CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS

Seventh Annual Conference on

Carbon Capture & Sequestration
May 5-8, 2008 Sheraton Station Square
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA

Recent Initiatives and the Current Status of MHIs Post

Combustion CO2 Recovery Process; Aiming to Realize
the Rapid Commercial Application of CCS

Ronald Mitchell & Masaki Iijima

Tokyo Japan

SEVENTH ANNUAL CONFERENCE ON CARBON CAPTURE AND SEQUESTRATION - DOE/NETL

May 5 8, 2008

ABSTRACT
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd., (MHI), which provides commercial CO2 recovery plants for
natural gas fired installations, is now focusing on providing commercial CO2 capture solutions
for coal fired power generation. The next critical step to achieve this important aim is to
demonstrate the post combustion CO2 recovery process, together with the advanced, corrosion
resistant solvent (KS-1) on medium to large scale (>500 metric ton per day). MHI has
furthered the development of the CO2 recovery process through several important initiatives.
Process enhancements have reduced the utility consumption requirements and; additional heat
and process integration improvements between the power plant and the CO2 recovery plant
will help to further minimize operating costs and the energy penalty of CO2 capture. In
addition, MHI has just carried out large scale liquid distribution tests at a commercial size
multi-pollutant test facility in Japan, which is the largest of its type in the world. Highly
efficient gas and liquid distribution within the rectangular absorber tower is essential for
application on commercial capacity flue gas streams. Lastly, MHI has also completed further,
successful demonstration testing of CO2 capture for coal at a capacity of 10 metric ton per day,
from a slip stream at a commercial power station in Matsushima, Japan. These wide-ranging
initiatives are designed to move this technology to a position where it can firstly be
demonstrated at significant scale, for coal application, to reduce associated risks and thus
facilitate commercial deployment which, it is hoped, will lead to the provision of practical
carbon abatement solutions for industry.

Keywords;
CO2 capture; flue gases; heat and process integration; energy penalty; demonstration testing;
coal application; carbon abatement solutions.

INTRODUCTION
It is now widely accepted that capturing CO2 from flue gases and the subsequent injection into
geological formations can significantly contribute to reducing emissions of CO2, the principal
greenhouse gas. Apart from having obvious benefits in terms of reducing the emissions of CO2
into the atmosphere, CCS will also allow nations around the world to continue using important
domestic fossil fuels such as coal in an economic and environmentally friendly way. However
for CCS to be deployed in any meaningful way, it is necessary for Governments to urgently
provide a legal and regulatory framework which allows industry to make strategic investment
decisions relating to the future procurement and supply of energy. Furthermore the EIA
predicted that coal, liquid fuels (excluding biofuels), and natural gas will meet 80 percent of
total U.S. primary energy supply requirements in 2030 (EIA, 2008). The report also suggested
that total coal consumption would increase from 1,114 million short tons in 2006 to 1,545
million short tons in 2030. Coal consumption is also projected to grow at a faster rate toward the
end of the projection period, particularly after 2020, as coal use for new coal-fired generating
capacity grows rapidly. CCS can therefore play a very important role in the future of the US and
other nations. However the early stage deployment of CCS depends on the provision of
appropriate incentives, by governments, and the advancement of large scale demonstration
projects to overcome both technical and financial barriers which currently exist.

MHIs COMMERCIAL CO2 CAPTURE ACHIEVEMENTS

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) has been involved in research and development relating to
CO2 capture from flue-gas streams of fossil fuel-fired power stations since 1990. This has led to
the development of advanced, proprietary equipment and processes and the successful
commercial deployment of four (4) CO2 capture plants, currently operating in Malaysia, Japan
and India (2 units at separate locations). MHI has also been awarded a further three (3)
commercial license contracts for CO2 capture plants which are expected to complete
construction and be on stream within the next few years. An additional CO2 recovery plant
license contract is currently under negotiation and FEED has also been completed for an 800
mt/d plant with the final investment decision pending. MHIs commercial CO2 capture plant
experience is highlighted in Figure 1 below.

