Chemical Engineering Journal 456 (2023) 140980

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Chemical Engineering Journal

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cej

Novel cryogenic carbon dioxide capture and storage process using LNG cold
energy in a natural gas combined cycle power plant
Yurim Kim a, b, 1, Jaewon Lee a, 1, Hyungtae Cho a, 2, *, Junghwan Kim a, b, 2, *
a
Green Materials & Processes R&D Group, Korea Institute of Industrial Technology, 55, Jongga-ro, Jung-gu, Ulsan, 44413, Republic of Korea
b
Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Yonsei University, 50, Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03722, Republic of Korea

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study proposes a novel cryogenic CO2 capture and storage (CCS) process using liquefied natural gas (LNG)
LNG cold energy cold energy in a natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) power plant. This study makes two major contributions to
NGCC power plant the literature. First, the cryogenic solid-phase CCS process using LNG cold energy can effectively reduce the
Post-combustion CO2 capture
efficiency penalty in NGCC power plants by solving the fundamental problems associated with the conventional
Cryogenic CCS
Efficiency penalty
CCS process: energy-intensive thermal treatment of the monoethanolamine-based absorption process and sig­
nificant power consumption for compressing CO2 to 150 bar. Second, the cryogenic CCS process requires min­
imal equipment installation in the NGCC power plant by integrating LNG cold energy utilization and CO2 capture
processes. The proposed cryogenic CCS process reduces the efficiency penalty from 14.34 % to 3.51 %, with a
99.93 % CO2 capture rate. We believe this study will provide a novel guideline for reducing the efficiency penalty
by overcoming the challenges of the conventional CCS process.

1. Introduction
Currently, natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) power plants account
for more than 20 % of global power generation [1,2]. With the contin­
uous increase in global energy demand, NGCC power plants will gain an
increasingly higher share of the global energy market [3]. However,
NGCC power plants emit a large amount of CO2, which contributes to
global warming [3–5]. Therefore, the additional operation of the CO2
capture and storage (CCS) process in NGCC power plants is increasing in
order to reduce CO2 emission [6,7].
The CO2 capture processes in NGCC power plants are divided into
post-combustion [8], pre-combustion [9,10], and oxy-fuel combustion
CO2 capture [11,12]. Post-combustion CO2 capture is the most widely
used method owing to its ease of implementation in a plant without
modifying the existing equipment configuration [13–16]. Post-
combustion CO2 capture technology involves various options, such as
absorption, adsorption, membrane separation, and cryogenic separation
[17–19]. Among the different post-combustion CO2 capture options, the
monoethanolamine (MEA)-based CO2 absorption process has been the
most widely studied owing to its excellent absorption effect and large
treatment capacity [1]. However, this process consumes considerable
thermal energy because of the regeneration of the CO2 solvent, which
increases the efficiency penalty in NGCC power plants [6,20]. Herein,
the efficiency penalty in the NGCC power plant refers to the percentage
of net power efficiency reduced by additional operation of the other
processes, such as the CCS process [1,6].
Following the CO2 capture process, the captured CO2 is compressed
to 150–200 bar for transportation to a storage site via pipelines [21].
The conventional CO2 compression process includes multistage com­
pressors, which consume significant amounts of power. Consequently,
the conventional CCS process has an efficiency penalty of ~ 14 % in the
NGCC power plant [21]. Therefore, various studies have been performed
to reduce the efficiency penalty.
Among these, several studies have reduced the efficiency penalty in
the MEA-based absorption process by retrofitting its configuration and
integrating it with an NGCC power plant. Furthermore, an organic
Rankine cycle (ORC) has been installed, which uses liquefied natural gas
(LNG) cold energy as a heat sink and the wasted heat from the absorp­
tion process as a heat source to generate power. A summary of the

* Corresponding authors at: Green Materials & Processes R&D Group, Korea Institute of Industrial Technology, 55, Jongga-ro, Jung-gu, Ulsan 44413, Republic of
Korea (Hyungtae Cho); Green Materials & Processes R&D Group, Korea Institute of Industrial Technology, 55, Jongga-ro, Jung-gu, Ulsan 44413, Republic of Korea.
Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Yonsei University, 50, Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03722, Republic of Korea (Junghwan Kim).
E-mail address: kjh31@kitech.re.kr (J. Kim).
1
These authors contributed equally to this work.
2
The two corresponding authors have the same contribution to this work.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2022.140980
Received 10 October 2022; Received in revised form 29 November 2022; Accepted 13 December 2022
Available online 16 December 2022
1385-8947/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Y. Kim et al. Chemical Engineering Journal 456 (2023) 140980

