systematic design of membrane systems for co2 capture
DESCRIPTION
Gas separation membranes are considered among one of the promising technologies for post-combustion capture and has been studied extensively. Membrane processes are conceptually very simple. However, with existing membrane properties (selectivity and permeability) and other limitations, a single stage membrane process is not feasible to ensure CO2 purity of 95 in the case of post-combustion capture. Traditionally, membrane design is done using sensitivity analysis on a single separation stage or a layout found by trial and error, since it is difficult to simultaneously find a good combination of parameters and layout that achieve the desired target. This presentation will detail the use of systematic methods of process synthesis in the development of a novel graphical approach for the design of multi-stage membrane systems. Incorporating the inherent trade-off between installed area and energy consumption in membrane systems, the methodology utilizes the cost of CO2 removal in the design process. The visual method provides the user with insight in the form of attainable regions to guide the design process. The method allows comparison and evaluation of different membranes in a clear and consistent manner and helps provide feedback to membrane developers.TRANSCRIPT
Synthesis and optimization ofmembrane systems for CO2 captureapplications
Karl Lindqvist & Rahul AnantharamanSINTEF Energy Research
PRES 2014Prague, August 24, 2014
2
Outline
Background & Motivation
Membrane system design
Attainable region approach to membrane system design
Summary
3
Integrated Assessment in BIGCCS
I Systematic benchmarking of CO2 capture processes usingconsistent boundary conditions to
– Identify potential of capture processes– Provide directions for future research such as material development
I Muti-scale modeling of processes for integrated assessment
3
Integrated Assessment in BIGCCS
I Systematic benchmarking of CO2 capture processes usingconsistent boundary conditions to
– Identify potential of capture processes– Provide directions for future research such as material development
I Muti-scale modeling of processes for integrated assessment
3
Integrated Assessment in BIGCCS
I Systematic benchmarking of CO2 capture processes usingconsistent boundary conditions to
– Identify potential of capture processes– Provide directions for future research such as material development
I Muti-scale modeling of processes for integrated assessment
3
Integrated Assessment in BIGCCS
I Systematic benchmarking of CO2 capture processes usingconsistent boundary conditions to
– Identify potential of capture processes– Provide directions for future research such as material development
I Muti-scale modeling of processes for integrated assessment
4
Single Stage Membrane
I Each membrane stage involves trade-off between product purityand capture rate.
– Played out as a trade-off between driving force (compression work)and membrane area.
I Significant work in literature on “sensitivity” analysis to designsingle stage systems.
4
Single Stage Membrane
I Each membrane stage involves trade-off between product purityand capture rate.
– Played out as a trade-off between driving force (compression work)and membrane area.
I Significant work in literature on “sensitivity” analysis to designsingle stage systems.
4
Single Stage Membrane
I Each membrane stage involves trade-off between product purityand capture rate.
– Played out as a trade-off between driving force (compression work)and membrane area.
I Significant work in literature on “sensitivity” analysis to designsingle stage systems.
5
Motivation
I Multi-stage systems required for post-combustion capture to95% product purity.
I For multi-stage process the design complexity increases further.I Identifying the “best” configuration for a given membrane is not
straight-forward.
5
Motivation
I Multi-stage systems required for post-combustion capture to95% product purity.
I For multi-stage process the design complexity increases further.I Identifying the “best” configuration for a given membrane is not
straight-forward.
5
Motivation
I Multi-stage systems required for post-combustion capture to95% product purity.
I For multi-stage process the design complexity increases further.I Identifying the “best” configuration for a given membrane is not
straight-forward.
6
Parametric variation based design
7
Optimization based design
8
Motivation for new approach
Would it be possible to develop a visual design methodology:I visually compare membranes?I indicates the potential of a membrane for different applications?I multiple stages can be designed using a single figure?I capture cost is incorporated to accurately reflect the area-energy
trade-off?
8
Motivation for new approach
Would it be possible to develop a visual design methodology:I visually compare membranes?I indicates the potential of a membrane for different applications?I multiple stages can be designed using a single figure?I capture cost is incorporated to accurately reflect the area-energy
trade-off?
8
Motivation for new approach
Would it be possible to develop a visual design methodology:I visually compare membranes?I indicates the potential of a membrane for different applications?I multiple stages can be designed using a single figure?I capture cost is incorporated to accurately reflect the area-energy
trade-off?
