two-stage membrane vs CO 2 removal using amine solvent is about 40 to 45%, which is very significant. Based on the above key point, CO 2 liquefaction with a two-stage membrane is superior to conventional CO 2 removal, as described below: • Eliminate high amine circulation rate • Significant reduction in consumption steam or fuel to provide heating media • Reduce the amount of equipment, especially large equipment • Eliminate large absorber and regeneration columns • Reduce plot space by providing a compact and modular unit • At least 40-45% saving in capital cost • Reduce labour and time during construction
significantly. Other disadvantages are using a stripping column that requires a very high reboiler duty with high steam consumption or using fired reheaters. For either type of reboiler, significant CO 2 will be produced for making steam using steam generators or by burning fuel. We should not select a scheme that causes CO 2 production when the goal is CO 2 capture. It certainly would not meet the purpose of reducing CO 2 emissions. Therefore, the combination of CO 2 liquefaction and two-stage membrane is a novel approach for CO 2 removal. For a project where 900 MMSCFD of the feed stream enters the membrane system, about 200 MMSCFD of the gas was processed inCO 2 liquefaction. The capital cost saving from the combination of CO 2 liquefaction and
Sachin Joshi sachin.joshi@mtrinc.com
Mahin Rameshni Mahin.rameshni@rate-engr.com Stephen Santo Stephen.santo@rate-engr.com
Kaaeid Lokhandwala Kaaeid.Lokhandwala@mtrinc.com
Priyanka Tiwari Priyanka.Tiwari@mtrinc.com
Daaniya Rahman Daaniya.Rahman@mtrinc.com
www.decarbonisationtechnology.com
63
Powered by FlippingBook