Kombine çevrim santrali için karbon yakalama ünitesinin tasarımı ve performans değerlendirmesi

Abstract

Karbondioksit yakalama sistemlerinin doğması, İklim Değişikliğini azaltmanın etkili bir yolu olarak küresel sera gazı emisyonları konusunda artan endişelerden kaynaklanmaktadır. Bu çalışma, Irak, Bağdat'taki Elektrik Santrali'nden (Bismayah) karbondioksitin (CO2) uzaklaştırılmasını test etmektedir. Santral, altı aşamadan oluşmaktadır; her aşama 750 MW, toplam 4500 MW güç üretimi üretmektedir ve doğal gaz kombine çevrim sistemiyle çalışmaktadır. Karbon yakalamanın santralin verimliliği ve güç üretimi üzerindeki etkisi de incelenmektedir. Aminlerin emilim ve adsorpsiyon ünitelerine dayanan yanma sonrası bu yöntem, karbon yakalamadaki yüksek verimliliği nedeniyle en yaygın kullanılan yöntemlerden biri olarak kabul edilmektedir. Çalışma Thermo-flow ve Aspen HYSYS 14 yazılımı® kullanılarak yürütülmüştür. Çalışma, santralden okyanusa salınan karbondioksit miktarının her bir aşama için ortalama 2,26 (Mt CO2/yıl) değerine sahip olduğu sonucuna varmıştır. Toplam salınan CO2 miktarı yaklaşık 14 Mt CO2/yıl olarak tahmin edilebilir. Ancak, %90 yakalama verimliliğine sahip bir karbon yakalama ünitesinin eklenmesi, kombine çevrimin elektrik üretim verimliliğini %14 ve net güç azalmasını %13,6 oranında azaltacaktır. Ancak, uygulanan prosedürün faydası, birim başına yıllık karbondioksit konsantrasyonunun 0,226'ya (Mt CO2) düşecek olmasıdır. Karbon yakalama ile ve olmadan üretilen birim elektrik başına ilgili özgül emisyonlar sırasıyla ortalama 40,6 g CO2/kWh ve 376,85 g CO2/kWh'dir.

Keywords

• Thermoflow
• CO2 giderimi
• Monoetanolamin
• Absorpsiyon
• Ayırıcı.

Design and performance evaluation of a carbon capture unit for a combined cycle power plant

Abstract

The study of carbon dioxide capture systems arises from increasing concerns about global greenhouse gas emissions as an effective way to mitigate Climate Change. This study analyses the removal of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the Power Plant (Bismayah) in Baghdad, Iraq. It comprises six stages; each stage produces 750 MW, a total power generation of 4500 MW, and operates on a natural gas combined cycle system. The effect of carbon capture on the efficiency and power generation of the plant is also being studied. The post-combustion method, which depends on the absorption and adsorption units of amines, is considered one of the most widely used methods due to its high efficiency in carbon capture. The study was conducted using the Thermo-flow and Aspen HYSYS 14 software®. The study concluded that the amount of carbon dioxide released to the ocean from the plant has an average value of 2.26 (Mt CO2/yr) from each stage. The total released CO2 quantity can be estimated as approximately 14 Mt CO2/yr. However, adding a carbon capture unit with a capture efficiency of 90 % will reduce the electricity production efficiency of the combined cycle by 14% and the net power decrease by 13.6%. However, the benefit of the applied procedure is that annual carbon dioxide concentration per unit will decrease to 0.226 (Mt CO2). The respective specific emissions per produced electricity with and without carbon capture are 40.6 g CO2 / kWh and 376.85 g CO2/kWh.

Keywords

• Thermoflow®
• CO2 removal
• Monoethanolamine
• Absorption
• Separator.