Nomenclature PI Pressure of stream (bar)

η Net efficiency (%)
Abbreviations W Power (MW)
NGCC Natural gas combined cycle Q Heat (kJ/s)
CCS CO2 capture and storage ṁ Mass flow rate (kg/s)
MEA Monoethanolamine LHV Lower heating value (kJ/kg)
ORC Organic Rankine cycle
HP High-pressure Subscripts
IP Intermediate pressure GT Gas turbine units
LP Low-pressure ST Steam turbine units
LHV Lower heating value NGCC Natural gas combined cycle
LNG Liquefied natural gas CCS CO2 capture and storage
HI Heat integration NG Natural gas
EGR Exhaust gas recirculation capture CO2 capture process
storage CO2 storage process
Symbols conv Conventional CCS process
TI Temperature of stream (◦ C) cryo Cryogenic CCS process
FI Flow rate of stream (kg/s)

literature on reducing the efficiency penalty caused by the MEA-based
absorption process is presented in Table 1.
Among the previous studies in Table 1, J. Bao et al. [1] and H. Sultan
et al. [6] seem similar, but there is a difference in the method of using
LNG cold energy. Bao et al. [1] utilized LNG cold energy for power
generation through the organic Rankine cycle (ORC). However, H.
Sultan et al. [6] used LNG cold energy to reduce the power consumption
of the CO2 compression process. They liquefied the CO2 captured
through the MEA-based absorption process using LNG cold energy and
then compressed and stored it.
Some studies have focused on reducing the efficiency penalty of the
CO2 compression process. Sultan et al. [6] liquefied gaseous CO2 by
compressing and cooling it to the triple point using LNG cold energy and
pumping liquefied CO2 to 150 bar, and obtained an efficiency penalty
reduction of up to 9.53 %. Muhammad et al. [22] combined the CO2
compression process with a supercritical CO2 open power cycle, which
liquefied CO2 and generated power simultaneously, and thus reduced
the power demand of the compression process by up to 13.88 %.
Despite the numerous contributions to reducing the efficiency pen­
alty in the NGCC power plant, several major challenges still remain.
First, although previously reported studies have attempted to reduce the
efficiency penalty, it still remains due to the energy consumption of the
MEA-based CO2 absorption process (i.e., thermal treatment of MEA
solvent). Second, many studies have focused only on the power gener­
ation process using LNG cold energy without considering the complexity
of the process. For example, an additional process (e.g., ORC) is required
to produce electricity using cold energy, which increases the complexity
of the entire NGCC power plant and makes the operation process
difficult.
To overcome these challenges, the cryogenic CCS process using LNG
cold energy will be a suitable solution, and the reasons are as follows.
First, the cryogenic CCS process using LNG cold energy does not require
additional thermal energy, unlike the absorption process, and thus, can
effectively reduce the efficiency penalty in the NGCC power plant.
Second, unlike the ORC process, CO2 capture using LNG cold energy can
minimize the need for additional equipment by integrating CO2 capture
and LNG cold energy utilization processes. Finally, the efficiency penalty
from the compression process for storage can be reduced because the
cryogenic CCS process captures and stores CO2 in the solid phase.
The main contributions of this study are as follows:
1) A cryogenic CCS process using LNG cold energy to reduce the effi­
ciency penalty for NGCC power plants has been proposed for the first
time in this study.
2) The cryogenic CCS process in the solid phase enables the combina­
tion of capture and storage process, which further alleviates the ef­
ficiency penalty.
3) This study can provide guidelines for the design of CCS processes in
NGCC power plants by recovering LNG cold energy and operating the
CCS process with minimal equipment.
2. Methodology
2.1. NGCC power plant
The NGCC power plant process (Fig. 1) mainly consists of a gas
turbine unit and a steam turbine unit, with a heat recovery steam
generator of three-stage pressure.
The air is compressed and mixed with natural gas in the combustor in
the gas turbine unit. Subsequently, the flue gas from the combustor
enters the gas turbine and generates power by driving the impeller.
Then, the flue gas from the turbine enters the heat recovery steam
generator unit, which consists of three steam generation subsystems:
high-pressure (HP), intermediate pressure (IP), and low-pressure (LP).
The steam with different pressures expands in each steam turbine and
generates power in the form of a steam Rankine cycle. Finally, the flue
gas emitted by the heat recovery steam generator is cooled to 40 ◦ C and
treated using the CCS process.
The power generated in the NGCC power plant is partially used for
operating the CCS process, inevitably resulting in an efficiency penalty,
which was calculated using Eqs. (1)–(7). The efficiency penalty is
calculated by the net efficiency difference between NGCC power plant
and the CCS process, as shown in Eq. (1).
Efficiency penalty = 1 − ηNGCC+CCS /ηNGCC (1)
The net efficiency of the power plant is calculated using Eqs. (2) and
(3). The efficiency of the NGCC power plant is calculated as the power
generated by the NGCC power plant compared to the total energy that
natural gas can generate. The efficiency of the NGCC power plant with
the CCS process is calculated as the power out of the NGCC power plant
with reduced power generation due to the operation of the CCS process
compared to the total energy that natural gas can generate.
ηNGCC = Wnet NGCC /QNG (2)
ηNGCC+CCS = Wnet NGCC+CCS /QNG (3)
The total heat input to the NGCC power plant to calculate the net
efficiency of the power plant is expressed as a combination of the fuel

