• Energy Research

Total shipping carbon emissions were approximately 938 million tonnes CO 2 in 2012. Zero emission shipping options rely on the use of electricity or alternative fuels, such as blue hydrogen or ammonia. However, that requires major modifications to the ships and the logistics of fuel distribution. As a transition solution, which can be implemented on much shorter term; this study presents the technical and economic evaluation for ship-based carbon capture (SBCC) on diesel or LNG-fuelled vessels. Two reference ship engines of 1280 kW and 3000 kW were chosen. The process is simulated using Aspen Plus ® , with 30 wt% aqueous monoethanolamine (MEA) and 30 wt% aqueous piperazine (PZ) as solvents. CAPEX and OPEX were reduced by integrating the thermal energy of the exhaust gas with the stripper reboiler for the diesel and LNG powered ships. For the LNG ships, the cooling capacity from evaporation of LNG was used for liquefying the captured CO 2 . By using piperazine, which allows CO 2 to be desorbed at higher pressure than MEA, the minimal cost of CO 2 captured achieved was 98 €/tonne CO 2 with a corresponding 1.8 million euros equipment cost for the 3000 kW engine ship. Additionally, the feasibility of SBCC is investigated by adapting an existing cargo ship design (powered by the reference 3000 kW engine) for including the carbon capture process equipment. The capture, compression and storage units are fitted onboard, and the design is modified so that the transport capacity remains the same, while maintaining the ship stability. © 2019 Elsevier Ltd

Total shipping carbon emissions were approximately 938 million tonnes CO 2 in 2012. Zero emission shipping options rely on the use of electricity or alternative fuels, such as blue hydrogen or ammonia. However, that requires major modifications to the ships and the logistics of fuel distribution. As a transition solution, which can be implemented on much shorter term; this study presents the technical and economic evaluation for ship-based carbon capture (SBCC) on diesel or LNG-fuelled vessels. Two reference ship engines of 1280 kW and 3000 kW were chosen. The process is simulated using Aspen Plus ® , with 30 wt% aqueous monoethanolamine (MEA) and 30 wt% aqueous piperazine (PZ) as solvents. CAPEX and OPEX were reduced by integrating the thermal energy of the exhaust gas with the stripper reboiler for the diesel and LNG powered ships. For the LNG ships, the cooling capacity from evaporation of LNG was used for liquefying the captured CO 2 . By using piperazine, which allows CO 2 to be desorbed at higher pressure than MEA, the minimal cost of CO 2 captured achieved was 98 €/tonne CO 2 with a corresponding 1.8 million euros equipment cost for the 3000 kW engine ship. Additionally, the feasibility of SBCC is investigated by adapting an existing cargo ship design (powered by the reference 3000 kW engine) for including the carbon capture process equipment. The capture, compression and storage units are fitted onboard, and the design is modified so that the transport capacity remains the same, while maintaining the ship stability. © 2019 Elsevier Ltd

