Carbon Capture process and economics

1. 5 Steps to Achieve More Cost-Effective
Amine-based Carbon Capture
Processes at Commercial Scale
Koteswara Putta, CO2 Capture Technologist, TCM
Gerardo Muñoz, Solutions Mkt Manager, AspenTech
Lee Nichols, VP, Content/Editor in Chief, HP

2. © 2023 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved. 2
Today’s Presenters
Gerardo Muñoz
Solutions Marketing
Manager, Sustainability
Aspen Technology, Inc.
Koteswara Rao Putta
CO2 Capture Technologist
Technology Centre
Mongstad (TCM)

3. © 2023 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved. 3
Agenda
1 2 3
Introduction
5 Steps for Cost-
Effective CO2 Capture
at Commercial Scale
Q&A

4. © 2023 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved. 4
Sustainability Pathways to Address the Dual Challenge
Emissions
Management
Plastics
Circularity
Hydrogen
Economy
Water
Conservation
Energy
Efficiency
Carbon Capture
& Storage
New
Materials
Waste
Reduction
CO2 as
Feedstock
Electrification
Renewable
Energy
Bio based
Feedstocks

5. © 2023 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved. 5
Sustainability Pathways to Address the Dual Challenge
Emissions
Management
Plastics
Circularity
Hydrogen
Economy
Water
Conservation
Energy
Efficiency
Carbon Capture
& Storage
New
Materials
Waste
Reduction
CO2 as
Feedstock
Electrification
Renewable
Energy
Bio based
Feedstocks

6. © 2023 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved. 6
6
End-to-end Carbon Capture, Utilization & Storage Digital Solutions
 Make informed decisions to execute
projects, minimizing costs & risks
 Advance innovation & assess technical
and economic feasibility
 Accelerate time to market & increase
collaboration between stakeholders
 Improve performance during
operations: CO2 capture, transport,
storage & utilization
 Demonstrate long-term CO2 storage
Key Takeaways
Minimize costs and risks across complete CCS/CCUS pathway

7. © 2023 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved. 7
7
AspenTech Solutions Support the Road to Commercialization
The Business Partner that supports Capital Projects Delivery
 CAPEX vs OPEX Costs
 Risk Management
 Modularization
 Site & Layout
 Optioneering
 Schedule & Planning
 Change Management
Agility
 Equipment Optimization
 Operational Efficiency
 Performance Guarantee
 Maintenance Strategy
 Feasibility
 Techno-Economic
Analysis
Technology
Evaluation
Design & Optimize Managing Execution
Design to
Operations

8. Koteswara Rao Putta
Development of CO2 capture process cost baseline for
555 MWe NGCC power plant using standard MEA Solution

9. Contents:
• Introduction
• Objectives
• Methodology/Steps
• Step 1 : Process Model development and Validation
• Step 2 : Plant simulation
• Step 3 : Sizing of equipment
• Step 4 : Cost estimation
• Step 5 : Economic analysis and results
• Conclusions

10. The world largest open access test centre for carbon capture technologies
 Generic Amine Plant  Emerging technologies  Chilled Ammonia Plant

11. Introduction
 Carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) is essential to achieve Net-zero
emissions targets
 Increased interest in Post-combustion CO2 capture projects
 UK Clusters
 Dutch
 Norway
 Other EU countries
 USA
 Need for Open-source CO2 capture technology project costs

12. Objectives
 Develop Technoeconomic Analysis (TEA) for CO2 Capture Technology with MEA Solvent
 Follow Systematic Methodology
 Use TCM experience and expertise
CASE STUDY
 NGCC Power Plant : 555 MWe
 Solvent: 30 wt% MEA (Open-source)
 4 vol% CO2
 1.475 Million tons/year (@90% capture)
NETL Baseline study (2010)

13. Methodology/Steps
Step 1 : Process Model development and Validation
Step 2 : Plant simulation
Step 3 : Sizing of equipment
Step 4 : Cost estimation
Step 5 : Economic analysis and results

14. Step 1 : Process Model development and Validation
Accurate model is necessary for any amine-based technology full scale plant design

15. Process Model development
 The TCM thermodynamic model is based on ENRTL-RK method
 Liquid phase - Electrolyte NRTL (ENRTL)
 User FORTRAN models
 Gas phase - Redlich-Kwong (RK)
 Rate Based Modelling approach
 Columns
 Absorber
 Stripper
 Water wash sections
Aspen Plus