CO2 Recovery CDR) Plant IFFCO Aonla Unit (India)

Malaysia
Client: Petoronas
Start-up: 1999~
Capacity: 200 t/d
Source: Nat. Gas Reformer
Product: Urea

India
Client: IFFCO
Start-up: Dec 2006~
Capacity: 450 t/d x 2 units
Source: Nat. Gas Reformer
Product: Urea

Japan
Client: A Chemical Co.
Start-up: 2005~
Capacity: 330 t/d
Source: Nat. Gas Boiler
Product: General use

OTHER
PROJECTS

Abu
Dhabi

India

Bahrain

Asia

China

Project Status

Under
Construction

Under
Construction

Under
Construction

Contract
Negotiation

FEED
Complete

Flue Gas
Source

Nat. Gas.
Reformer

Nat. Gas.
Reformer

Nat. Gas.
Reformer

Nat. Gas.
Reformer

Nat. Gas.
Boiler

Expected on
stream

2009

2009

2010

2010

TBC

CO2 Capture
Capacity (T/D)

400

450

450

340

800

Figure 1. MHIs commercial CO2 capture plant experience.

CO2 CAPTURE FROM A COAL FIRED BOILER

MHIs flue gas CO2 recovery plant utilizes an advanced amine solvent, termed KS-1, as the
CO2 absorbent. As coal fired flue gas streams contain more impurities than natural gas, flue
gas pre-treatment is required to reduce the respective composition of a number of these
impurities, namely SO2, NOx and dust, as identified in Figure 2. Following pre-treatment, the
flue gas enters the water cooler/deep FGD where the flue gas is cooled to around 104 F
(40 C) and additional impurities are further reduced. The flue gas then enters the absorber
tower where it contacts with the KS-1 absorbent, distributed over stainless steel structured
packing material, and the CO2 is removed from the flue gas, via an exothermic reaction, which

generates heat. The flue gas subsequently proceeds into the top section of the absorber tower
where it is further washed to maintain water balance within the system and to remove
vaporized KS-1 solvent. The rich KS-1 solvent then moves into the stripper column
(regenerator) via a pump and here the CO2 is separated from the solvent via 248 F (120 C)
low pressure steam, introduced via a reboiler at the bottom of the stripper. The high purity CO2
then proceeds into a condenser before being directed to a compression and dehydration facility
where it is prepared for pipeline delivery. The lean KS-1 solvent is then heated up via the
plate heat exchanger before been re-introduced into the absorber and the process continues
within a closed cycle.

Boiler

Particulate
Capture
Facility

DeNOx

Flue
Gas

FGD

Stack

Treated Flue Gas

CO2
Capture

Compression
&
Dehydration

Flue Gas
Outlet

CO2 Purity 99.9 %

CO2
Product

ABSORBER
STRIPPER
(Regenerator)

C.W.

Flue Gas
Cooler/Deep FGD
C.W.

Flue Gas

Pre-treated Flue gas

C.W.
Steam

Reboiler

Figure 2. MHIs CO2 recovery process flow showing pre-treatment requirements for coal fired
flue gas.

MHI acknowledged, several years ago that coal will continue to play an important part of the
energy production matrix, well into the future. Accordingly it set about demonstrating the
proprietary CO2 capture process (termed KM-CDR) for coal fired flue gas application. After
initially testing the process at the Hiroshima R&D center at a scale of 1 metric ton per day
(mt/d) the experience and know how gained from other R&D and commercial experiences was

applied to the construction of a 10 mt/d pilot plant (Fig. 3), at a commercial coal fired power
station in southern Japan, which processes a slip stream of the flue gas.

Figure 3. Photograph of the 10 mt/d CO2 capture plant fitted to a commercial coal fired power
station in southern Japan.

The coal fired CO2 capture pilot plant was very important in confirming the results of specific
test items. The results of these test items and the operational performance, shown in Table 1,
have led to advanced know how of CO2 capture from coal fired flue gas streams and
confirmation that the KM-CDR Process can be applied to coal.

