Optimisation of lean vapour compression (LVC) as an option for post-combustion CO2 capture: net present value maximisation

Many process schemes have been proposed in literature to decrease the energy demand of amine based carbon dioxide processes. These process schemes are generally analysed in terms of energy demand savings and compared to a common baseline based on the solvent monoethanolamine (MEA). In this work, the application of one of these process schemes (lean vapour compression or LVC) has been evaluated and optimised based on maximising the net present value (NPV) of the process scheme savings (including capital investment), rather than minimising energy demand in the form of equivalent work. Two scenarios have been analysed. In the first scenario, the capture plant was fully adapted to the effect of LVC. In the second scenario, LVC is retrofitted to a basic capture plant design. For both scenarios the net present value (expressed in MD ) of the process scheme over the whole plant life was calculated as a function of the LVC operating conditions. It was found that the NPV of the LVC process scheme is always positive and attractive from a financial point of view. The first scenario has been identified as the most attractive scenario for LVC application. Although the extent of the savings depends on design conditions and financial assumptions, this approach shows that the optimisation based on minimising equivalent work does not necessarily match the optimisation based on maximising net present value.

[1]  Meihong Wang,et al.  Post-combustion CO2 capture with chemical absorption: A state-of-the-art review , 2011 .

[2]  Mohamed Kanniche,et al.  Optimisation of Flow Diagram Modifications and Their Interaction for an Efficient Mea Based CO2 Post Combustion Capture. , 2010 .

[3]  Edward S. Rubin,et al.  Cost and performance of fossil fuel power plants with CO2 capture and storage , 2007 .

[4]  Alfons Kather,et al.  Post-combustion CO2 capture in coal-fired power plants: Comparison of integrated chemical absorption processes with piperazine promoted potassium carbonate and MEA , 2009 .

[5]  Gary T. Rochelle,et al.  Stripper configurations for CO2 capture by aqueous monoethanolamine , 2011 .

[6]  Matthias Finkenrath,et al.  Cost and Performance of Carbon Dioxide Capture from Power Generation , 2011 .

[7]  Mohamed Kanniche,et al.  Screening of flowsheet modifications for an efficient monoethanolamine (MEA) based post-combustion CO2 capture , 2011 .

[8]  J Davison,et al.  An overview of technologies and costs of carbon dioxide capture in power generation , 2009 .

[9]  Ennio Macchi,et al.  Common framework and test cases for transparent and comparable techno-economic evaluations of CO2 capture technologies – the work of the European Benchmarking Task Force , 2010 .

[10]  Klaus D. Timmerhaus,et al.  Plant design and economics for chemical engineers , 1958 .

[11]  G. Versteeg,et al.  CO2 capture from power plants. Part I: A parametric study of the technical performance based on monoethanolamine , 2007 .

[12]  Jia Li,et al.  Techno-economic assessment of CO2 capture retrofit to existing power plants , 2011 .

[13]  Edward S. Rubin,et al.  Cost and performance of fossil fuel power plants with CO 2 capture and storage , 2007 .

[14]  Magne Hillestad,et al.  Capital costs and energy considerations of different alternative stripper configurations for post combustion CO2 capture , 2011 .