2
Y. Kim et al. Chemical Engineering Journal 456 (2023) 140980

Table 1 flow rate and its lower heating value (LHV), as shown in Eq. (4).
Summary of literature to reduce the efficiency penalty caused by MEA based
absorption process.
QNG = ṁNG × LHV (4)

Source Years Authors System configuration Performance The total power output of the power plant is calculated using Eq. (5)
[6] 2021 Sultan et al. NGCC + modified MEA+ The
and (6). The total power generated by the NGCC power plant is the sum
CO2 compression-LNG assisted efficiency of power generated by the gas turbine and heat recovery steam gener­
penalty ator units. The total power generation of the NGCC power plant with the
decreased CCS process is calculated by subtracting the power consumption due to
11.96 to
the operation of the CCS process from the power generation of the NGCC
9.53 % with
90 % power plant.
capture rate.
Wnet = WGT + WST (5)
[23] 2020 Herrera NGCC + EGR (exhaust gas The NGCC

et al. recirculation) + HI (heat efficiency

integration) + penalty WNGCC+CCS = WGT + WST − WCCS (6)
MEA-solar assisted decreased
16.58 to The total power consumption of the CCS process is calculated using
15.60 % Eq. (7). The total power consumption of the CCS process is calculated as
with 90 % the sum of the power consumption of the CO2 capture and storage
capture rate. processes.
[24] 2020 Bravo et al. NGCC + HI + MEA-solar The
assisted efficiency WCCS = Wcapture + Wstorage (7)
penalty
decreased The operation of the CCS process incurs an efficiency penalty for
16.82 to each process, as explained in later sections.
5.74 % with
90 %
capture rate. 2.2. MEA-based absorption process for CO2 capture
[1] 2019 Bao et al. NGCC + MEA + EGR + HI + The
ORC efficiency The flue gas from the outlet of the heat recovery steam generator
penalty
enters the MEA-based absorption process to capture CO2. The MEA-
decreased
13.95 to based absorption process consists of an absorber and a stripper, a
8.00 % with schematic of which is shown in Fig. 2.
90 % First, the flue gas is cooled to 40 ◦ C and allowed to enter the
capture rate. absorber. A 30 wt% MEA solvent absorbs CO2 in flue gas and the clean
[10] 2019 Geovanni NGCC + EGR + MEA + HI + The
gas exits from the top of the absorber [6]. The CO2-rich solvent is
et al. ORC efficiency
penalty pumped out from the absorber, exchanges heat with the CO2-lean sol­
decreased vent, and subsequently enters the stripper to separate CO2 through heat
15.85 to treatment (i.e., the absorbents are regenerated through the stripper).
13.60 %
Low-pressure steam from the NGCC power plant is used to operate the
with 90 %
capture rate. stripper boiler (~120 ◦ C) for the heat treatment of the CO2-rich solvent
[25] 2018 Mores et al. NGCC + MEA The thermal in the stripper [1], resulting in the occurrence of a considerable effi­
efficiency ciency penalty. CO2/H2O vapor exits the top, and the CO2-lean solvent
increased up leaves the bottom of the stripper. After passing through an economizer
to 50.97 %
and lean cooler, the hot CO2-lean solvent is cooled to 40 ◦ C before being
with 90 %
capture rate. pumped back to the absorber. The MEA solvent continuously absorbs
[26] 2017 Patiño et al. NGCC + MEA + ORC The and desorbs CO2 by circulating between the absorber and stripper. The
efficiency CO2 in the mixed vapor emitted from the stripper enters the compression
penalty
process for storage.
decreased
13.31 to
12.88 % 2.3. Compression process for CO2 storage
with 90 %
capture rate. The CO2/H2O vapor from the stripper enters the compression process
[27] 2015 Luo et al. NGCC + MEA + EGR The
for CO2 storage. The compression process consists of a compressor,
efficiency
penalty water cooler, and 2-phase separator, as shown in Fig. 3.
decreased The mixed vapor is compressed using multistage compressors, and
14.61 to the heat generated by compression is removed by cooling the com­
13.68 %
pressed gas to 30 ◦ C using seawater. Condensed H2O is removed using a
with 90 %
capture rate. 2-phase separator. A significant amount of power is consumed by
[28] 2014 Lambert Solar assisted-NGCC + HI + The multistage compressors, which incurred an efficiency penalty in NGCC
et al. MEA efficiency power plants. The separated CO2 is compressed to ~ 150 bar and
penalty transported to the storage site by pipelines.
decreased
23.28 to
6.65 % with 2.4. Cryogenic CO2 capture and storage process
75 %
capture rate. The proposed cryogenic CCS process aims to capture CO2 in the solid
phase. The triple point temperature and pressure of CO2 are relatively
close to atmospheric conditions compared to other gases such as N2 and
O2; therefore, CO2 desublimates easily even at mild pressures. As a
result, sublimation offers the benefit of producing high-purity CO2