Table 1. Test items and operational performance of MHIs 10 mt/d coal fired CO2 capture pilot
plant
Test Item
Achieve long term stable operation

Result
>5000 hours of near continuous operation
(shutdown during power plant outage)

Confirm effect of various impurities on CO2

Advanced know-how of the impacts of dust, SO2 and

capture process & equipment

NOx (confidential know how)

Achieve high CO2 purity performance

>99.9% achieved

Confirm heat consumption required for CO2

730-820 kcal/kg- CO2

recovery (MHI conventional process)

(Improved process reduced by a further 15%)

Record pressure loss observed in the cooler and

No major pressure fluctuations

absorber
Confirm process can be applied to coal fired

Yes, with the installation of flue gas pre-treatment

flue gas

facilities (FGD etc) the KM-CDR Process can be

applied to coal fired flue gas

NEXT STEP LARGE SCALE CO2 CAPTURE DEMONSTRATION FOR COAL

The next step is to apply this proven and trusted technology process to a large-scale CO2capture demonstration plant utilizing a coal-fired boiler. This will lead to greater understanding
of the larger-scale effects of coal fired flue gas impurities and the options for heat and process
integration between the CO2 capture plant and power plant.

In recognition that MHI has completed extensive R&D programs and to address flexibility
issues, which will offer further robust incentives for post combustion CO2 capture using
absorption technologies, we believe it is critically important to progress into the medium scale
(~500 tpd) demonstration phase for coal fired flue gas streams. This will lead to a greater
understanding of the larger-scale effects of coal fired flue gas impurities and the options for
heat and process integration between the CO2 capture plant and power plant, ultimately
providing insights into respective efficiencies, cost reduction and a foundation for future widescale commercial implementation with a range of guarantees.

MHIs

PROCESS

IMPROVEMENTS

TO

REDUCE

ENERGY

&

STEAM

REQUIREMENTS
The development of the advanced KS-1 amine solvent has a number of significant advantages
over standard MEA based solvents (30%wt basis). These include; higher rates of CO2
absorption, lower solvent degradation, low corrosion and no requirement for a corrosion
inhibitor. Furthermore MHI has developed an Improved Process which results in a reduction
in steam requirement of 15% over the conventional MHI CO2 recovery process. The process

incorporates additional plate heat exchangers which utilize lean solvent and steam condensate
heat for regeneration inside the stripper (Fig. 4). This process was first developed at the Nanko
1 mt/d pilot plant and has since been applied to a commercial project in Abu Dhabi and is
expected to be applied to future commercial scale CCS projects. This improvement means that
the steam consumption is reduced to 1.30 metric ton steam/ metric ton CO2 or, from an energy
perspective; 660 Kcal/ Kg CO2 (Steam basis = 3 BarG saturated).

Recovered CO2

Heat Recovery
&
Solvent
Regeneration

Stripper

CO2

Steam

Lean solvent
Steam Condensate
Figure 4. MHIs Improved process which results in a 15% steam reduction requirement
compared with the conventional MHI process.

MHIs HEAT INTEGRATION CONCEPTS TO REDUCE ENERGY PENALTY

Further to the advanced process improvements highlighted above, MHI is also working on
methods for heat integration, together with our Power Systems Division, to further reduce the
energy penalty of CO2 recovery on the power plant. These heat integration concepts include (1)
the use of LP steam, extracted from the LP turbine, for the reboiler and recovery of overhead
condenser heat (Base Case identified in Fig. 5), (2) compression heat and (3) flue gas heat.

For the Base Case, item (1) above, LP steam is extracted from the LP turbine and supplied to
the reboiler as heat for regeneration of the solvent. This external heat is then recovered by

cooling the CO2 gas (via an air cooler) at the regeneration condenser (Fig. 5). For this cooling,
the boiler feed water in the turbine cycle is utilized (Fig. 5).

LP Turbine

HP/MP
Turbine
Air Heater ESP
Boiler

Reboiler

Condenser
Regenerator
Condenser

Boiler Feed Water Heater

Deaerator
Boiler Feed Water Pump
Boiler Feed Water Pump

Figure 5. LP steam extraction and condenser heat integration options between the CO2 recovery
plant and the power plant (Base case)

In order to supply renewal energy required for CO2 recovery, there are several options for heat
recovery from the steam cycle of the power plant which can be utilized in the CO2 recovery
plant. Please refer to Figure 6 below for the following description;

For part E-H, pertaining to the latent heat of the steam normally lost, this can be used effectively
by extracting low-pressure steam of 2-3kg/cm2G from the power plant steam system. This heat
can be used to heat the CO2 recovery plant reboiler (part E-H). However, the quantity of heat,
until just before the steam condenses from the low-pressure state of 2-3kg/cm2G, serves as a
power generation loss attributed to the steam turbine (part G-E). We believe there is future
scope to reduce this power generation loss and this should form the basis of further, more
rigorous investigation.

