Impact of CO2 Concentration and Steam Supply," Energy Procedia, vol. 23, pp. 381-390, 2012.

[17] GPSA, "SECTION 13: Compressors and Expanders," in GPSA Handbook, GPSA.

[18] J. C. Bergstrom and D. Ty, "Economics of Carbon Capture and Storage," in Recent Advances in Carbon
Capture and Storage, IntechOpen, 2017.

[19] I. Wright, P. Ashworth and J. A. &. D. R. e. al, "Public Perception of Carbon Dioxide Capture and
Storage: Prioritised Assessment of Issues and Concerns," IEA (UK Department of Trade and Industry).

[20] Government of Alberta , Bill 24, Carbon Capture and Storage Statutes Amendment Act, Alberta: Govt
of Alberta, 2010.

[21] Govt of Alberta, "Carbon Sequestration Tenure Regulation," 26 April 2016. [Online]. Available:
https://open.alberta.ca/publications/2011_068. [Accessed 2020].

[22] A. Ettehadtavakkola, L. W.Lakeb and S. L.Bryantb, "CO2-EOR and storage design optimization,"
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, vol. 25, pp. 79-92, June 2014.

[23] L. Irlam, "GLOBAL COSTS OF CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE," Global CCS Institute, 2017.

[24] Y. Shi, Y. Jia and L. H. J. Y. R. Z. Weiyi Pan, "Potential evaluation on CO2-EGR in tight and low-
permeability reservoirs," Natural Gas Industry B, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 311-318, July 2017.

[25] M. Godec, G. Koperna and J. Galeb, "CO2-ECBM: A Review of its Status and Global Potential," Energy
Procedia, vol. 63, pp. 5858-5869, 2014.

[26] S. C. Energy, "Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project," ALBERTA DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, 2015.

[27] S. C. Ltd, "Quest Carbon Capture and Storage project : annual report. 2018," 31 March 2019. [Online].
Available: https://open.alberta.ca/publications/quest-carbon-capture-and-storage-project-annual-
report-2018. [Accessed 05 November 2020].

[28] L. Chrysostomidis, S. Perumalpillai, M. Bohm and M. C. e. al, "CO2 Capture Project's CCS Stakeholder
Issues Review and Analysis," Energy Procedia, vol. 37, pp. 7832-7839, 2013.

[29] J. S. &. N. A. Carmel Anderson, "Exploring CCS community acceptance and public participation from a
human and social capital perspective," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, vol.
17, p. 687 706, 2012.

[30] S. Seigo and S. D. &. M. Siegrist, "Public perception of carbon capture and storage (CCS): A review,"
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 38, pp. 848-863, October 2014.

12
[31] Alberta Carbon Capture and Storage Development Council, "Accelerating Carbon Capture and Storage
Implementation in Alberta," 2009.

[32] A. B. R. a. E. S. Rubin, "A Technical, Economic, and Environmental Assessment of Amine-Based CO2
Capture Technology for Power Plant Greenhouse Gas Control," Environtal Science & Technology, vol.
36, no. 20, p. 4467 4475, 2002.

[33] A. Veawab and A. Aroonwilas, "Identification of oxidizing agents in aqueous amine CO2 systems using
a mechanistic corrosion model," Corrosion Science, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 967-987, 2002.

[34] G. S.Goff and G. T.Rochelle, "Oxidative Degradation of Aqueous Monoethanolamine in CO2 Capture
Systems Under Absorber Conditions," in 6th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control
Technologies, Kyoto, Japan, 2003.

[35] E. b. P. H. Feron, Absorption-Based Post-Combustion Capture of Carbon Dioxide, Cambridge: Joe

Hayton, Elsevier, 2016.

13
APPENDIXES
Appendix I: Flue Gas Cooling System
a) Flue Gas Cooling System: Simulation PFD

b) Flue Gas Cooling System: Simulation Material Balance

14
c) Flue Gas Cooling System: Simulation Material Streams Compositions

Appendix II: Conventional MEA CO2 Capture System

a) Conventional MEA CO2 Capture System: Simulation PFD

15
b) Conventional MEA CO2 Capture System: Simulation Material Balance

c) Conventional MEA CO2 Capture System: Simulation Material Streams Compositions

16
d) Conventional MEA CO2 Capture System: Sweet Gas Results
Parameter Unit Absorber Sweet Gas
o
Temperature C 53.42
Pressure KPa 101.325
Mass Flow Rate Kg/hr 871280.43
Molar Flow Rate Kgmole/hr 32183.16
Component Mol. Basis
MEAmine % 0.01
H2O % 12.65
CO2 % 1.51
O2 % 1.98
N2 % 83.85
Component Mass Basis
MEAmine % 0.02
H2O % 8.42
CO2 % 2.46
O2 % 2.34
N2 % 86.77