3
Y. Kim et al. Chemical Engineering Journal 456 (2023) 140980

Fig. 1. Schematic of the NGCC power plant process.

Fig. 2. Schematic of the MEA-based absorption process.

Fig. 3. Schematic of the compression process for CO2 storage.

separation from flue gas. Table 2 shows the triple-point temperatures
and pressures of CO2, N2, and O2.
The flue gas from the outlet of the heat recovery steam generator
enters the cryogenic CCS processes. Unlike the conventional CCS pro­
cess, where the capture and storage processes are separated, the cryo­
genic process integrates these two processes. The cryogenic CCS process
comprises a water cooler, dryer, compressor, multi-stream heat
exchanger, and turbine, as shown in Fig. 4.
First, the flue gas is cooled to 30 ◦ C using seawater, and the
condensed H2O is removed using a two-phase separator. Subsequently,
the residual H2O in the flue gas is removed from the dryer. Second, the
flue gas is compressed (~1 bar) to increase the sublimation temperature

4
Y. Kim et al. Chemical Engineering Journal 456 (2023) 140980

Table 2 developed absorption process model showed errors of 0.39 % and 2.52
Triple point temperatures and pressures of CO2, N2, and O2. %, respectively, compared to the literature data. Therefore, the little
Components Triple point temperature Triple point pressure error in the results confirms the accuracy of the model. In addition, the
CO2 –56.57 C [29]
◦
5.185 bar [29]
N2 –210.01 ◦ C [30] 0.1253 bar [30] Table 3
O2 –218.82 ◦ C [31] 4.0 × 10-6 bar [32] Composition of the natural gas and air.
Parameters Air Fuel

of CO2. The heat generated by compression is also removed by cooling Flow rate (kg/s) 635.0 14.74
the gas to 30 ◦ C using seawater. Third, the CO2 in the flue gas is desu­ Pressure (bar) 15.0 10.0
Temperature (◦ C) 1.0 30.0
blimated via heat exchange between the liquefied natural gas (LNG) and
LHV (kJ/kg) – 47,493
circulated clean gas. The clean gas enters the turbine to generate power. Composition (mol%) N2 77.3 1.47
Furthermore, the expansion of the turbine lowered the temperature of O2 20.74 –
the clean gas. The cooled clean gas re-enters the multi-stream heat H2O 1.01 –
CO2 0.03 0.68
exchanger to provide cold energy to desublimate CO2 in the flue gas.
Ar 0.92 –
Finally, the clean gas is discharged into the atmosphere and the captured CH4 – 87.08
solid CO2 is stored directly without additional compression. C2H6 – 7.83
C3H8 – 2.94
3. Results and discussions

