Very important global efforts have been done in the context of the reduction of CO2 emissions due to electricity production, in particular focusing on post-combustion chemical absorption processes. The target of this work is to carry out a techno-economic analysis to define the performances of a capture plant using piperazine as solvent instead of monoethanolamine which has been considered the benchmark so far. The introduction of a capture plant downstream of a ultra-supercritical coal fired power plant and downstream of a natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) has been considered. Regarding the coal fired plant, an economic analysis has been carried out. This economic analysis is the continuation of a previous technical analysis of the same plant carried out by a joint effort of Politecnico di Milano and TNO1b from the Netherlands. For the NGCC plant both the technical analysis and the economic analysis have been done. The technical analysis has the aim to define the best operating conditions and the best configuration from an energetic point of view. The target of the economic analysis is to understand the cost for the CO2 capture for an NGCC plant also in comparison with the coal fired power plant. For both the plants the cost found for the capture plant with piperazine has been compared with the cost for a monoethanolamine capture plant. Regarding the coal fired power plant a cost of electricity of 57,5 €/MWh for the case without capture, 77,0 €/MWh for the capture plant with piperazine and 83,4 €/MWh for the capture plant with monoethanolamine was calculated. The cost of CO2 avoided which has been found is 28,5 €/ton CO2 for the piperazine plant and of 38,7 €/ton CO2 for the monoethanolamine capture plant, indicating a saving of about 25%. For the NGCC plant, the cost of electricity is 55,0 €/MWh for the plant without capture, 67,8 €/MWh for the plant with capture using piperazine and 70,9 €/MWh for the plant with capture using monoethanolamine. The cost of CO2 avoided for the NGCC is 42,2 €/ton CO2 for the piperazine capture plant and 51,0 €/ton CO2 for the monoethanolamine capture plant. This confirm an advantage about the 20% using piperazine. Comparing the results for the USC plant with the results for the NGCC it can be seen that in terms of LCOE, the natural gas plant is more economic, while the CCA is considerably lower for the USC.
Nell’ambito della riduzione delle emissioni di CO2 dovute alla produzione di energia elettrica, grandi sforzi a livello mondiale sono stati fatti nello sviluppo della cattura con impianti post combustione ad assorbimento chimico. In particolare, questo lavoro ha come obbiettivo un analisi tecno-economica per definire le performance di un impianto di cattura che utilizza come solvente piperazina invece che monoetanolammina, che fino ad ora è stata considerata come punto di riferimento per queste applicazioni. In questo senso, è stata analizzata l’introduzione di un impianto di cattura a valle di un impianto ultra-supercritico alimentato a carbone e a valle di un ciclo combinato a gas naturale. Per quanto riguarda l’impianto a carbone, si è partiti da un analisi tecnica precedentemente realizzata dal Politecnico di Milano assieme al TNO1a di Delft (Paesi Bassi), portando avanti l’analisi economica dell’impianto. Per quanto riguarda l’impianto NGCC, è stata effettuata sia l’analisi tecnica che l’analisi economica. La prima è stata portata avanti al fine di determinare le migliori condizioni operative e la migliore configurazione da un punto di vista energetico. La seconda per capire i costi della cattura di CO2, anche in relazione ai costi trovati per l’impianto a carbone. Per entrambi gli impianti, i costi trovati per la cattura con piperazina sono stati confrontati con i costi della cattura usando monoetanolammina. Per l’impianto a carbone, è stato calcolato un costo dell’energia elettrica di 57,5 €/MWh per il caso senza cattura, 77 €/MWh per l’impianto con cattura con piperazina e 83,4 €/MWh per l’impianto con cattura con monoetanolammina. Il costo per la CO2 evitata trovato è 28,5 €/ton CO2 per la piperazina e 38,7 €/ton CO2 per la monoetanolammina, con un risparmio di circa il 25%. Per l’impianto NGCC il costo dell’energia calcolato è di 55 €/MWh per il caso senza cattura, 67,8 €/MWh per l’impianto con cattura con piperazina e 70,9 €/MWh per l’impianto con cattura con monoetanolammina. I costi per la CO2 evitata per l’impianto NGCC sono di 42,2 €/ton CO2 e 51 €/ton CO2 per la cattura con piperazina e monoetanoalmmina rispettivamente. Il risparmio con la piperazina si conferma di circa il 20%. Comparando i risultati per l’impianto USC con quelli per l’impianto NGCC si vede che, in termini di LCOE, l’impianto a gas con cattura è più economico, ma in termini di CCA il costo per l’USC è decisamente più basso.
Techno-economic evaluation of piperazine based post-combustion CO2 capture processes for coal and natural gas fired plants
MARIANI, FRANCESCO
2013/2014
Abstract
Very important global efforts have been done in the context of the reduction of CO2 emissions due to electricity production, in particular focusing on post-combustion chemical absorption processes. The target of this work is to carry out a techno-economic analysis to define the performances of a capture plant using piperazine as solvent instead of monoethanolamine which has been considered the benchmark so far. The introduction of a capture plant downstream of a ultra-supercritical coal fired power plant and downstream of a natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) has been considered. Regarding the coal fired plant, an economic analysis has been carried out. This economic analysis is the continuation of a previous technical analysis of the same plant carried out by a joint effort of Politecnico di Milano and TNO1b from the Netherlands. For the NGCC plant both the technical analysis and the economic analysis have been done. The technical analysis has the aim to define the best operating conditions and the best configuration from an energetic point of view. The target of the economic analysis is to understand the cost for the CO2 capture for an NGCC plant also in comparison with the coal fired power plant. For both the plants the cost found for the capture plant with piperazine has been compared with the cost for a monoethanolamine capture plant. Regarding the coal fired power plant a cost of electricity of 57,5 €/MWh for the case without capture, 77,0 €/MWh for the capture plant with piperazine and 83,4 €/MWh for the capture plant with monoethanolamine was calculated. The cost of CO2 avoided which has been found is 28,5 €/ton CO2 for the piperazine plant and of 38,7 €/ton CO2 for the monoethanolamine capture plant, indicating a saving of about 25%. For the NGCC plant, the cost of electricity is 55,0 €/MWh for the plant without capture, 67,8 €/MWh for the plant with capture using piperazine and 70,9 €/MWh for the plant with capture using monoethanolamine. The cost of CO2 avoided for the NGCC is 42,2 €/ton CO2 for the piperazine capture plant and 51,0 €/ton CO2 for the monoethanolamine capture plant. This confirm an advantage about the 20% using piperazine. Comparing the results for the USC plant with the results for the NGCC it can be seen that in terms of LCOE, the natural gas plant is more economic, while the CCA is considerably lower for the USC.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
Thesis F. Mariani.pdf
accessibile in internet per tutti
Descrizione: Testo della tesi
Dimensione
3.75 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
3.75 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in POLITesi sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
https://hdl.handle.net/10589/107899