Table 6: Sweet Gas Simulation Results

e) Conventional MEA CO2 Capture System: Effect of Flue Gas temperature on MEA Loss & CO2 Recovery
(Other process parameters were kept constant)

17
f) Conventional MEA CO2 Capture System: Effect of Lean Solution temperature on MEA Loss & CO2 Recovery
(Other process parameters were kept constant)

g) Conventional MEA CO2 Capture System: Effect of Stripper temperature on

a. CO2 Recovery
b. Reboiler Duty
c. Lean & Rich Solutions Loading
(Other process parameters were kept constant)

18
Appendix III: Lean Vapor Compression (LVC) MEA CO2 System
a) Lean Vapor Compression (LVC) MEA CO2 System: Simulation PFD

b) Lean Vapor Compression (LVC) MEA CO2 System: Simulation Material Balance

19
c) Lean Vapor Compression (LVC) MEA CO2 System: Simulation Material Streams Compositions

d) Lean Vapor Compression (LVC) MEA CO2 System: Sweet Gas Results
Parameter Unit Absorber Sweet Gas
o
Temperature C 55.32
Pressure KPa 101.325
Mass Flow Rate Kg/hr 879027.16
Molar Flow Rate Kgmole/hr 32612.78
Component Mol. Basis
MEAmine % 0.01
H2O % 13.8
CO2 % 1.49
O2 % 1.95
N2 % 82.75
Component Mass Basis
MEAmine % 0.02
H2O % 9.22
CO2 % 2.43
O2 % 2.32
N2 % 86

Table 7: Sweet Gas Simulation Results

20
e) Lean Vapor Compression (LVC) MEA CO2 System: Effect of Flash Pressure

Appendix IV: CO2 Compression System

a) Summary table of Compressor system results

Conventional MEA
Parameter Unit
Process
Stage-1: Power MW 3.547
Stage-2: Power MW 3.378
Stage-3: Power MW 3.049
Stage-3: Power MW 1.011
Total: Power MW 10.984
Stage-1 Intercooler Duty MW 4.523
Stage-1 Intercooler CW Flow m3/hr 423.75
Stage-2 Intercooler Duty MW 4.015
Stage-2 Intercooler CW Flow m3/hr 376.18
Stage-3 Intercooler Duty MW 4.638
Stage-3 Intercooler CW Flow m3/hr 434.50
Final Stage Discharge Temperature oC 85.19
Final Stage Discharge Pressure KPa 9,000.00
Final Stage Discharge Flow Kgmole/hr 2,781.62
Final Stage Discharge Flow Kg/hr 122,255.60
HP Steam Flow to Turbine Kg/hr 52,897.96
CW Flow to Turbine Condenser m3/hr 3,022.26
Turbine Surface Condenser Duty MW 32.26
Table 8: Summary of Compressor system results

21
b) CO2 Compression System: Simulation PFD

c) CO2 Compression System: Simulation Material Balance

22
d) CO2 Compression System: Simulation Material Streams Compositions

Appendix V: Detailed Cost Results

Annual Operating Cost Analysis: From Aspen HYSYS® simulation Heat & Material Balance, utilities like steam
(Steam for Booster Fan Turbine, CO2 Compressor Turbine and stripper reboiler) , electricity for all the pumps
of the CO2 removal system (inclusive of power requirement for Cooling Water supply Pump) were determined
and cost was done using relevant cost value as given in [Appendix VI]. Summary of results is presented in
table 9 below.

