Techno-Economic Assessment of Different Heat Exchangers for CO2 Capture

We examined the cost implications of selecting six different types of heat exchangers as the lean/rich heat exchanger in an amine-based CO2 capture process. The difference in total capital cost between different capture plant scenarios due to the different costs of the heat exchangers used as the lean/rich heat exchanger, in each case, is in millions of Euros. The gasketed-plate heat exchanger (G-PHE) saves significant space, and it saves considerable costs. Selecting the G-PHE instead of the shell and tube heat exchangers (STHXs) will save euro33 million-euro39 million in total capital cost (CAPEX), depending on the type of STHX. About euro43 million and euro2 million in total installed costs (CAPEX) can be saved if the G-PHE is selected instead of the finned double-pipe heat exchanger (FDP-HX) or welded-plate heat exchanger, respectively. The savings in total annual cost is also in millions of Euros/year. Capture costs of euro5/tCO(2)-euro6/tCO(2) can be saved by replacing conventional STHXs with the G-PHE, and over euro6/tCO(2) in the case of the FDP-HX. This is significant, and it indicates the importance of clearly stating the exact type and not just the broad classification of heat exchanger used as lean/rich heat exchanger. This is required for cost estimates to be as accurate as possible and allow for appropriate comparisons with other studies. Therefore, the gasketed-plate heat exchanger is recommended to save substantial costs. The CO2 capture costs of all scenarios are most sensitive to the steam cost. The plate and frame heat exchangers (PHEs) scenario\u27s capture cost can decline from about euro77/tCO(2) to euro59/tCO(2) or rise to euro95/tCO(2)