Techno-Economic Assessment of Different Heat Exchangers for CO 2 Capture

Solomon Aforkoghene Aromada, Nils Henrik Eldrup, Fredrik Normann and Lars Erik Øi
Additional contact information
Solomon Aforkoghene Aromada: Department of Process, Energy and Environmental Technology, University of South-Eastern Norway, Kjølnes Ring 56, 3918 Porsgrunn, Norway
Nils Henrik Eldrup: Department of Process, Energy and Environmental Technology, University of South-Eastern Norway, Kjølnes Ring 56, 3918 Porsgrunn, Norway
Fredrik Normann: Department of Energy and Environment, Chalmers University of Technology, SE-412 96 Göteborg, Sweden
Lars Erik Øi: Department of Process, Energy and Environmental Technology, University of South-Eastern Norway, Kjølnes Ring 56, 3918 Porsgrunn, Norway

Energies, 2020, vol. 13, issue 23, 1-27

Abstract: We examined the cost implications of selecting six different types of heat exchangers as the lean/rich heat exchanger in an amine-based CO 2 capture process. The difference in total capital cost between different capture plant scenarios due to the different costs of the heat exchangers used as the lean/rich heat exchanger, in each case, is in millions of Euros. The gasketed-plate heat exchanger (G-PHE) saves significant space, and it saves considerable costs. Selecting the G-PHE instead of the shell and tube heat exchangers (STHXs) will save €33 million–€39 million in total capital cost (CAPEX), depending on the type of STHX. About €43 million and €2 million in total installed costs (CAPEX) can be saved if the G-PHE is selected instead of the finned double-pipe heat exchanger (FDP-HX) or welded-plate heat exchanger, respectively. The savings in total annual cost is also in millions of Euros/year. Capture costs of €5/tCO 2 –€6/tCO 2 can be saved by replacing conventional STHXs with the G-PHE, and over €6/tCO 2 in the case of the FDP-HX. This is significant, and it indicates the importance of clearly stating the exact type and not just the broad classification of heat exchanger used as lean/rich heat exchanger. This is required for cost estimates to be as accurate as possible and allow for appropriate comparisons with other studies. Therefore, the gasketed-plate heat exchanger is recommended to save substantial costs. The CO 2 capture costs of all scenarios are most sensitive to the steam cost. The plate and frame heat exchangers (PHEs) scenario’s capture cost can decline from about €77/tCO 2 to €59/tCO 2 or rise to €95/tCO 2 .

Keywords: CO 2; carbon capture; capture cost; heat exchanger; simulation; sensitivity; Aspen HYSYS; energy cost (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q Q0 Q4 Q40 Q41 Q42 Q43 Q47 Q48 Q49 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/23/6315/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/23/6315/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jeners:v:13:y:2020:i:23:p:6315-:d:453735

Access Statistics for this article

Energies is currently edited by Ms. Agatha Cao

More articles in Energies from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().