کد مقاله کد نشریه سال انتشار مقاله انگلیسی نسخه تمام متن
645523 1457146 2015 9 صفحه PDF دانلود رایگان
عنوان انگلیسی مقاله ISI
Assessment of chemical absorption/adsorption for post-combustion CO2 capture from Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) power plants
موضوعات مرتبط
مهندسی و علوم پایه مهندسی شیمی جریان سیال و فرایندهای انتقال
پیش نمایش صفحه اول مقاله
Assessment of chemical absorption/adsorption for post-combustion CO2 capture from Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) power plants
چکیده انگلیسی


• Techno-economic assessments of NGCC power generation with carbon capture.
• Chemical absorption and adsorption systems used for post-combustion CO2 capture.
• Calcium looping delivers higher carbon capture rate and reduced costs penalties.
• In-depth economic assessment methodology for NGCC power plants with CCS.

The fossil fuel power generation sector is facing critical decisions to significantly reduce CO2 emissions by implementing carbon capture technologies at industrial scale for transition to low carbon economy. This paper assesses the usage of reactive absorption/adsorption systems for post-combustion CO2 capture from Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) power plants. As reactive gas–liquid absorption system assessed for post-combustion CO2 capture, the alkanolamine-based gas–liquid absorption was evaluated (MDEA was considered as illustrative example). As reactive gas–solid adsorption system, the innovative Calcium Looping (CaL) method was considered. The work evaluates how chemical absorption/adsorption influence the techno-economic performances of NGCC power plants. As benchmark option used to quantify the carbon capture energy and cost penalties, NGCC plant without CO2 capture was considered. The post-combustion carbon capture options have at least 90% carbon capture rate. As the results show, CaL concept exhibits improved environmental performances (e.g. >98 vs. 90% carbon capture rate) and economic indicators (e.g. 969 vs. 1238 €/kW net power as specific capital investment, 42.82 vs. 46.24 €/MWh as O&M costs, 56.91 vs. 66.12 €/MWh as electricity cost etc.) compared to MDEA case.

ناشر
Database: Elsevier - ScienceDirect (ساینس دایرکت)
Journal: Applied Thermal Engineering - Volume 82, 5 May 2015, Pages 120–128
نویسندگان
,