8
Motivation for new approach
Would it be possible to develop a visual design methodology:I visually compare membranes?I indicates the potential of a membrane for different applications?I multiple stages can be designed using a single figure?I capture cost is incorporated to accurately reflect the area-energy
trade-off?
9
Attainable region approach
9
Attainable region approach
9
Attainable region approach
9
Attainable region approach
10
Attainable region approach
I Visual representation to identify potential of a membraneI Capture ratio is fixed in the figureI One figure for a membrane (and capture ratio)I Suitable for all feed compositions
10
Attainable region approach
I Visual representation to identify potential of a membraneI Capture ratio is fixed in the figureI One figure for a membrane (and capture ratio)I Suitable for all feed compositions
10
Attainable region approach
I Visual representation to identify potential of a membraneI Capture ratio is fixed in the figureI One figure for a membrane (and capture ratio)I Suitable for all feed compositions
10
Attainable region approach
I Visual representation to identify potential of a membraneI Capture ratio is fixed in the figureI One figure for a membrane (and capture ratio)I Suitable for all feed compositions
11
Attainable region - Effect of selectivity
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Perm
eate
pur
ity
Feed composition
α = 50 PCO2 = 10.4 m3/(m2.h.bar) CCRi = 0.9
11
Attainable region - Effect of selectivity
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Perm
eate
pur
ity
Feed composition
α = 200 PCO2 = 0.2 m3/(m2.h.bar) CCRi = 0.9
11
Attainable region - Effect of selectivity
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Perm
eate
pur
ity
Feed composition
α = 50/200 PCO2 = 10.4/0.2 m3/(m2.h.bar) CCRi = 0.9
12
Attainable region - Effect of permeance
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Perm
eate
pur
ity
Feed composition
α = 200 PCO2 = 0.2 m3/(m2.h.bar) CCRi = 0.9
12
Attainable region - Effect of permeance
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Perm
eate
/ret
enta
te p
urity
Feed composition
α = 200 PCO2 = 1 m3/(m2.h.bar) CCRi = 0.9
13
Attainable region - Effect of capture rate
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Perm
eate
/ret
enta
te p
urity
Feed composition
α = 50 PCO2 = 5.94 m3/(m2.h.bar) CCRi = 0.6
13
Attainable region - Effect of capture rate
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Perm
eate
/ret
enta
te p
urity
Feed composition
α = 50 PCO2 = 5.94 m3/(m2.h.bar) CCRi = 0.9
13
Attainable region - Effect of capture rate
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Perm
eate
/ret
enta
te p
urity
Feed composition
α = 50 PCO2 = 5.94 m3/(m2.h.bar) CCRi = 0.95
13
Attainable region - Effect of capture rate
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Perm
eate
/ret
enta
te p
urity
Feed composition
α = 50 PCO2 = 5.94 m3/(m2.h.bar) CCRi = 0.6/0.95
14
Application
I Post-combustion capture - 10% CO2, 90% N2
I Membrane 1 - CO2 permeance: 10.4 m3(STP)/(m2.h.bar),Selectivity: 50
I Membrane 2 - CO2 permeance: 0.2 m3(STP)/(m2.h.bar),Selectivity: 200
I Cost data taken from Merkel et al. (2010)
15
Application - Attainable region
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Perm
eate
/Ret
enta
te p
urity
Feed composition
64
32
16
8
4
2
CCR = 90%
15
Application - Attainable region
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Perm
eate
/Ret
enta
te p
urity
Feed composition
64
32
16
8
4
2
CO2 product purity
CCR = 90%
15
Application - Attainable region
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Perm
eate
/Ret
enta
te p
urity
Feed composition
64
64
32
32
16
8
4
2
16 8
α = 200
α = 50
α = 50
α = 200
CO2 product purity
CCR = 90%
16
Min Cost Design - Membrane 1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Perm
eate
/Ret
enta
te p
urity
Feed composition
64
64
32
32
16
8
4
2
16 8
α = 200
α = 50
α = 50
α = 200
CO2 product purity
CCR = 90%
16
Min Cost Design - Membrane 1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Perm
eate
/Ret
enta
te p
urity
