Modeling and Control of Post-Combustion CO2 Capture Process Integrated with a 550MWe Supercritical Coal-fired Power Plant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work focuses on the development of both steady-state and dynamic models for an monoethanolamine (MEA)-based CO2 capture process for a commercial-scale supercritical pulverized coal (PC) power plant, using Aspen PlusRTM and Aspen Plus DynamicsRTM. The dynamic model also facilitates the design of controllers for both traditional proportional-integral-derivative (PID) and advanced controllers, such as linear model predictive control (LMPC), nonlinear model predictive control (NMPC) and H? robust control.;A steady-state MEA-based CO2 capture process is developed in Aspen PlusRTM. The key process units, CO2 absorber and stripper columns, are simulated using the rate-based method. The steady-state simulation results are validated using experimental data from a CO2 capture pilot plant. The process parameters are optimized with the goal of minimizing the energy penalty. Subsequently, the optimized rate-based, steady-state model with appropriate modifications, such as the inclusion of the size and metal mass of the equipment, is exported into Aspen Plus DynamicsRTM to study transient characteristics and to design the control system. Since Aspen Plus DynamicsRTM does not support the rate-based model, modifications to the Murphree efficiencies in the columns and a rigorous pressure drop calculation method are implemented in the dynamic model to ensure consistency between the design and off-design results from the steady-state and dynamic models. The results from the steady-state model indicate that between three and six parallel trains of CO2 capture processes are required to capture 90% CO2 from a 550MWe supercritical PC plant depending on the maximum column diameter used and the approach to flooding at the design condition. However, in this work, only two parallel trains of CO2 capture process are modeled and integrated with a 550MWe post-combustion, supercritical PC plant in the dynamic simulation due to the high calculation expense of simulating more than two trains.;In the control studies, the performance of PID-based, LMPC-based, and NMPC-based approaches are evaluated for maintaining the overall CO2 capture rate and the CO2 stripper reboiler temperature at the desired level in the face of typical input and output disturbances in flue gas flow rate and composition as well as change in the power plant load and variable CO2 capture rate. Scenarios considered include cases using different efficiencies to mimic different conditions between parallel trains in real industrial processes. MPC-based approaches are found to provide superior performance compared to a PID-based one. Especially for parallel trains of CO2 capture processes, the advantage of MPC is observed as the overall extent of
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".