References

1. Adu, E., Zhang, Y. D., Liu, D., & Tontiwachwuthikul, P. (2020). Parametric process design and economic analysis of post-combustion CO2 capture and compression for coal- And natural gas-fired power plants. Energies, 13(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/en13102519
2. Aforkoghene Aromada, S., & Øi, L. (2015). Simulation of improved absorption configurations for CO2 capture. Proceedings of the 56th Conference on Simulation and Modelling (SIMS 56), October, 7-9, 2015, Linköping University, Sweden, 119, 21–29.https://doi.org/10.3384/ecp1511921
3. Qamar, R. A., Mushtaq, A., Ullah, A., & Ali, Z. U. (2020). Aspen HYSYS simulation of CO2 capture for the best Amine solvent. Journal of Advanced Research in Fluid Mechanics and Thermal Sciences, 68(2), 124-144. https://doi.org/10.37934/arfmts.68.2.124144
4. Ahmed, S. F., Mofijur, M., Tarannum, K., Chowdhury, A. T., Rafa, N., Nuzhat, S., Kumar, P. S., Vo, D. V. N., Lichtfouse, E., & Mahlia, T. M. I. (2021). Biogas upgrading, economy and utilization: a review. In Environmental Chemistry Letters (Vol. 19, Issue 6, pp. 4137–4164). Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-021-01292-x
5. Akerboom, S., Waldmann, S., Mukherjee, A., Agaton, C., Sanders, M., & Kramer, G. J. (2021). Different This Time? The Prospects of CCS in the Netherlands in the 2020s. Frontiers in Energy Research, 9(May), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2021.644796
6. Al Baroudi, H., Awoyomi, A., Patchigolla, K., Jonnalagadda, K., & Anthony, E. J. (2021). A review of large-scale CO2 shipping and marine emissions management for carbon capture, utilisation and storage. Applied Energy, 287(October 2020), 116510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.116510
7. Ali, M., Ahmed, S., & Rauf, S. (2024). Aspen HYSYS simulation of CO2 removal by amine absorption from a gas- based power plant. Journal of Cleaner Production, 421, 138573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.138573
8. Al-Mamoori, A., Krishnamurthy, A., & Yang, A. (2023). Impact of solvent flow and MEA concentration on energy demand... Frontiers in Energy Research, 11, 1230743.