Feed composition
64
64
32
32
16
8
4
2
16 8
α = 200
α = 50
α = 50
α = 200
CO2 product purity
CCR = 90%
16
Min Cost Design - Membrane 1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Perm
eate
/Ret
enta
te p
urity
Feed composition
64
64
32
32
16
8
4
2
16 8
α = 200
α = 50
α = 50
α = 200
CO2 product purity
CCR = 90%
Stage 1
16
Min Cost Design - Membrane 1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Perm
eate
/Ret
enta
te p
urity
Feed composition
64
64
32
32
16
8
4
2
16 8
α = 200
α = 50
α = 50
α = 200
CO2 product purity
CCR = 90%
Stage 1
16
Min Cost Design - Membrane 1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Perm
eate
/Ret
enta
te p
urity
Feed composition
64
64
32
32
16
8
4
2
16 8
α = 200
α = 50
α = 50
α = 200
CO2 product purity
CCR = 90%
Stage 1
Stage 2
16
Min Cost Design - Membrane 1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Perm
eate
/Ret
enta
te p
urity
Feed composition
64
64
32
32
16
8
4
2
16 8
α = 200
α = 50
α = 50
α = 200
CO2 product purity
CCR = 90%
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
17
Min Cost Design - Membrane 2
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Perm
eate
/Ret
enta
te p
urity
Feed composition
64
64
32
32
16
8
4
2
16 8
α = 200
α = 50
α = 50
α = 200
CO2 product purity
CCR = 90%
Stage 1
17
Min Cost Design - Membrane 2
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Perm
eate
/Ret
enta
te p
urity
Feed composition
64
64
32
32
16
8
4
2
16 8
α = 200 α = 50
α = 50
α = 200
CO2 product purity
CCR = 90%
Stage 1
Stage 2
18
Min Cost Design - Membranes 1 & 2
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Perm
eate
/Ret
enta
te p
urity
Feed composition
64
64
32
32
16
8
4
2
16 8
α = 200
α = 50
α = 50
α = 200
CO2 product purity
CCR = 90%
Stage 1
Stage 2
18
Min Cost Design - Membranes 1 & 2
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Perm
eate
/Ret
enta
te p
urity
Feed composition
64
64
32
32
16
8
4
2
16 8
α = 200 α = 50
α = 50
α = 200
CO2 product purity
CCR = 90%
Stage 1
Stage 2
19
Attainable Region - 2 stage design
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Perm
eate
/Ret
enta
te p
urity
Feed composition
64
64
32
32
16
8
4
2
16 8
α = 200
α = 50
α = 50
α = 200
CO2 product purity
CCR = 90%
Stage 1
Stage 2
19
Attainable Region - 2 stage design
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Perm
eate
/Ret
enta
te p
urity
Feed composition
64
64
32
32
16
8
4
2
16 8
α = 200
α = 50
α = 50
α = 200
CO2 product purity
CCR = 90%
Stage 1
Stage 2
19
Attainable Region - 2 stage design
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Perm
eate
/Ret
enta
te p
urity
Feed composition
64
64
32
32
16
8
4
2
16 8
α = 200
α = 50
α = 50
α = 200
CO2 product purity
CCR = 90%
Stage 2
Stage 1
19
Attainable Region - 2 stage design
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Perm
eate
/Ret
enta
te p
urity
Feed composition
64
64
32
32
16
8
4
2
16 8
α = 200
α = 50
α = 50
α = 200
CO2 product purity
CCR = 90%
Stage 1
Stage 2
20
Summary
I A novel and elegant method for consistent design of membranesystems has been developed.
I The visual method allows for identifying the potential ofmembranes.
I A simple stage-wise method is used to design the process.I CO2 capture cost is incorporated in the design process.
20
Summary
I A novel and elegant method for consistent design of membranesystems has been developed.
I The visual method allows for identifying the potential ofmembranes.
I A simple stage-wise method is used to design the process.I CO2 capture cost is incorporated in the design process.
20
Summary
I A novel and elegant method for consistent design of membranesystems has been developed.
I The visual method allows for identifying the potential ofmembranes.
I A simple stage-wise method is used to design the process.I CO2 capture cost is incorporated in the design process.
20
Summary
I A novel and elegant method for consistent design of membranesystems has been developed.
I The visual method allows for identifying the potential ofmembranes.
I A simple stage-wise method is used to design the process.I CO2 capture cost is incorporated in the design process.