Abstract
CSIRO’s patented CS-Cap process aims at reducing the costs of amine-based post-combustion capture by combining SO2 and CO2 capture using one absorbent in a single absorber column. By avoiding the need for a separate flue gas desulfurization unit, the process offers potential savings for power plants requiring CO2 capture. High-level cost estimates based on lab and pilot data are presented for two amine reclamation techniques i.e. thermal reclamation and reactive crystallisation. Only regeneration via reactive crystallisation reduces CS-Cap costs below base case FGD/SCR-PCC. Cost estimations suggest a potential reduction of 38–44% in the total plant cost when using the CS-Cap process compared to base case. However, the amine reclaimer operating cost governs the overall cost of the CS-Cap process and is highly sensitive to sulfur content. A 50% reduction is observed when SO2 levels reduce from 700 to 200 ppm. Comparing levelised cost of electricity and CO2 avoided costs for CS-Cap against our base case, low sulfur brown coal has a slight (5–7%) cost advantage; however, confirmation requires pilot data on amine recovery.
Highlights
70% of Australia’s electricity generation comes from local black and brown coal (Engineers Australia, 2017)
Vincent Verheyen Co-authors: Bharti Garg, Nawshad Haque, Ashleigh Cousins, Pauline Pearson, Paul HM Feron We have carefully considered all issues mentioned in the reviewers' comments, and outline every change made point by point, and provide suitable rebuttals for any comments below: We believe it has further benefited from the changes suggested by the additional reviewer and ask you to reconsider its publication in the International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control
Supplementary Tables E and F detail the capital expenditure and operating cost of reactive crystallisation when applied to the CS-Cap process for 700 ppm while Tables G and H cover 200ppm sulfur content in the incoming flue gas
Summary
70% of Australia’s electricity generation comes from local black and brown coal (Engineers Australia, 2017). This increases the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) from a pulverised supercritical or ultra-supercritical power plant by approximately 100% (APGT, 2015) This cost includes FGD unit installations, which as mentioned above, are a prerequisite for any amine-based PCC technology deployed in Australia. The cost of regenerating the sulfur-rich amine stream has scope for further reduction to that afforded by thermal reclamation This is due to its unique nature (highly concentrated with sufur in form of sulfate), making it applicable to alternative lower energy reclamation techniques (Garg et al, 2018b). The practicality and cost effectiveness of thermal reclamation and crystallisation based regeneration technologies are experimentally evaluated here using a sulfur-rich CS-Cap absorbent. Each option was separately integrated with the combined absorption section (SO2 and CO2) and CO2-regeneration section to determine the overall cost of the CS-Cap process
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
