Abstract
This paper presents the results of ASPEN simulations of a carbon-dioxide (CO <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sub> ) removal and recovery plant that captures CO <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sub> from a 300 MW conventional coal-fired power plant. It also analyzes the techno-economic performance of 300 MW coal-fired power plant with and without ammonia-based CO <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sub> capture process, based on the operating data of an existing power plant. Simulation and calculations indicate that, adopting the aqueous ammonia process for capturing CO <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sub> from a condensing power plant, the net power output will drop from 295.13 MW to 225.23 MW, which makes the efficiency fall from 38.15% to 29.12%, with CO <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sub> avoidance cost being 21.16€/tCO <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sub> , which is still high but obviously better than those of the amine-based system.
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