3.1. NGCC power plant with conventional CCS process Table 4

Model design parameters of the NGCC power plant process.
In this study, the NGCC power plant with CCS process was simulated Component Parameter Value
using Aspen HYSYS V11.0. The Peng-Robinson equation was used for
Gas turbine unit
the gas turbine unit in the NGCC power plant process and compression Air compressor Pressure ratio 15.4
process, the ASME steam model was used for the steam turbine unit in Isentropic efficiency (%) 88.0
the NGCC power plant process, and the amine and Kent-Eisenberg model Mechanical efficiency (%) 99.0
were used for the MEA-based CO2 absorption process. Combustor Efficiency (%) 99.5
Pressure loss (%) 3.5
The NGCC power plant process was simulated according to Liu and
Exit temperature (◦ C) 1,405.0
Karimi [33] and Bao et al. [1]. The compositions of natural gas and air Gas turbine Inlet temperature (◦ C) 1,328.0
are listed in Table 3, and the model design parameters are listed in Exhaust temperature (◦ C) 615.0
Table 4. Steam turbine unit
The simulation results of the NGCC power plant process were vali­ Heat recovery steam HP/IP/LP steam temperature (◦ C) 565.0/297.0/
generator 295.0
dated using data from the literature, and the results are summarized in HP/IP/LP pinch point temperature 10.0/10.0/
Table 5. The performance of the gas and steam turbine units of the (◦ C) 10.0
developed process model showed little error compared to the literature HP/IP/LP approach point 8.0/10.0/16.4
data (<5.09 %). Furthermore, the NGCC power plant process model was temperature (◦ C)
HP SPHT 1 steam outlet temperature 510.0
used to accurately calculate the net power generation and plant effi­
(◦ C)
ciency with an error of 0.47 %. As a result, the NGCC power plant in this RHT 1/2 steam outlet temperature 520.0/565.0
study generates 391.62 MW of power with 55.88 % efficiency. (◦ C)
The MEA-based absorption process for CO2 capture was simulated HP ECON 1/2 water outlet 208.0/280.0
according to Oh et al. [13] and Bao et al. [1]. For the MEA-based ab­ temperature (◦ C)
Pressure losses on gas/water/steam 1.5/5.0/3.0
sorption process simulation, Aspen HYSYS V11.0 was used as software sides (%)
and the amine and Kent-Eisenberg models as equations. The model Steam turbines HP/IP/LP steam turbine inlet 98.8/24.0/4.0
design parameters are listed in Table 6. pressure (bar)
The CO2 capture rate and heat consumption during the thermal HP/IP/LP steam turbine isentropic 87.0/91.0/
efficiency (%) 89.0
treatment for solvent regeneration were the main operational variables
Condenser Pressure (bar) 0.074
of the MEA-based CO2 absorption process. The main operation variables Cooling water inlet temperature (◦ C) 25.0
were validated using literature references, and the results are summa­ Cooling water temperature rise (◦ C) 10.0
rized in Table 7. The CO2 capture rate and heat consumption of the Generator Efficiency 98.5

Fig. 4. Schematic of the cryogenic CCS process.

5
Y. Kim et al. Chemical Engineering Journal 456 (2023) 140980

Table 5
NGCC power plant process model validation with literature.
Performance Simulation Literature [1,33] Error (%)

Gas turbine unit (MW) 254.65 253.65 0.39

Air compressor (MW) 249.24 249.58 0.14
Gas turbine (MW) 507.77 507.09 0.13
Steam turbine unit (MW) 136.98 139.87 2.04
HP turbine (MW) 27.38 28.49 3.90
IP turbine (MW) 45.50 47.94 5.09
LP turbine (MW) 65.46 66.26 1.21
Circulating pumps (MW) 1.36 1.33 2.52
Plant net power (MW) 391.62 393.47 0.47
Plant efficiency (%) 55.88 56.21 0.47

Table 6
Model design parameters of the MEA-based CO2 absorption process [13,1].
Parameters Value Fig. 5. P–H diagram of CO2 compression process.