Parameter Unit Conventional Process Vapor Compression

Total Cooling Water
m3/hr 28,149.54 26,062.76
(For Coolers & Condensers)
Total Steam Requirement
Ton/hr 404.00 370.92
(For Turbines & Reboiler)
Utilities
Consumption Total Steam Energy (Annual) GJ 7,054,724 6,477,213
Electrical Power (Inclusive of
KWh 2,895.10 4,880.05
CW Supply Pump)
Cost of Steam (Annual) $ MM/Year 14.109 12.954

Cost of Electricity (Annual) $ MM/Year 1.580 2.664

Operating
Cost Cost of MEA Makeup $ MM/Year 5.114 6.356

Total Operating Cost $ MM/Year 20.804 21.975

Table 9: Annual Operating Cost of MEA Processes

23
CAPEX Estimation: For preliminary equipment sizing and cost analysis, Aspen HYSYS® Economic Analyzer was
used and default setting in economic analyzer were used for sizing and costing purpose. However, equipment
CO2 Compressor Steam Turbine, Flue Gases Booster Fan and associated Steam Turbine were not
evaluated by Economic Analyzer due to higher power rating of these equipment, hence cost of these is not
included in overall CAPEX values reported here. CAPEX summary results are given in table 10:

Parameter Unit Conventional Process Vapor Compression

Total Capital Cost $ MM 70.06 79.24

Table 10: CAPEX of Conventional MEA Process

Estimation of Net CO2 Avoided: For estimation of the CO2 generated due to Steam consumption and
electricity utilization, conversion factors were taken from ec.11 slide 6 delivered by Dr. Elgarni .
Net CO2 avoidance results are tabulated below.

Parameter Unit Conventional Process Vapor Compression

CO2 Emissions w/o CO2 Capture t CO2/annum 1,169,435 1,169,435

NG Emissions t CO2/annum 352,736 323,861

Electricity Emissions t CO2/annum 8,741 14,734

Total CO2 Emissions Generated t CO2/annum 1,530,912 1,508,030

CO2 Capture t CO2/annum 994,524 994,843

% 71.46 72.57

CO2 Avoided t CO2/annum 536,388 513,187

Table 11: CO2 Avoidance Estimation

Based on the above economic analysis, CO2 Capture cost and Cost of avoided CO2 is estimated , annual Capital
cost is based on the estimation criteria given
Summary is given in below table 10:

Parameter Unit Conventional Process Vapor Compression

Variable Operating Cost $ 20,804,040 21,974,789

Capital Cost per annum
$ 7,006,311 7,924,087
(Estimated @ 10% rate of CAPEX)
Total CAPEX & OPEX $ 27,810,350.74 29,898,875.52

Cost of Capture $ /Ton CO2 27.96 30.05

Cost of Avoided CO2 $ /Ton CO2 51.85 58.26

Table 12: CO2 Cost Estimation

24
Appendix VI: Utility & Operating Cost & Emission Basis:
Emission factors and steam energy conversion factors were taken from Lecture-11 Delivered by Dr. Elgarni

Table 13: Slide # 6 from Lecture 11 Delivered by Dr. Elgarni

For Steam Energy Conversion: Conversion factor of 2.14 GJ/tonne

steam produced from NG and equivalent Natural Gas price was taken from Economic Dashboard of Alberta
Govt.

Natural Gas ($CDN/GJ) = 2 $ /GJ

Reference: https://economicdashboard.alberta.ca/NaturalGasPrice

Electricity Cost Basis:

Base Commercial Flex Rate = 6.69¢/kWh

Reference: https://parkpower.ca/great-electricity-rates-alberta/commercial-electricity-rates-alberta-
business/

Natural Gas ($CDN/GJ)

Chemicals: Only MEA makeup, (which is being lost) has been considered in Evaluation,

As MEA cost varies from region to region, so according to literature analysis, and some feedback from
Industries , average cost of MEA considered is 2800 $ / tonne of MEA.

Equivalent CO2 Emissions:

NG Emissions (Based on above table) = 0.05 t CO2/GJ

Electricity Emissions (Based on above table) = 0.37 t CO2/MWh

CO2 Capture/Emissions (Annual ):

Total CO2 Emissions Generated = CO2 in Flue Gases + NG Emissions + Electricity Emissions

Net CO2 Avoided = Total CO2 Emissions Generated - CO2 Capture Through MEA Process

CO2 Costing (Annual):

25
CO2 Capture Cost = (CO2 Capture Through MEA Process ) / Total Cost (CAPEX +OPEX)

Cost of Avoided CO2 = (Net CO2 Avoided) / Total Cost (CAPEX +OPEX)

Note:

1- All prices are in Canadian $, and conversion factor of 1.3 CAD/USD has been considered wherever
applicable.
2- Plant Operating days considered for evaluations are 340 Days in one Calendar year.

26