CO2 Capture from Syngas for IGCC

using MEA
Copyright (c) 2021 by Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved.

Aspen Plus, Aspen HYSYS, and the aspen leaf logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of Aspen Technology,
Inc., Bedford, MA.

All other brand and product names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective companies.

Contents
Abstract..................................................................................................... 1
1 Background .......................................................................................... 2
2 Process Description ................................................................................ 2
3 Model Description .................................................................................. 3
4 Model Results........................................................................................ 4
5 Conclusion ............................................................................................ 6

Abstract
This Aspen Plus example models CO2 capture from syngas for Integrated Gasification
Combined Cycle (IGCC). at the rate of 1 Million ton/year by using monoethanolamine
(MEA).

The properties are modeled with the Electrolyte Non-Random Two- Liquid (Electrolyte
NRTL) model, and the absorber is simulated with the rate-based distillation model,
column analysis is used to evaluate the hydraulics based on the giving column
geometries and internals, Economics Analysis is available to estimate the capital and
operating costs, finally, process CO2 emissions are reported.

The model can be used as a starting point for more complex model development,
integration, debottlenecking and optimization.

1
1 Background
Carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) refers to a suite of technologies that
can play an important role in meeting energy and climate goals, it involves the
capture of CO2 from large point sources including power generation or industrial
facilities, the captured CO2 is then compressed and transported to be used in a range
of applications or injected into deep geological formations which trap the CO2 for
permanent storage.

The more stringent climate targets triggered by the greater ambition of the 2015
Paris Agreement and the 2018 IPCC Special Report on 1.5°C have spurred greater
interest in CCUS [1]. In the IEA’s Sustainable Development Scenario, global CO2
emissions from the energy sector should decline to net zero by 2070, and the initial
focus of CCUS will be on retrofitting existing fossil fuel-based power and industrial
plants to tackle emissions and supporting low-carbon hydrogen production.

The next decade will be critical for the deployment of CCUS. The amount of CO 2
captured will grow by a factor of 20 from around 40 Mt today (2020) to over 800 Mt
in 2030, an annual average of around 20 coal power plants will be retrofitted with
capture equipment between 2025 and 2030, and 18 Mt of hydrogen will be produced
from CCUS-equipped facilities [1].

CO2 absorption using amine solvents is the most advanced and widely adopted CO2
separation technique, which is currently used in gas processing, power generation
and methanol, ethanol and hydrogen production. While this capture technology is
being actively investigated for commercial implementation, it is necessary to further
reduce the costs, scale up and optimize the process to improve the overall process
economics and operability.

Rigorous models are necessary for the design, scale up, integration, optimization and
operation of CO2 capture. This Aspen Plus example demonstrates how to model CO2
capture from by using monoethanolamine (MEA) at the rate of 1 million metric
ton/year from the syngas for Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC).

2 Process Description
This example is based on a design case [2]. The dry flue gas, which consists of CO2,
H2 and N2, is sent to the absorber column to remove CO2.

The absorber column has packing inside it and is divided into 20 stages in the
simulation. The syngas enters the column at the bottom and the lean MEA solvent
enters the column on stage 1. CO2 is absorbed by the solvent in the column. Clean
gas comes out from top of the absorber and the rich solvent leaves absorber from
the bottom and is sent to the Stripper.

Before entering the Stripper, rich solvent stream goes through a heat exchanger to
increase the temperature to 200 °F. The stripper is divided into 20 stages in the
simulation. Rich solvent enters Stripper column on the first stage. CO2 is stripped
from the rich amine in the column and the MEA solvent is regenerated. The lean
solvent from the bottom of the stripper is recycled with makeup back to the absorber.

2
 Figure 1: CO2 capture using MEA flowsheet in ASPEN PLUS

3 Model Description
The model includes the following key features:

 Electrolyte NRTL model for the electrolytes system

 Rate-based model for distillation column simulation

 Column Analysis for distillation column design and rating

 Economic Analysis for capital and operating costs

 Process CO2 emissions

The Electrolyte Non-Random Two- Liquid (Electrolyte NRTL) model is used for
electrolyte thermodynamics and Peng-Robinson Equation of State for vapor phase
properties, and all necessary aqueous-phase equilibrium and kinetics reactions
required are provided for rigorous calculations of the process, the pure and binary
parameters in the model have been regressed or validated against the available
experimental data (e.g. vapor pressure, density, heat capacity, VLE and heat of
absorption).

