4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Efficiency of an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plant including CO2 removal

期刊

ENERGY
卷 33, 期 6, 页码 874-881

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2007.07.013

关键词

CO2 removal; IGCC; physical absorption; pre-combustion; capture

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study is devoted to technical evaluation of a carbon dioxide removal in an existing Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plant. This IGCC case is based on an oxygen blown entrained flow gasifier operating at 27 bar, the removal of acid gas (H2S) is performed with MDEA unit, the efficiency of this IGCC is 43% based on the low heating value (LHV) of coal. A carbon dioxide separation unit conveniently integrated in a pre-combustion separation process is chosen, in order to take advantage of the high pressure of the gas. The methanol process for carbon dioxide removal is integrated downstream the existing desulfuration unit, and after a CO shift conversion unit. In this study, the integration of the CO2 capture process to the IGCC is simulated as realistically as possible. The design parameters of both the gas turbine (the turbine inlet temperature, compressor pressure ratio, reduced flow rate) and the steam turbine (Stodola parameter) are taken into account. Maintenance of low NO, production in the combustion chamber is also considered. The production of NOx is supposed to be influenced by the low heating value of the gas which is maintained as low as for case of the synthesis gas without CO2 capture. Thus the choice is made to feed the gas turbine of the combined cycle with a diluted synthesis gas, having similar low heating value than the one produced without the CO2 capture. Plant performances for different conversion and capture rates are compared. A final optimized integration is given for 92 mol% CO conversion rate and 95 mol% CO2 absorption rates, a comparison with former studies is proposed. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据