16. Process Model Validation
 Model validation with TCM testing operational data
 Tests with reconciled mass and energy balance are selected - criteria:
 Overall plant mass balance is 100 +/- 2%
 CO2 mass balance 98 +/- 2%
 Stable operation at least 2 – 6 hours (steady state operation)
 Availability of liquid analysis results for CO2 and amine samples
 The Model replicates TCM Amine plant process configurations:
 Different absorption packing heights
 Water Wash system including coolers
 Rich Lean heat exchanger
 CHP and RFCC stripper and associated reboilers
 Lean Vapor Compressor (LVC) system
 Rich Lean bypass

17. Process Model Validation
Operation parameter units Range
Flue gas flowrate sm3/hr 34,000 – 68,000
Flue gas CO2
concentration
vol % 3.6 – 14
Flue gas temperature oC 28 – 45
MEA concentration wt % 28 – 40
Lean amine loading mol/mol 0.1 – 0.3
Lean amine temperature oC 35 – 50
CO2 capture rate % 70 – 99
Absorber packing height m 12,18, 24
Water wash sections # sections 1, 2
Stripper in operation CHP, RFCC
Rich amine bypass % 0 – 20
Operation data window
** Higher deviation in SRD is believed to be caused due to mal-distribution
and foaming in the stripper.

18. Step 2 : Plant simulation

19. Step 2 : Plant Simulation
 Plant details
 555 MWe NGCC Power Plant - 1.475 Million tons/year
 30 wt% MEA (Open-source) solvent
 4 vol% CO2
 90% Capture
 NETL baseline study case 14
Name Value Units
Flow rate 113,831
(3,230,636)
kgmol/hr (kg/hr)
T 143 °C
P 0.1 MPa, abs
Annual operation 8000 hours
Capture rate 90 %
Annual CO2 capture 1,475, 200 ton/year
Composition Mole fraction
Ar 0.0089
CO2 0.0404
H2O 0.0867
N2 0.7432
O2 0.1209
NOX 155 ton/year
 Validated Process Model is used for the plant
simulation

20. Step 2 : Plant Simulation
Flue gas Flue gas
conditioning
CW Chemicals
Excess water
CO2 Capture
Unit
Flue gas
Depleted Flue gas to stack
MEA Solvent CW
Solvent
Reclaiming
Steam
CO2 Product
Steam
Chemicals
Condensate
Condensate
Waste
Degraded Solvent
Reclaimed Solvent

21. Step 2 : Plant Simulation
DCC
DCCPUMP
B2
DCCHEX
BLWR
M UL T
B1
143
FGFROMGT
28
S33
52
S34
18
S35
52
S1
52
BLD
52
S3
18
S4
16
DCCSW1
26
DCCSW1R
41
FGTOABS
FGTOABS(OUT)
41
S2
Temperature (C)
Flue gas pre-conditioning implementation in Aspen Plus

22. Step 2 : Plant Simulation
CO2 capture process implementation in Aspen Plus
ABSORBER
LWW
LWW-PUMP
LWW-SPLT
UWW-SPLT
UWW-PUMP
UWW
BLD-MIX
RCH-PUMP
UWW-HX
LRHEX
RFLXPUMP
SEP
CONDSR
STRIPPER
LN-PUMP
LEAN-CL
LWW-HX
41
FGTOABS
FGTOABS(IN)
40
LEANSOL
52
FG2WWL
36
RICHSOL
35
FG-2-UWW
49
CW-O-LWW
21
CWIN-LWW
49
S4
49
S5
49
LWW-BLD
35
S4-1
35
S5-1
35
UWW-BLD
35
CW-O-UWW
21
CWIN-UWW
30
FG-OUT
47
BLEED
36
TO-RLHX
21
UWW-CW-R
16
CW-C01
26
CW-C02
121
HTLEAN
111
TO-STRIP
46
LN-HXOUT 20
S13
20
S3
20
S11
20
CO2PROD
99
VAP
16
CWI-CNDS
26
CWO-CNDS
121
STR-LEAN
40
S1
16
CWI-AMCL
26
S2
16
CWL-C01
21
LWW-CW-R
26
CWL-C02
Temperature(C)

23. Step 2 : Plant Simulation
Thermal reclaiming unit (TRU) process flow sheet and implementation in Aspen Plus
 Solvent degradation due to impurities in flue gas
 Solvent management is key for reliable operation
and plant life
 Corrosion, erosion & HSE
 Control OPEX

24. Step 3 : Sizing of Equipment

25.  Perform sizing of all essential equipment
 Columns
 Plate heat exchangers
 Reboiler
 Separators/vessels
 Filtration unit
 Storage tanks
 Cooling towers
 Chemical Dosing unit
 Reclaimer
Step 3 : Sizing of Equipment
Aspen Plus rate-based model
Exchanger Design and Rating
(EDR)/Vendors
Aspen Plus Sizing/API 12J
TCM design tool
TCM internal data
TCM excel calculation
Domain experts – Standard modules
Domain expertise and TCM calculation

26. E.g. Sizing of Plate Heat Exchangers
 Exchanger Design and Rating tool (EDR)
 EDR Offers multiple options to define the Plate
Exchanger.
 Among the results we can expect diagrams and API
Data Sheets with the size results.
 The sizes are used to define sizes in the economic
evaluation tool for more accurate estimation.

