Abstract
Environmental concern for our planet has changed significantly over time due to climate change, caused by an increasing population and the subsequent demand for electricity, and thus increased power generation. Considering that natural gas is regarded as a promising fuel for such a purpose, the need to integrate carbon capture technologies in such plants is becoming a necessity, if gas power plants are to be aligned with the reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere, through understanding the capturing efficacy of different absorbents under different operating conditions. Therefore, this study provided for the first time the comparison of available absorbents in relation to amine solvents (MEA, DEA, and DEA) CO2 removal efficiency, cost, and recirculation rate to achieve Climate change action through caron capture without causing absorbent disintegration. The study analyzed Flue under different amine-based solvent solutions (monoethanolamine (MEA), diethanolamine (DEA), and methyldiethanolamine (MDEA)), in order to compare their potential for CO2 reduction under different operating conditions and costs. This was simulated using ProMax 5.0 software modeled as a simple absorber tower to absorb CO2 from flue gas. Furthermore, MEA, DEA, and MDEA adsorbents were used with a temperature of 38 °C and their concentration varied from 10 to 15%. Circulation rates of 200–300 m3/h were used for each concentration and solvent. The findings deduced that MEA is a promising solvent compared to DEA and MDEA in terms of the highest CO2 captured; however, it is limited at the top outlet for clean flue gas, which contained 3.6295% of CO2 and less than half a percent of DEA and MDEA, but this can be addressed either by increasing the concentration to 15% or increasing the MEA circulation rate to 300 m3/h.
Highlights
A considerable amount of attention has been focused on our planet due to the conceivable outcomes of climate change, which is a result of the energy generated from fossil fuel emissions and greenhouse gases such as CO2
The findings deduced that MEA is a promising solvent compared to DEA and MDEA in terms of the highest CO2 captured; it is limited at the top outlet for clean flue gas, which contained
3. MEA, DEA and MDEA are 3.6295%, 8.1355%, and 8.4559%, respectively, and these values are not enough. With these percentages obtained my target was not achieved neither of other of other researchers because to use capture process there should be clear from CO2 % in clean flue gas as aforementioned is not acceptable as sustainable for power plants, even the temperature at the bottom of the absorber is quite good but the purity of nitrogen is not qualified to be utilized to other purposes such as food processes
Summary
A considerable amount of attention has been focused on our planet due to the conceivable outcomes of climate change, which is a result of the energy generated from fossil fuel emissions and greenhouse gases such as CO2. We will examine which of the chemical solvents of monoethanolamine (MEA), diethanolamine (DEA), and methyldiethanolamine (MDEA) are best able to produce good, low-cost outcomes; low amine degradation; and losses to remove or capture CO2 from flue gases. Sustainability 2021, 13, 72 is used to remove carbon dioxide from flue gases by employing liquid solvents (e.g., MEA, MDEA, DEA, etc.) for this purpose. This was conducted in this study by a simulation program (ProMax) and there were two scenarios employed to compare amine solvents from previous study [6].
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