9. Al-Mamoori, A., Smith, K., & Kapila, S. (2023). Process simulation and cost estimation of CO2 capture configurations in Aspen HYSYS. Frontiers in Energy Research, 11, 101234.
10. Amiri, E. A. (2022). Process simulation and cost optimization of gas-based power plant integrated with amine-based CO2 capture )Master's thesis, Energy and Environmental Technology(. University of South-Eastern Norway
11. Anselmi, H., Mirgaux, O., Bounaceur, R., & Patisson, F. (2019). Simulation of Post‐Combustion CO 2 Capture, a Comparison among Absorption, Adsorption and Membranes. Chemical Engineering & Technology, 42(4), 797–804. https://doi.org/10.1002/ceat.201800667
12. Baghdad Bismayah (Bismaya) Combined Cycle Power Plant - Power Technology. (n.d.). Retrieved July 28, 2025, from https://www.power-technology.com/projects/baghdad- bismayah-bismaya-combined-cycle-power- plant/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
13. Becattini, V., Gabrielli, P., Antonini, C., Campos, J., Acquilino, A., Sansavini, G., & Mazzotti, M. (2022). Carbon dioxide capture, transport and storage supply chains: Optimal economic and environmental performance of infrastructure rollout. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 117(April), 103635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2022.103635
14. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. (2025). Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage Technologies and Costs in the U.S. Context. Harvard Kennedy School. https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/carbon-capture- utilization-and-storage-technologies-and-costs-us-context
15. Besmaya 1,500 MW Combined Cycle Power Plant | ENKA İnşaat ve Sanayi A.Ş. (n.d.). Retrieved July 28, 2025, from https://www.enka.com/portfolio-item/besmaya-1500-mw- combined-cycle-power plant/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
16. Bismaya.(2022).https://www.power technology.com /projects/baghdad-bismayah-bismaya-combined-cycle- power-plant/?cf-view
17. Black, S., Liu, A. A., Parry, I. W. H., & Vernon-Lin, N. (2023). IMF fossil fuel subsidies data: 2023 update (IMF Working Paper No. 2023/169). International Monetary Fund. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2023/08 /22/IMF-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Data-2023-Update-537281
18. Black, M. S., Liu, A. A., Parry, I. W., & Vernon, N. (2023). IMF fossil fuel subsidies data: 2023 update. International Monetary Fund.
19. Cao, M., Zhao, L., Xu, D., Ciora, R., Liu, P. K. T., Manousiouthakis, V. I., & Tsotsis, T. T. (2020). A carbon molecular sieve membrane- based reactive separation process for pre-combustion CO2 capture. Journal of Membrane Science, 605(March), 118028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2020.118028
20. Chao, C., Deng, Y., Dewil, R., Baeyens, J., & Fan, X. (2021). Post-combustion carbon capture. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110490
21. Chu, F., Yang, L., Du, X., & Yang, Y. (2016). CO2 capture using MEA (monoethanolamine) aqueous solution in coal-fired power plants: Modeling and optimization of the absorbing columns. Energy, 109, 495–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.04.123
22. de Riva, J., Suarez-Reyes, J., Moreno, D., Díaz, I., Ferro, V., & Palomar, J. (2017). Ionic liquids for post-combustion CO 2 capture by physical absorption: Thermodynamic, kinetic and process analysis. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 61, 61–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2017.03.019
23. Dehghanizadeh, M. (2023). Simulation and cost estimation of CO2 capture using Aspen HYSYS or Aspen Plus (Master’s thesis). University of South-Eastern Norway
24. DOE, & NETL. (2015). Carbon Dioxide Capture Handbook. DOE/NETL Carbon Capture Program, August, 115. www.netl.doe.gov
25. Elmas, E. T. (2024). Waste Heat Recovery Boilers ( WHRBs ) and Heat Recovery Steam Generators ( HRSGs ) used for Co-generation and Combined Cycle Power Plants. 1–5. https://doi.org/10.46718/JBGSR.2024.12.000284
26. Figueroa, J. D., Fout, T., Plasynski, S., McIlvried, H., & Srivastava, R. D. (2008). Advances in CO2 capture technology-The U.S. Department of Energy’s Carbon Sequestration Program. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1750-5836(07)00094-1
27. Flo, N. E., Kvamsdal, H. M., & Hillestad, M. (2016). Dynamic simulation of post-combustion CO2 capture for flexible operation of the Brindisi pilot plant. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 48, 204–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.11.006
28. Gaspar, J., Gladis, A., Jørgensen, J. B., Thomsen, K., von Solms, N., & Fosbol, P. L. (2016). Dynamic Operation and Simulation of Post- Combustion CO2 Capture. Energy Procedia, 86, 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2016.01.021