MP Turbine
900

HP Turbine
800

A
D

700

Enthalpy
(kcal/kg)

Extraction to Reboiler

G
B

LP Turbine

600

E
E

Steam Condensing
Curve
500

200

Reboiler
Condensate

Power loss of
steam turbine
Utilize this heat for
the reboiler

Waste Heat from

the condenser
H

100
F Condensate
0

Entropy (kcal/kgK)

Utilize waste heat of CO2 recovery

Figure 6. Options for heat integration based on the power plant steam cycle
The energy penalty of MHIs CO2 recovery process, which includes power and steam
requirements associated with deep FGD, CO2 capture and CO2 compression to 2000 psi, is
shown in figure 7 below. Further heat integration (using recovery of compression and flue gas
heat), can result in additional reductions to the energy penalty on the power plant as outlined in
Figure 8 below.

10

Deep FGD

100
Power Output
Penalty
by MHI CCCP
(Base Case)

CO2 Compressor

90
80

CO2
Recovery
Auxillary
Equipment

Power Loss by LP
Steam Extraction

Power Output (Index)

70
60
50
40
30

Net Output
+
Plant Auxiliary
Equipment
Power

20
10
0
Supercritical Pulverized Coal Power
Plant; Bituminus Coal Case

Figure 7. Power Output Penalty of CO2 capture and compression (Base Case)

100
90
80

Power Output (Index)

70
60

Pow er Output
Penalty by MHI
CCCP

50

Net Output
+ Plant Auxiliary
Equipment

40
30
20

CCCP:
CO2 Capture,
Compression
Plant

10
0

Without CCCP

With CCCP
(Base Case)

With CCCP +
Max Heat
Integration

Figure 8. Net output improvement with maximum heat integration

11

CO2 EOR EARLY STAGE INCENTIVES

MHI understands that in its current form, CCS is not economically viable and it necessitates the
induction of economic incentives in order to drive these projects into commercial development
and implementation. However CO2-EOR is widely recognized as providing key, early mover,
advantages in specific regions within the continental US. The price of oil, in 2008, has reached
numerous, record highs, of well over $100 USD per barrel, and is not predicted to drop in the
near future. For these reasons, and others, MHI has identified EOR as a developing market
capable of utilizing anthropogenic CO2 sources as a means to offset the costs associated with
deploying first stage CCS projects in the US.

CCS POLICY
The European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU-ETS), Kyoto Protocol and associated
flexible mechanisms such as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), Joint
Implementation (JI) and international carbon trading markets are providing the necessary
drivers, carbon price signals and framework leading to the establishment of a demand-supply
emission reduction market arrangement. Furthermore a European Commission policy directive
on climate, released in January 2008, proposed a number of aggressive CO2 emission reduction
objectives and strategies including;

20% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2020 (from 1990 levels)

All new fossil fuel plants built from now until 2020 must be capture ready

All new fossil fuel plants after 2020 must have CCS system fitted

Importantly the directive also called for the inclusion of CCS within the next phase of the EUETS (European Commission website, 2008). The European Commission has also proposed the
deployment of 12 large scale CCS demonstrations, within the EU by 2015. Additionally the
Norwegian Government has publicly stated that CCS will be an important part of its future,
with respect to gas fired power generation and is currently engaging multiple technology
providers for a CO2 capture FEED study for a CCS retrofit at the Karsto power station
(Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, Norway Government website, 2008). The UK Government
is also showing strong support for CCS by releasing a competition for a large scale, full chain,

12

demonstration of CCS with the aim of having the CCS system deployed in the 2014 timeframe
(DBERR, 2007)

However, as well recognized by many stakeholders, one of the largest obstacles restricting the
deployment of CCS is uncertainties associated with the legal and regulatory aspects of CCS.
Generally speaking there is broad support for CCS within the EU and agreement, concerning a
legal and regulatory framework for CCS, may be reached by the end of 2008, thus allowing
industry to make key business decisions relating to power generation, with 50 new coal fired
power plants slated to be built in the next 5 years (New York Times website, 2008).

In North America, a number of recent initiatives and policy discussions are leading to more
definitive guidelines on the role CCS can play in CO2 mitigation. The Canadian Federal
Government recently issued an enhanced version of its Regulatory Framework for industrial
greenhouse gas emissions. This version adds details to the framework first announced in April
2007, and identifies carbon capture and storage as a key tool for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions across all industry, and particularly in the oil sands and electricity industries. Details
of the federal scheme will be provided via draft regulations to be released later this year.

