Analysis of a rich vapor compression method for an ammonia-based CO2 capture process and freshwater production using membrane distillation technology

• Published in: Chemical engineering research & design 2019-07, Vol.147, p.244-258
• Main Authors: Ullah, Asad, Soomro, Mujeeb Iqbal, Kim, Woo-Seung
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Absorption; Ammonia; Carbon dioxide; Carbon sequestration; CO2 capture process; Distillation; Electric power generation; Emissions; Energy consumption; Energy requirements; Equipment costs; Fossil fuels; Heating; Organic chemistry; Power plants; Regeneration; Regeneration energy; Rich vapor compression; Solvents; Total equivalent work
• ISSN: 0263-8762; 1744-3563
• DOI: 10.1016/j.cherd.2019.05.005

•Process modifications were proposed for NH3-based CO2 capture process.•RVC combined with CSS process can reduced the reboiler duty by 20.2%.•Intercooling process can reduce the absorber packing height by 25%.•RVC combined with CSS process can save $0.707 million from the total cost per year.•The freshwater was produced at a rate of 719.240 m3/day at feed temperature of 35.66 ℃ to the MD unit. Post-combustion capturing of CO2 through chemical solvent absorption is a promising technique for reducing the CO2 emissions from fossil fuel power plants. However, the energy penalty associated with the absorbent regeneration continues to be a critical challenge in the chemical solvent absorption process. In this study, the operating parameters of ammonia-based CO2 capture were optimized to reduce the energy penalty. This optimized process was considered a base process to which process modifications were added, with the goal of further reducing the energy consumption. These process modifications included absorber inter-cooling and rich vapor compression (RVC) combined with cold solvent split (CSS) processes. The combined RVC and CSS process was compared with the base process and advanced NH3-based CO2 capture processes, such as the rich split process and the inter-heating process. Compared to the base process, the combined process reduced the energy requirements by 20.2%, which was higher than the 11.6% and 8.26% energy reductions obtained via the rich split and inter-heating processes, respectively. The combined process was also compared with MEA-based process modifications. The energy savings from the combined process were higher than those of the MEA-based process modifications. To estimate the trade-offs between the energy savings resulting from the combined process vs. the capital cost of the additional equipment required, the Aspen Capital Cost Estimator (ACCE) was used. The results showed that the combined process saved $0.707 million per year. Furthermore, a membrane distillation (MD) technology was integrated with the CO2 capture unit to produce freshwater. This additional process produced freshwater at a rate of 719.240 m3/day at a feed stream temperature to the MD unit of 35.66 ℃.