International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 29 (2014) 50–60 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control j ourna l ho me page: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijggc Analysis of a precipitating solvent absorption process for reducing CO 2 emissions from black coal fired power generation Jai Kant Pandit a,∗ , Trent Harkin a,b , Clare Anderson a , Minh Ho b,c , Barry Hooper a,d a Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Parkville 3010, VIC, Australia b The Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies, Barton, Australia c School of Chemical Engineering, The University of New South Wales, UNSW, Sydney 2052, Australia d UNO Technology Pvt. Ltd., Melbourne, Victoria, Australia a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 6 November 2013 Received in revised form 21 March 2014 Accepted 22 July 2014 Keywords: Precipitating solvent UNO MK 3 CO2 capture Black coal Energy penalty Heat integration a b s t r a c t Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a technology that has the potential to provide deep cuts in CO 2 emissions from coal-fired power generation. This paper describes retrofitting the CO2CRC’s low cost “UNO MK 3” precipitating potassium carbonate (K 2 CO 3 ) process to a 335 MW (net) black coal-fired subcritical power station, typical of those in Australia. The use of heat integration to reduce the net energy penalty of retrofitting CO 2 capture is also studied and the modifications required to the steam cycle for these cases are outlined. Retrofitting the UNO MK 3 process has a smaller energy penalty compared with amine-based processes. Heat integration strategies can reduce this energy penalty by an additional 20%. To further reduce the impact of CO 2 capture on the net output of the power station, the option of partial capture of CO 2 is also described here. In the partial capture case, the CO 2 emissions intensity of the coal-fired power station is equivalent to that of a natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) power station. A detailed cost analysis of various cases of CO 2 capture with and without heat integration is also performed. The results suggest that compared to standard amine-based solvent technologies, the UNO MK 3 process can provide up to 50% cost savings in the cost of CO 2 avoided. The levelised cost of electricity also reduces by up to 35% using UNO MK 3 compared to commercial amine-based solvent technologies. © 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd. 1. Introduction Coal remains a significant source of energy regardless of the fact that coal-fired thermal power stations are the largest single point source of CO 2 emissions (IEA, 2012a). Over the last decade coal has met nearly half of the rise in global energy demand (IEA, 2012c). The International Energy Agency’s (IEA) World Energy Outlook (IEA, 2012c) predicts a continuous rise in coal demand in China and India leading to future global increases in coal- fired power generation despite the decline in coal use in OECD countries. In the Australian context, coal (black and brown) cur- rently provides the fuel for 75% of the nation’s power generation (Australian Government—Department of Resources Energy and Tourism, 2012). Given the vast quantities of Australian and indeed ∗ Corresponding author at: Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineer- ing, The University of Melbourne, Parkville 3010, VIC, Australia. Tel.: +61 419 411935; fax: +61 383444153. E-mail addresses: jpandit@unimelb.edu.au, jaikantp@hotmail.com (J.K. Pandit). global coal reserves, it is likely that coal will provide part of the long term solution to increasing energy demands. In order to meet the emission targets required to minimise the impact of global warming (IEA, 2012b), significant reductions in the CO 2 emissions from power generation will be required. Carbon cap- ture and storage (CCS) has the potential to enable these required reductions in CO 2 emissions. However, a significant challenge fac- ing the commercialisation and implementation of CCS is the high cost of capture and as such significant research effort is focused on reducing this cost. The high cost of capture is a result of: (i) Increased capital cost—additional CO 2 capture and processing equipment and steam cycle modifications (in the case of retrofitting). (ii) Reduced revenue/increased operating cost—revenue is lowered due to the reduction in electricity output as a result of the use of steam extracted from the steam turbine to provide the ther- mal regeneration of the solvent and the direct electricity use by the capture facility (both combined are referred to as the energy penalty). Operating costs will increase with additional operating, maintenance and chemicals expenses. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.07.009 1750-5836/© 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.