In the United States a blueprint published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
in 2007 states that CCS is a critical enabling technology allowing significant reduction in CO2
emissions while allowing fuels such as coal to meet future energy needs. The MIT authors
comment further that the US Government should provide assistance only to coal projects with
CO2 capture in order to demonstrate technical, economic and environmental performance.
Additionally, during 2007, several legislative climate proposals were introduced into the US
Congress and these are currently being appraised. A number of independent analysts and
industry professionals have pointed out that the Lieberman-Warner Bill, which recommends
the implementation of a cap and trade based scheme, is the most sensible. The Bill accounts for
75% of emission sources in the US, including the electric power generation sector. The cap
commences at the 2005 emission level in 2012 and then lowers year-by-year at a constant,
gradual rate, such that it reaches the 1990 emissions level (15% below the 2005 emissions

13

level) in 2020 and 65% below the 1990 emissions level (70% below the 2005 emissions level)
in 2050 (US Climate Action Network, 2007). The Bill also directs a percentage of capital
raised by an emission trading scheme into deploying advanced technologies and methods for
reducing emissions (such as CCS). Other significant legislation proposed in 2007 includes the
National Carbon Dioxide Storage Capacity Assessment Act of 2007 which requires the
Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), acting through the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey,
to develop a methodology for conducting a national assessment of the geological storage
capacity for carbon dioxide. And the Carbon Dioxide Pipeline Study Act of 2007 which
necessitates the Secretary of Energy to study, and report the results to Congress on, the
feasibility of the construction and operation of: (1) pipelines for the transportation of carbon
dioxide for sequestration or enhanced oil recovery; and (2) carbon dioxide sequestration
facilities.

14

CONCLUSIONS
The climate change debate has advanced significantly over the past several years to the extent
that this issue, along with energy security, is impacting government policy in an unprecedented
way. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has confirmed, with 90%
confidence, that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are directly contributing to an increase in
global temperatures facilitated by the greenhouse effect. Furthermore it is widely agreed that
demand for energy resources will continue to rise, as reflected in global energy commodity
prices which have all reached record highs. The use of coal as a primary fuel for power
generation is also forecast to increase in many countries, as it provides a relatively cheap,
stable, abundant and reliable form of energy. The deployment of CCS technology will allow
many nations to continue using these important coal reserves, in an environmentally
responsible way whilst continuing the procurement of energy to key regions throughout the
world.

The development and expansion of global carbon markets and the application of CO2 EOR are
seen as key drivers for the early stage deployment of the technology in the US, due to the
attractive economic incentives they offer to project developers. MHI, whilst continuing its
extensive RD&D initiatives, have further improved CO2 capture technology. Recent process and
heat integration improvements are also reducing the energy penalty and impact on the power
plant and thus ensuring CO2 capture becomes a viable future option to significantly mitigate
CO2 emissions from the power generation sector whilst also securing the supply of energy to the
modern world.

15

REFERENCES

1.

C.D.M - Clean Development Mechanism website (2006) - http://cdm.unfccc.int/

2.

EIA (2008) Annual Energy Outlook 2008, US Government, March, 2008

3.

European Commission Website (2008) Climate Action proposal

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/climate_actions/index_en.htm

4.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2005). Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage.
Cambridge University Press, New York.

5.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change website (2007) - http://www.ipcc.ch/

6.

Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, Norway Government website (2008) http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/oed/Subject/Carbon-capture-and-storage/karsto-carboncapture-and-storage-projec.html?id=502211

7.

MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2007). The Future of Coal: Options for a
Carbon Constrained World - An Interdisciplinary MIT Study. Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.

8.

New York Times website (2008)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/europe/23coal.html?_r=2&ex=1366603200&e
n=31cb66311e6e90ef&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=sl
ogin&oref=slogin

9.

Department of Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (DBERR) website (2007)

http://www.berr.gov.uk/energy/sources/sustainable/carbon-abatement-tech/ccsdemo/page40961.html

10. US Climate Action Network (2007). The Leiberman-Warner Bill; Americas Climate
Security Act. http://usclimatenetwork.org/federal/lieberman-warner-bill/bill-information/

16