29. Guidehouse. (2023, September). Best practices of CCUS infrastructure in Europe. Guidehouse Netherlands B.V. https://www.guidehouse.com
30. Hack, J., Maeda, N., & Meier, D. M. (2022). Review on CO2Capture Using Amine-Functionalized Materials. ACS Omega, 7(44), 39520–39530. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.2c03385
31. Hayat, M. A. (2024). Strategic priorities and cost considerations for CCS integration in thermal power plants. Energy Economics, 125, 107687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2024.107687
32. Ibrahim, T. K., & Rahman, M. M. (2012). Parametric simulation of triple-pressure reheat combined cycle: A case study. Advanced Science Letters, 13(September), 263–268. https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2012.3844
33. IEAGHG. (2023). Performance and cost estimates for CCS- equipped NGCC plants.
34. IEAGHG. (2023). Proceedings: CCS Cost Network 2023 Workshop. November. https://ieaghg.org/publications/cost-network-proceedings/
35. IECM. (2018). Amine-based Post-Combustion CO2 Capture. January, 63. https://www.cmu.edu/epp/iecm/documentation/2019Jan_I ECM Amine-based CO2 Capture.pdf
36. IndexBox. (2025, February). Monoethanolamine price in the United States (FOB). IndexBox.io. https://www.indexbox.io
37. International Energy Agency. (2023). CCUS in clean energy transitions. https://www.iea.org/reports/ccus-in-clean- energy-transitions
38. Kammerer, S., Borho, I., Jung, J., & Schmidt, M. S. (2023). Review: CO2 capturing methods of the last two decades. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 20(7), 8087–8104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-022-04680-0
39. Karimi, M., Shirzad, M., Silva, J. A. C., & Rodrigues, A. E. (2023). Carbon dioxide separation and capture by adsorption: a review. In Environmental Chemistry Letters (Vol. 21, Issue 4, pp. 2041–2084). Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-023-01589-z
40. Khan, R., Mahmoud, M., & Hassan, H. (2022). Process simulation and cost optimization of gas-based power plant integrated with amine-based CO2 capture. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 53, 102547.
41. Kohl, A. L., & Nielsen, R. B. (1997). Alkanolamines for Hydrogen Sulfide and Carbon Dioxide Removal. In Gas Purification (pp. 40–186). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-088415220-0/50002-1
42. Kuzemko, C., Keating, M. F., & Goldthau, A. (2016). Energy, Climate Change and the Environment. The Global Energy Challenge, 101– 123. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-41008-5_6
43. Kvamsdal, H. M., Jordal, K., & Bolland, O. (2007). A quantitative comparison of gas turbine cycles with CO2 capture. Energy, 32(1), 10–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2006.02.006
44. Laribi, S., Dubois, L., De Weireld, G., & Thomas, D. (2019). Study of the post-combustion CO2 capture process by absorption-regeneration using amine solvents applied to cement plant flue gases with high CO2 contents. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.102799
45. Li, M. H., & Mather, A. E. (1994). Equilibrium solubility of carbon dioxide in aqueous alkanolamine solutions. Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data, 39(3), 444–447. https://doi.org/10.1021/je00015a017
46. K. Mahdi, S. Ahmed, and N. Rahmanian, “Comparative techno-economic analysis of carbon capture processes: Pre-combustion, post-combustion, and oxy-fuel combustion operations,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 24, p. 13567, Dec. 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413567.
47. Mangalapally, H. P., & Hasse, H. (2011). Pilot plant study of two new solvents for post combustion carbon dioxide capture by reactive absorption and comparison to monoethanolamine. Chemical Engineering Science, 66(22), 5512–5522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2011.06.054
48. Marchioro Ystad, P. A., Lakew, A. A., & Bolland, O. (2013). Integration of low-temperature transcritical CO2 Rankine cycle in natural gas-fired combined cycle (NGCC) with post- combustion CO2 capture. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 12, 213–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2012.11.005
49. Merikoski, R. (2012). Flue gas processing in amine-based carbon capture systems (Master’s thesis). Tampere University of Technology
50. NETL. (2023). NETL’s Updated Performance and Cost Estimates for Power Generation Facilities Equipped with Carbon Capture 2023 USEA Webinar. https://netl.doe.gov/projects/files/NETLsUpdatedPerform anceandCostEstimatesPowerGenerationFacilitiesEquipped withCarbonCapture_020223.pdf