27. Step 4 : Cost estimation

29. Step 4 : Cost estimation
 The equipment list in Aspen Capital Cost Estimator (ACCE)
 Sizes for the equipment are calculated based on the heat and material
balance results form the simulator.
 Materials of construction will be key for a correct estimate
 Estimate Scope is expanded by ACCE’s Volumetric Model
 Approach that includes
 instrumentation,
 civil,
 insulation,
 piping based on internal P&IDs
 Additional items must be added to finalize TIC scope
 Piping Rack structures, interconnecting piping lines,
additional electrical cable runs and utility systems
TIC: Total Installed Cost

30.  ACCE requires input :
 Equipment sizing information
 Columns : TT length, Diameter, Packing heights
 Heat exchangers : area, No of plates
 Pumps : flow rate
 Storage tanks : Volume
 Design conditions (T & P)
 Materials of construction
Step 4 : Cost estimation

31. Insights/Observations
 Instrumentation estimated by ACCE is not sufficient
 Absorber column
 Lean Rich heat exchanger
 Regenerator
 ACCE over-estimates prices of PHEs
 Re-calibration using vendor quotes
 Under-estimates TT lengths for Columns
 Input from Vendors/previous projects required

32. Step 5 : Economic analysis and results

33. Step 5 : Economic analysis and results
• After finishing adding all equipment,
raw materials, plant utilities, bulks in
ACCE
– Evaluate the project to generate costing
report
– Capital cost summary with various details is
generated
Capital costs summary from ACCE report

34. Step 5 : Economic analysis and results
Name TCM NETL
Cost base 2019 Q1 2007 June
Capital costs excluding
flue-gas pre-conditioning
(direct), MUSD
172.8 140.0
Prorated costs to TCM
base year, MUSD
- 162.1
Difference (%) - 6.5
TCM Aspen and NETL baseline cost estimates comparison
Name TCM
COST BASIS YEAR 2019 Q1
CAPITAL COSTS, MUSD 326.6
OPEX, MUSD 47.0

35. Step 5 : Economic analysis and results
Total Direct Field Costs
64%
Indirect Field Costs
13%
Total Non-Field Costs
23%
CAPITAL COSTS
(2)
Equipme
nt
(3) Piping (4) Civil (5) Steel
(6)
Instrume
nts
(7)
Electrical
(8)
Insulation
(9) Paint
Labor Cost 1,620,028 17,631,33 2,294,330 203,799 1,918,917 3,251,611 2,287,224 185,445
Matl Cost 103,389,8 47,459,70 2,510,592 1,008,001 16,605,91 7,803,240 2,022,708 123,358
0
20,000,000
40,000,000
60,000,000
80,000,000
100,000,000
120,000,000
Direct Field Costs

36. Step 5 : Economic analysis and results
Summary of equipment material costs

37. Step 5 : Economic analysis and results
Solvent cost VS Annual makeup costs Solvent cost VS Cost of CO2 capture/ton
6.4 % increase
5 % increase

38. Conclusions
 An extensive study has been conducted by Technology Centre Mongstad together with
AspenTech to develop CO2 capture process cost baseline
 Systematic methodology/steps for reliable cost estimation of CO2 capture projects
 Technical expertise and experience is essential
 Estimates can provide reliable budgetary quotes for CO2 capture projects

39. Team/Contributors
Koteswara Rao Putta
Matthew Campbell
Muhammad Ismail Shah
Daniel Saldana

40. Thank you for your attention
Contact : Koteswara.putta@tcmda.com

41. © 2023 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved. 41
Supporting Successful Outcomes
Learn more about the work
that was presented today
Get started with AspenTech
Know more about AspenTech
solutions for carbon capture
Download Pre-built Examples: Carbon Capture model examples
Listen to a Tech Talk: Tackling Carbon Capture with Aspen Plus
Reach out to Customer Support: https://esupport.aspentech.com
Watch Solution Demo: Accelerate Feasibility & Delivery of Capital Projects
Download White Paper: Optimizing Carbon Capture, Utilization and
Storage to Meet Ambitious Sustainability Goals
Download Article: GHGT-16 conference publication

42. © 2023 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved. 42
Q&A
Contact today’s speakers:
– koteswara.putta@tcmda.com
– gerardo.munoz@aspentech.com
https://tcmda.com/ https://www.aspentech.com