Technoeconomic Assessment of an Advanced Aqueous Ammonia-Based Postcombustion Capture Process Integrated with a 650-MW Coal-Fired Power Station
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using a rigorous, rate-based model and a validated economic model, we investigated the technoeconomic performance of an aqueous NH 3 -based CO 2 capture process integrated with a 650-MW coal-fired power station. First, the baseline NH 3 process was explored with the process design of simultaneous capture of CO 2 and SO 2 to replace the conventional FGD unit. This reduced capital investment of the power station by US$425/kW (a 13.1% reduction). Integration of this NH 3 baseline process with the power station takes the CO 2 -avoided cost advantage over the MEA process (US$67.3/tonne vs US$86.4/tonne). We then investigated process modifications of a two-stage absorption, rich-split configuration and interheating stripping to further advance the NH 3 process. The modified process reduced energy consumption by 31.7 MW/h (20.2% reduction) and capital costs by US$55.4 million (6.7% reduction). As a result, the CO 2 -avoided cost fell to $53.2/tonne: a savings of $14.1 and $21.9/tonne CO 2 compared with the NH 3 baseline and advanced MEA process, respectively. The analysis of energy breakdown and cost distribution indicates that the technoeconomic performance of the NH 3 process still has great potential to be improved.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".