The absorber and stripper are simulated with the rate-based model, which utilizes
the mass and heat-transfer correlations based on transfer properties and
tray/packing geometry, assuming that separation is caused by mass transfer between
the contacting phases. This makes it more accurate over a wider range of operating
conditions, as the equilibrium-stage model requires empirical adjustments for
accurate simulation. This is particularly useful for the chemical absorption processes,
where component efficiencies vary widely.

Furthermore, the column hydraulic performance is evaluated using Column Analysis.

Based on the process simulation, the CAPEX and OPEX are estimated with Activated
Economic Analysis, and the CO2 emissions of the process are reported. Reviewing the

3
costs and emissions reports can help to see where the process can be optimized and
provide more information for decision-making.

4 Model Results
The key simulation results of the absorber are shown in Table 1. The specs and results
of the stripper are summarized in Tables 2 and 3.
Table 1: Simulation results of absorber

Stream Name 8 1 2 3
Vapour fraction 0 1 1 0
Temperature [C] 38 38 41 85
Pressure [kPa] 1724 1724 1620 1655
Molar Flow [kgmole/h] 5.58e4 1.18e4 8.99e3 5.59e4
Mass Flow [kg/h] 1.33e6 2.77e5 1.55e5 1.45e6
Composition [mol%]
CO2 0.0159 0.2470 0.0175 0.0615
MEAmine 0.1148 0 3.6e-6 0.1094

Table 2: Key specs of stripper

Variable name Value

Specification 1 reboiler duty 7.9e8 kJ/hr
Specification 2 Distillate flow rate 1.3e5 kg/hr

Table 3: Simulation results of stripper

Stream Name 4B 5 12
Vapour 0.0129 0 1
Temperature [C] 86 112 52
Pressure [kPa] 138 136 101
Molar Flow [kgmole/h] 5.62e4 5.53e8 3.25e3
Mass Flow [kg/h] 1.45e6 1.32e6 1.3e5
Composition [mol%]
CO2 0.0615 0.0161 0.8471
MEAmine 0.1094 0.1157 1.3e-6

The specifications of the column geometries and internal types are summarized in
Table 4 and the hydraulic plots are shown in Figures 2 and 3.

4
 Table 4: Specs of column geometries and internal types

Absorber Stripper
Section 1 Section 1
Start stage - End Stage 1 - 20 2 -21
Section Height, ft 36 45
Diameter, ft 15 25
Packing type PALL 2-IN PALL 2-IN

Figure 2: Hydraulic plots of absorber

Figure 3: Hydraulic plots of stripper

In addition, the Economic Analysis results are shown in Figure 4.

5
 Figure 4: Economic analysis of the process

Aspen Plus supports 3 well known standards for Global Warming Potential, IPCC SRA
(1995), IPCC AR4 (2007) and USEPA (2009). User can select the standard for Global
Warming Potential and specify carbon fee / carbon tax in Simulation | Setup |
Calculation Options | Calculations. In addition, user can turn on carbon tracking
for utility in Simulation | Utilities | Utility Name | Input | Caron Tracking.

Finally, the process CO2 emissions including both material streams and utilities
reported in Simulation | Results Summary | CO2 Emissions are and shown in
Table 5.
Table 5: Results of CO2 emissions

Source Feed Product Utility Net CO2

emission
Stream 1 2 12*
CO2 emission, tonne/year 1.38e6 3.17e5 1.06e6 4.58e5 -6.06e5
Carbon fee, k$/year 7.04e4 1.62e4 5.42e4 2.338e4 -3.09e4
* Stream 12 represents that about 1M tonne/y CO2 is captured in the process, so the
net CO2 emission is negative.

5 Conclusion
CO2 absorption using chemical solvents is an important technology to mitigate CO2
emissions and meet the climate goals. It is necessary to further reduce energy
penalty, scale up, integrate and optimize the capture process. Rigorous models are
critical for process modeling and optimization. This example shows how to model CO2
capture using MEA with Aspen Plus. The Electrolyte Non-Random Two- Liquid
(Electrolyte NRTL) model is used for the properties of the electrolyte system, the
distillation column is simulated with rigorous rate-based distillation model, Column
Analysis is used to evaluate the column performance, the process costs are estimated
using Economic Analysis and the process CO2 emissions are also reported. The
validation results are good compared to the plant data and this example can be used
as a start point for more sophisticated process development, integration and
optimization.

6
References

[1] IEA flagship report, CCUS in Clean Energy Transitions, 2020,

https://www.iea.org/reports/ccus-in-clean-energy-transitions
[2] R.D. Doctor, J.C. Molburg, P.R. Thimmapuram, G.F. Berry, C.D. Livengood,
“Gasification Combined Cycle: Carbon Dioxide Recovery, Transport, and
Disposal”, Energy System Divison, Argonne National Laboratory (1994)