Simulation study demonstrates enhanced carbon capture efficiency and reduced energy demand using intensified CESAR 1 configurations, indicating improved economic viability for natural gas plants.
CO 2 capture is a critical technology for mitigating climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions from industrial and power generation sources. This study presents a comprehensive techno-economic assessment of the CO 2 absorption–desorption process using the CESAR 1 solvent (27 wt% AMP and 13 wt% PZ). The analysis was conducted in Aspen Plus v14 using a standard process configuration (Case A) as the base scenario. Several process configurations were investigated to improve performance, including the addition of an intercooling section in the absorber column (Case B), splitting the lean solvent stream (Case C), and splitting the rich solvent stream (Case D). The impact of these configurations on carbon capture level (CCL), energy requirement, and economic performance was systematically evaluated. Results show that a simple solvent switch (Case A) performs poorly (6.22 MJ/kg CO 2 ) due to column height limits under dilute gas conditions; however, advanced configurations fully unlock the energy-saving benefits of the mixed-amine system. Case B achieved the highest CO 2 removal efficiency of 98.48 % with a reboiler duty of 5.37 MJ/kg CO 2 . Case C demonstrated the lowest energy requirement with a reboiler duty of 4.94 MJ/kg CO 2 and a capture efficiency of 95.20 %. Case D further improved system performance with a removal efficiency of 97.22 % and a reboiler duty of 5.38 MJ/kg CO 2 . Economic and sensitivity analyses estimated the cost of CO 2 capture, including compression to 30 bar, to range between 77.33 and 85.07 USD/tCO 2 . Overall, the results demonstrate process intercooling and solvent splitting, can significantly improve the efficiency and economic viability of CO 2 capture in NGCC systems.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ansarpour et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: