Carbon Dioxide Removal from Coal-Fired Power Plants by C. Hendriks

By C. Hendriks

1. 1. Greenhouse gasoline emissions and weather switch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . three 1. 1. 1. Emissions and concentrations of greenhouse gases three 1. 1. 2. influence of accelerating greenhouse gases focus four 1. 2. ideas to lessen carbon dioxide emissions five 1. 2. 1. Carbon dioxide removing eight 1. three. Scope of the thesis 10 1. four. define of the thesis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . eleven 1. four. 1. normal evaluate process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1. four. 2. a few notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . thirteen II. Simulation and optimization of carbon dioxide restoration from the flue gases of a coal-fired energy plant utilizing amines 14 summary 19 2. 1. advent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2. 2. The chemical absorption procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 2. 2. 1. common approach description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 2. 2. 2. different types of absorbent 23 2. 2. three. results of flue fuel contaminants 24 2. three. Simulation of the scrubber in ASPEN PLUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 2. three. 1. ASPEN PLUS for movement sheet simulation 26 2. three. 2. Simulation of the functionality for the base-case layout . . 26 the scrubber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2. three. three. Optimization of two. three. four. layout and effects 32 2. three. five. dialogue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 2. four. Integration of the scrubber within the strength plant 35 2. four. 1. strength loss attributable to steam extraction 36 2. four. 2. energy stored by means of warding off preheating boiler feed water . . . 38 2. four. three. strength intake by means of the carbon dioxide scrubber . . . . . 38 2. four. four. energy intake for carbon dioxide compression . . . . . 38 2. four. five. Calculation of plant potency losses " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 2. 5.

Show description

Read Online or Download Carbon Dioxide Removal from Coal-Fired Power Plants PDF

Similar plants books

A Systematic Vademecum to the Vascular Plants of Puerto Rico

Have you questioned the place a Puerto Rican plant grows, while it plants, the place it comes from? good, here's an annotated list of the vascular vegetation shortly discovered starting to be within the wild at the island of Puerto Rico that might be a useful reduction to botanists, ecologists, foresters and anybody else drawn to the vegetation of Puerto Rico.

The Illustrated Book of Trees

Книга содержит описания более 250 древесных пород, произрастающих в различных раойнах мира. Описания видов сгруппированы по родам, расположенным в алфавитном порядке латинских наименований. Для каждой древесной породы приведены цветные рисунки, характеризующие внешний вид дерева, листьев и генеративных органов.

Extra info for Carbon Dioxide Removal from Coal-Fired Power Plants

Sample text

An optimized process is designed on the basis of this analysis. In the second section of this chapter a method is presented for calculating the impact of the recovery process on the efficiency of the power plant when the desorption heat is extracted from the steam cycle. Subsequently, the decline in efficiency is calculated for an existing coal-fired power plant in the Netherlands, namely the Amer-8 plant. 21 Chapter II Finally, the costs of CO 2 recovery are estimated. The costs are presented both in US$ per tonne of CO 2 avoided and as an increase in the electricity production costs.

Symbols are explained in table 4 and depicted in figure 6. 5. Cost analysis In this section, we compare the electricity production costs of a plant without CO 2 recovery (reference plant) with the electricity production costs of a new plant with CO 2 recovery. Both plants have the same fuel input. Due to the lower overall efficiency, the electricity production of the plant with CO 2 recovery will be less. The costs for the CO 2 recovery are caused by the reduction in the electricity production and by the investment costs and operation and maintenance cost of the CO 2 recovery unit, the steam extraction facilities and the compression unit.

They measured 20% lower energy consumption compared with MEA. As an additional advantage Suda et al. report that the use of this sterically hindered amine (KS-l) causes virtually no corrosion, whereas MEA does cause corrosion. The energy consumed by the recovery can also be diminished by reducing the power requirements. About 3% of the total power loss is caused by the compression of the flue gases to push them through the absorber [Smit, 1993]. Suda et al. [1993] report the development of a new absorber packing, with a lower pressure drop over the absorber.

Download PDF sample

Rated 4.91 of 5 – based on 50 votes

admin