Inlet gas temperature (◦ C)/pressure (bar(a)) 40/1.1

Inlet gas flow rate (kmol/h) 85,000 compression process is shown in Fig. 5.
Inlet gas compositions (mol%) N2 76.65 A CO2/H2O stream with temperature 101.9 ◦ C and pressure 2.0 bar
O2 12.91 was introduced in the first-stage compressor at 14.38 ton/h. As shown in
H2O 6.71
Fig. 5, the stream was compressed to 5.4 bar in the first-stage
CO2 3.73
Lean solvent temperature/pressure (◦ C/bar) 40/1.1 compressor and cooled to 30 ◦ C using seawater to remove H2O. Simi­
Lean solvent flow rate (kmol/h) 120,000 larly, the stream was compressed to 16.3, 48.9, and 150 bar through
Lean solvent compositions (mass%) H2O 65.50 two-, three-, and four-stage compressors, respectively. As a result of the
CO2 5.50 simulation, each compressor consumed 6.54, 3.13, 2.93, and 2.35 MW
Amine (MEA) 29.00
of power generated from the NGCC power plant. The compression pro­
Number of stages/pressure in absorber (bar) 10/1.1
Number of stages/pressure in stripper (bar) 6/2.0 cess for CO2 storage was confirmed to incur a significant efficiency
penalty by a net power consumption of 14.95 MW.

Table 7 3.2. NGCC power plant with cryogenic CCS process

MEA-based CO2 absorption process model validation with literature.
Performance Simulation Literature Error This study proposes a novel cryogenic CCS process to reduce the
[1] (%) efficiency penalty of the conventional CCS process. Thus, this section
CO2 capture rate (%) 89.7 90.0 0.39 describes designing the cryogenic CCS process that satisfies the low ef­
Heat consumption (MWthermal) 144.2 138.0 2.52 ficiency penalty and high CO2 capture rate, followed by confirming the
Specific power consumption (MJe/ 4.15 4.11 0.99 superiority of the cryogenic CCS process compared with the conven­
kgCO2)
tional CCS process.
The main design variable was first identified to develop a cryogenic
CCS process that satisfies the requirements of low net power consump­
Table 8 tion and high CO2 capture rate. The flue gas compressor was considered
Properties of the streams in CO2 compression process. the main design variable because it is the only power-consuming unit in
Parameters Value cryogenic CCS process. Furthermore, the compressor discharge pressure
Inlet gas temperature ( C)/pressure (bar(a))
◦
101.9/2.0 changes both the desublimation temperature of CO2 in the flue gas and
Inlet gas flow rate (ton/h) 14.38 the CO2 capture rate.
Inlet gas compositions (mol%) N2 0.01 Therefore, to investigate the effect of the compressor discharge
O2 0.01 pressure on the cryogenic CCS process performance, a process model
H2O 43.39
CO2 56.59
with the same configuration as described in Section 2.4 was designed
using Aspen Plus V11.0. 14.74 kg/s of LNG was continuously fed into the
NGCC power plant, and the flue gas emitted from the NGCC power plant
reduced power generation when capturing 1 kg of CO2 has an error of was entered into the cryogenic CCS process. The pinch-point tempera­
0.99 %, indicating that this model accurately calculates the efficiency ture of the multi-stream heat exchanger in the cryogenic CCS process
penalty owing to the MEA-based CO2 absorption process. was set at 10 ◦ C, and the temperature of LNG was set at − 168 ◦ C. The
As a result of the simulation, the MEA-based CO2 absorption process outlet temperature of natural gas was set at 30 ◦ C since natural gas
captured 125,067 kgCO2/s, and the power that can be generated using enters the NGCC power plant at 30 ◦ C. Accordingly, the outlet temper­
the low-pressure steam turbine of the NGCC power plant was reduced ature of stream 110 was also set to 30 ◦ C, and stream 106 was cooled
from 65.46 to 22.97 MW in this process. In addition, the pump used for through heat exchange with clean gas and LNG. The model of the
circulating the MEA solvent consumed 0.10 MW of power, confirming cryogenic CCS process is shown in Fig. 6.
the efficiency penalty owing to the MEA-based CO2 absorption process. Subsequently, the net power consumption and the CO2 capture rate
Aspen HYSYS V11.0 and Peng-Robinson equation were used for the of the cryogenic CCS process were confirmed based on the compressor
CO2 compression process simulation. In the compression process, CO2 is discharge pressure (pressure of stream 105, PI-105). This study varied
compressed from 2.0 bar (pressure by stripper in the capture process) to the compressor discharge pressure (PI-105) from 0.7 to 1.2 bar at in­
150 bar for further storage [6]. Therefore, a four-stage compressor is tervals of 0.1 bar since the flue gas pressure from the heat recovery
required to compress CO2 to the target pressure value [6]. The properties steam generator was 0.59 bar (PI-101). First, the effect of the compressor
of the streams are listed in Table 8. The P–H diagram of the CO2 discharge pressure on net power consumption in the cryogenic CCS

