ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
My Activity
CONTENT TYPES

Figure 1Loading Img
RETURN TO ISSUEPREVProcess Systems Engi...Process Systems EngineeringNEXT

Lessons Learned: Comparing Two Detailed Capital Cost Estimates for Carbon Capture by Amine Scrubbing

Cite this: Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2023, 62, 10, 4433–4443
Publication Date (Web):March 2, 2023
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.2c04311
Copyright © 2023 American Chemical Society

    Article Views

    762

    Altmetric

    -

    Citations

    -
    LEARN ABOUT THESE METRICS
    Other access options

    Abstract

    Abstract Image

    Two front-end engineering designs (FEED) for commercial-scale carbon capture from natural gas combined-cycle (NGCC) power plants have been published in full, including detailed capital cost estimates. The two studies are the Piperazine with the Advanced Stripper (PZAS) FEED at Mustang Station in Denver City, TX, U.S.A. (“Mustang FEED”) and the FEED at Panda Sherman Power Station in Sherman, TX, U.S.A. (“Panda FEED”). The design capacities are 197 tonne/h of CO2 captured in the Mustang FEED and 129 tonne/h in the Panda FEED. This work compares both designs with the aim of gaining insight about the cost of carbon capture processes. Direct field costs for each process are adjusted to account for differences in the estimating methodology in each FEED. This adjustment results in estimated direct field costs of $574MM for Mustang and $411MM for Panda. The breakdowns of capital costs for each process area are compared, to highlight differences in costs due to the respective processes or particular requirements of each host power plant. A key finding is that site-specific factors not typically represented in less rigorous cost estimates are observed to have a significant impact on cost. To compare both estimates on a similar design basis, the Mustang unit was scaled to the Panda FEED design capacity, resulting in direct field costs of $489MM for Mustang and $411MM for Panda. Additionally, the cost estimates of the CO2 absorbers are analyzed in greater detail to directly compare three equivalent designs that include rectangular and cylindrical absorber columns. Adjusting the absorber estimates to the same scope and scaling to the same size results in estimated costs of $19.7MM, $18.2MM, and $14.9MM, with the rectangular absorber being approximately 10% to 30% more expensive than the cylindrical designs.

    Read this article

    To access this article, please review the available access options below.

    Get instant access

    Purchase Access

    Read this article for 48 hours. Check out below using your ACS ID or as a guest.

    Recommended

    Access through Your Institution

    You may have access to this article through your institution.

    Your institution does not have access to this content. You can change your affiliated institution below.

    Cited By

    This article has not yet been cited by other publications.

    Pair your accounts.

    Export articles to Mendeley

    Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

    Pair your accounts.

    Export articles to Mendeley

    Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

    You’ve supercharged your research process with ACS and Mendeley!

    STEP 1:
    Click to create an ACS ID

    Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

    Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

    Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

    MENDELEY PAIRING EXPIRED
    Your Mendeley pairing has expired. Please reconnect