51. Nord, L. O., & Bolland, O. (2013). Design and off-design simulations of combined cycles for offshore oil and gas installations. Applied Thermal Engineering, 54(1), 85–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2013.01.022
52. Notz, R., Tönnies, I., Scheffknecht, G., & Hasse, H. (2010). CO2-Abtrennung für fossil befeuerte Kraftwerke. Chemie- Ingenieur-Technik, 82(10), 1639–1653. https://doi.org/10.1002/cite.201000006
53. Oh, S. Y., Binns, M., Cho, H., & Kim, J. K. (2016). Energy minimization of MEA-based CO2 capture process. Applied Energy, 169,353–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.02.046
54. Øi, L. E., Brathen, T., Berg, C., Brekne, S. K., Flatin, M., Johnsen, R., Moen, I. G., & Thomassen, E. (2014). Optimization of configurations for amine based CO2 absorption using Aspen HYSYS. Energy Procedia, 51, 224– 233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.07.026
55. Olayebi, O. (2022). Modelling and Simulation of Carbon Dioxide Capture Plant from Refinery Flue Gas in Nigeria using Aspen Hysys V8.8. FUPRE Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research, 6(1), 2022.
56. Omoregbe, O., Mustapha, A. N., Steinberger-Wilckens, R., El- Kharouf, A., & Onyeaka, H. (2020). Carbon capture technologies for climate change mitigation: A bibliometric analysis of the scientific discourse during 1998–2018. Energy Reports, 6, 1200– 1212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2020.05.003
57. Razzaghianarmarzi, A. (2023). Process simulation and cost estimation of CO2 capture configurations in Aspen HYSYS including vapour recompression )Master's thesis, Energy and Environmental Technology(. University of South-Eastern Norway.
58. Shaw, R., & Mukherjee, S. (2022). The development of carbon capture and storage (CCS) in India: A critical review. Carbon Capture Science and Technology, 2(January), 100036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccst.2022.100036
59. Shirmohammadi, R., Aslani, A., Ghasempour, R., & Romeo, L. M. (2020). CO2 utilization via integration of an industrial post-combustion capture process with a urea plant: Process modelling and sensitivity analysis. Processes, 8(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/PR8091144
60. Spuhl, O., Garcia, H., Sieder, G., & Notz, R. (2011). Comparison and limitation of different evaluation methods for novel PCC solvents. Energy Procedia, 4, 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.01.022
61. Taner Elmas, E. (2024). A Review for Combined Cycle Power Plants. Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research, 58(1). https://doi.org/10.26717/bjstr.2024.58.009087
62. Thermoflow Inc. (2025). Thermoflex 23 User Manual and Applications Guide. Retrieved from https://www.thermoflow.com
63. U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2025, July 2). Henry Hub natural gas spot price [Data set]. FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MHHNGSP
64. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2024). Global Greenhouse Gas Overview. Https://Www.Epa.Gov/Ghgemissions/Global-Greenhouse- Gas-Overview. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global- greenhouse-gas-overview
65. Vinet, L., & Zhedanov, A. (2011). A “missing” family of classical orthogonal polynomials. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 44(8), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/44/8/085201
66. Yusuf, M., & Ibrahim, H. (2023). A comprehensive review on recent trends in carbon capture, utilization, and storage techniques. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 11(6), 292–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2023.111393
67. Zhang, N., Pan, Z., Zhang, Z., Zhang, W., Zhang, L., Baena- Moreno, F. M., & Lichtfouse, E. (2020). CO2 capture from coalbed methane using membranes: A review. Environmental Chemistry Letters, 18, 79–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-019-00919-4
68. Zhang, Q., Liu, Y., Cao, Y., Li, Z., Hou, J., & Gou, X. (2023). Optimization of MEA-based carbon capture for coal and biomass co-firing power plant. Renewable Energy, 205, 838–850
69. Zhang, X., Wang, L., & Liu, Q. (2023). Comparative energy analysis of simplified vs. detailed process models in CO2 capture from gas-fired systems. Energy Conversion and Management, 286, 117078
70. Zhang, Y., Liu, H., & Zhao, B. (2020). Energy and economic analysis of improved absorption configurations for CO2 capture. Energy Reports, 6, 1245–1258.
71. Zhang, Y., Wang, S., & Chen, C. (2020). Parametric process design and economic analysis of post-combustion CO2 capture. Energies, 13(10), 2519.
72. Zhang, Y., Wang, S., & Chen, C. (2020). Simulation and energy analysis of MEA-based CO2 capture process using Aspen HYSYS. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 96, 103008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2020.103008