Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “carbon capture column”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

73 records · Page 5

Compact Absorber Technology Leads to Significant Reduction in the Cost of Point Source CO 2 Capture

The size of columns in traditional absorption-based processes for CO 2 capture contributes significantly to the overall capital cost. A demonstrated method to reduce the cost of point source CO 2 capture, focusing on reducing the absorber height by increasing the liquid-to-gas reaction contact area and decreasing the CO 2 diffusion resistance without increasing gas-side pressure drop is presented along with techno-economic analysis results. Bench-scale tests on the unique Compact Absorber showed overall CO 2 mass transfer enhancement of varying degrees compared to a traditional packed column for similar process conditions, demonstrating that a 60+% reduction in size of a typical post-combustion absorber with a packing height of 70-100 ft and total height of 150-180 ft can be achieved. The techno-economic analysis showed significant cost reductions when the Compact Absorber is combined with other transformative aspects of the University of Kentucky Institute for Decarbonization and Energy Advancement point source CO 2 capture process compared to the U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory pertinent reference case for pulverized coal plants with CO 2 capture. Here, a levelized cost of electricity excluding CO 2 transportation and storage of $\$95.6$/MWh was estimated, which is a 9% reduction, with a total capital cost contribution of $45/MWh, which is a 12% reduction. Additionally, a breakeven CO 2 sales price also referred to as the cost of CO 2 capture, of $36.70/tonne was estimated when the UK hindered primary amine solvent is used, which is a 20% reduction compared to the reference case.

CO2 capture↗