Post combustion CO2 capture (PCC) with amine solvents is seen as one of the possible technologies which can be implemented in the near term to significantly reduce CO2 emissions from fossil fuel power plants. One of the major concerns for its implementation at large scale in power plants is the high capital and operating costs of the technology. This paper examines the performance of advanced supercritical (ASC) pulverised coal and natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) power plants with two post-combustion CO2 capture units. The capture units are based on chemical absorption with an advanced amine solvent, CESAR-1, which is an aqueous solution of 2-Amino-2-Methyl-Propanol (AMP) and piperazine (PZ), and the conventional Monoethanolamine (MEA) solvent. The comparison between the mentioned technologies is based on the technical assumptions and method provided by the European Benchmarking Taskforce (EBTF) methodology, which is a first attempt for establishing a common European Standard for comparative studies. The resulting net electric efficiencies for the power plants without capture are 45.25% and 58.3% for the ASC PC and NGCC cases respectively. When CO2 capture is applied, the net electrical efficiencies of the studied plants decreases. In the ASC power plant, the MEA capture unit decreases the efficiency by 11.7 percentage points, while the CESAR-1 capture unit decreases the efficiency by 9.4 percentage points. For the NGCC power plant, the reductions are 8.4 and 7.6 percentage points for the MEA and CESAR-1 capture units respectively. Therefore, the evaluation of CESAR-1 under the EBTF standards shows a reduction on power production penalty of 25% for the coal fired plant and 12% for the gas fired plant compared to conventional MEA. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Post combustion CO2 capture (PCC) with amine solvents is seen as one of the possible technologies which can be implemented in the near term to significantly reduce CO2 emissions from fossil fuel power plants. One of the major concerns for its implementation at large scale in power plants is the high capital and operating costs of the technology. This paper examines the performance of advanced supercritical (ASC) pulverised coal and natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) power plants with two post-combustion CO2 capture units. The capture units are based on chemical absorption with an advanced amine solvent, CESAR-1, which is an aqueous solution of 2-Amino-2-Methyl-Propanol (AMP) and piperazine (PZ), and the conventional Monoethanolamine (MEA) solvent. The comparison between the mentioned technologies is based on the technical assumptions and method provided by the European Benchmarking Taskforce (EBTF) methodology, which is a first attempt for establishing a common European Standard for comparative studies. The resulting net electric efficiencies for the power plants without capture are 45.25% and 58.3% for the ASC PC and NGCC cases respectively. When CO2 capture is applied, the net electrical efficiencies of the studied plants decreases. In the ASC power plant, the MEA capture unit decreases the efficiency by 11.7 percentage points, while the CESAR-1 capture unit decreases the efficiency by 9.4 percentage points. For the NGCC power plant, the reductions are 8.4 and 7.6 percentage points for the MEA and CESAR-1 capture units respectively. Therefore, the evaluation of CESAR-1 under the EBTF standards shows a reduction on power production penalty of 25% for the coal fired plant and 12% for the gas fired plant compared to conventional MEA. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

In this work, a perspective is given on the development lines for CO 2 post-combustion capture technology. Guidelines for cost reductions and suggestions for future research on solvent and process development are presented. By analyzing the post-combustion capture process in this work, it is evident that to achieve significant reduction of the capture process cost, multiple process parameters need to be improved. For future development of CO2 post-combustion capture process, it would be beneficial to direct the solvent development research towards solvents systems, which have lower reaction enthalpy and higher solvent capacity. A significant improvement can be obtained by the development of solvent systems where the solvent is regenerated at higher pressure. In addition, smart process improvement and integration are required to achieve a reasonable cost reduction. It can be expected that by improving the process design and the solvent, implementation of post combustion capture on larger scale will be possible in the near future. © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

In this work, a perspective is given on the development lines for CO 2 post-combustion capture technology. Guidelines for cost reductions and suggestions for future research on solvent and process development are presented. By analyzing the post-combustion capture process in this work, it is evident that to achieve significant reduction of the capture process cost, multiple process parameters need to be improved. For future development of CO2 post-combustion capture process, it would be beneficial to direct the solvent development research towards solvents systems, which have lower reaction enthalpy and higher solvent capacity. A significant improvement can be obtained by the development of solvent systems where the solvent is regenerated at higher pressure. In addition, smart process improvement and integration are required to achieve a reasonable cost reduction. It can be expected that by improving the process design and the solvent, implementation of post combustion capture on larger scale will be possible in the near future. © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

The objective of this paper is to assess the economic advantages of an innovative solvent for CO2 capture on state-of-the-art solvents. The CESAR-1 solvent, which is an aqueous solution of 2-amino-2-methyl-propanol (AMP) and piperazine (PZ), is applied both to advanced supercritical pulverised (ASC) coal and natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) power plants with post-combustion CO2 capture units. The methodology includes process model developments using commercial simulation programs, which determine the thermodynamic properties of the selected power plants and the performance of the CO2 capture units. The results show that the techno-economic benefit of CESAR-1 versus MEA is more significant for ASC than that for NGCC due to a higher concentration of CO2 in the flue gas. This follows from the fact that the switch from MEA to CESAR-1 solvents reduces the electricity cost by 4.16€/MWh in the case of the ASC plant compared to 0.67€/MWh in connection with the proposed NGCC plant. Based on the above figures, we can conclude that CESAR-1 reduces the cost of CO2 avoided compared to MEA by 6€/t CO2 and 2€/t CO2 for the selected ASC and NGCC plants respectively. In view of that, the techno-economics can be improved if the CO2 capture plant is designed to operate using the CESAR-1 absorption technology due to a reduction in the regeneration energy and the solvent recirculation rate (considering its higher CO2 net capacity). However, the variable costs of running the capture plant are higher for the CESAR-1 solvent due to the higher cost of the amines.