6
Y. Kim et al.
Fig. 6. Process model of the cryogenic CCS process.
Fig. 7. Effect of compressor discharge pressure on power consumption in the
cryogenic CCS process.
process is investigated, as shown in Fig. 7. As the discharge pressure of
the compressor (PI-105) increased, the power consumption of the
compressor (C-101) and the power generation by the turbine (T-101)
increased as 11.24–51.53 MW and 6.77–30.24 MW, respectively. The
Fig. 8. Effect of compressor discharge pressure on CO2 capture rate in the cryogenic CCS process: (a) multi-stream heat exchanger outlet temperature of flue gas and
captured CO2 mass flow rate; (b) CO2 capture rate and specific power consumption.
7
Chemical Engineering Journal 456 (2023) 140980
power generated by the turbine supplemented the power consumption
of the compressor; thus, the net power consumption was calculated from
4.50 to 21.29 MW with increasing PI-105, as shown in Fig. 7. In Fig. 7,
the slope of WT101,generation was changed when the compressor discharge
pressure was 1.0 bar. As the compressor discharge pressure increased,
the power consumption increased, but the power generated by the tur­
bine (T101) also increased. Therefore, the required energy in the cryo­
genic CCS process was offset by the power generation from T101,
resulting in the slope change of WT101,generation.
Second, the influence of the compressor discharge pressure on the
CO2 capture rate in the cryogenic CCS process is examined, as shown in
Fig. 8. In Fig. 8 (a), the temperature of flue gas with desublimated CO2
(the temperature of stream 107, TI-107) lowered from − 110.9 to
− 147.3 ◦ C as PI-105 increased to 1.0 bar. Furthermore, a lower TI-107
increased FI-401 (the mass flow of the captured CO2) from 20.0 to
40.0 kg/s. The reason is that the desublimation temperature increased
with increasing PI-105, leading to CO2 capture with less cold energy. In
addition, the increased pressure difference between streams 108 and
109 resulted in lowered TI-109. Thus, more cold energy from stream 109
could be recovered in the CO2 desublimation.
On the other hand, when PI-105 was higher than 1.1 bar, TI-107
increased from − 139.4 to − 133.1 ◦ C and FI-401 decreased from 39.9
to 39.7 kg/s. The reasons for this are as follows. As the flue gas is
compressed higher, the dew point for other components in the flue gas,
such as N2 and O2, also increases. The CO2-removed gas (stream 108)
was easily converted into a liquid phase during expansion. Therefore, to
prevent the liquefaction of CO2-removed gas in the turbine, TI-107
Y. Kim et al. Chemical Engineering Journal 456 (2023) 140980

Table 9 consumption and specific power consumption of the cryogenic CCS

Model design parameters of the cryogenic CCS process. process, as shown in Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 (b). Based on this analysis, the
Symbol Components Description Simulation Value Unit model design parameters for the cryogenic CCS process have been listed
parameter in Table 9. The simulation results of the streams of the cryogenic CCS
E-101, Water cooler Flue gas cooler Outlet 30.00 ◦
C process are summarized in Table 10.
102 using seawater temperature The performance of the NGCC power plant based on the CCS process
V-101 Drum (V-L) Vapor-liquid Pressure 0.59 bar is summarized in Table 11. No reduction in the power generation of the
drum to LP steam turbine was observed owing to thermal treatment at the
separate water
in flue gas
stripper column because the proposed cryogenic CCS process captured
V-102 Dryer Dryer to Outlet stream 1.00 – CO2 using LNG cold energy. In addition, CO2 was captured and stored in
completely specification the solid phase by the cryogenic CCS process, resulting in no power
separate water (H2O) consumption owing to the multistage compression process. In conclu­
in flue gas
sion, the cryogenic CCS process reduced the efficiency penalty of the
C-101 Compressor Flue gas Discharge 1.00 bar
compressor to pressure NGCC power plant from 14.34 to 3.51 %.
facilitate heat Isentropic 0.80 – When calculating the efficiency penalty by the cryogenic CCS pro­
exchange efficiency cess, the energy consumption to keep it in the solid phase was not
MSHE Multi-stream Heat exchanger Hot outlet 147.30 ◦
C calculated since this work focused on capturing CO2 in the solid phase.
heat to desublimate temperature
exchanger CO2 using LNG Minimum 10.00 ◦
C
cold energy and temperature
Table 11
flue gas cold approach
Performance comparison of cryogenic with conventional CCS process.
energy
D-101 Drum (V-S) Vapor-solid Pressure 1.00 bar Units NGCC Conventional Cryogenic
drum to
separate CO2 in NGCC power plant MW 391.62 350.08 391.81
solid phase in Gas turbine power MW 254.65 254.65 254.83
flue gas Gas turbine MW 507.77 507.77 507.95
T-101 Turbine Turbine to Discharge 0.55 bar Air compressor MW 249.24 249.24 249.24
generate power pressure Steam turbine power MW 136.98 95.43 136.98
and lower flue Isentropic 0.75 – HP turbine MW 27.38 27.38 27.38
gas temperature efficiency IP turbine MW 45.50 45.50 45.50
LP turbine MW 65.46 22.97 65.46
Circulating pumps MW 1.36 0.42 1.36
CCS process MW 15.05 13.94
should be increased. As a result, FI-107 was decreased with higher TI-
–
CO2 capture process MW – 0.10 13.94
107. CO2 capture ratio % – 90.00 99.93
In conclusion, the flue gas must be compressed above a pressure of CO2 emission kg/s 40.03 3.99 0.02
1.0 bar to achieve higher than the 90 % CO2 capture rate (the conven­ CO2 storage process MW – 14.95 –
Net power output MW 391.62 335.03 377.87
tional CCS process), as shown in Fig. 8 (b). Therefore, the flue gas was
Efficiency penalty % – 14.45 3.51
compressed to a pressure of 1.0 bar to minimize the net power

Table 10
Simulation results of the streams of the cryogenic CCS process.
Stream 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108
o
Temperature ( C) 127.40 30.00 30.00 30.00 90.09 30.00 − 147.30 − 147.30
Pressure (bar) 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Mass flow (kg/s) 649.76 649.76 640.11 615.45 615.45 615.45 615.45 575.44
Mole flow (kmol/s) 22.87 22.87 22.33 20.96 20.96 20.96 20.96 20.05
Components mole fractions (%)
N2 74.45 74.45 76.24 81.22 81.22 81.22 81.22 84.90
CO2(g) 3.98 3.98 4.07 4.34 4.34 4.34 0.00 0.00
CO2(s) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.34 0.00
O2 12.36 12.36 12.65 13.48 13.48 13.48 13.48 14.09
H2O 8.33 8.33 6.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Ar 0.88 0.88 0.90 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 1.01
CH4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
C2H6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
C3H8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Stream 109 110 201 202 301 302 401

Temperature (oC) − 187.28 17.58 30.00 30.00 − 168.00 17.58 − 147.30
Pressure (bar) 0.55 0.55 0.59 0.59 1.01 1.01 1.00
Mass flow (kg/s) 575.44 575.44 9.65 24.66 14.74 14.74 40.01
Mole flow (kmol/s) 20.05 20.05 0.54 1.37 0.80 0.80 0.91
Components mole fractions (%)
N2 84.90 84.90 0.00 0.00 1.47 1.47 0.00
CO2(g) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00
CO2(s) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 100.00
O2 14.09 14.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
H2O 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Ar 1.01 1.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CH4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 87.08 87.08 0.00
C2H6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.83 7.83 0.00
C3H8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.94 2.94 0.00

8
Y. Kim et al. Chemical Engineering Journal 456 (2023) 140980

Fig. 9. Overall energy flow of the NGCC power plant according to CCS processes: (a) conventional CCS process; (b) cryogenic CCS process.

Table 12
Performance of NGCC power plant in different cases.
Parameters Base case Case 1 [1] Case 2 [6] Case 3
Net power efficiency (%) 47.92 51.36 45.8 53.98
Efficiency penalty (%) 14.34 8.00 9.53 3.51
Base case: NGCC + MEA absorption + Compression
Case 1: NGCC + EGR + MEA absorption + Compression + Heat
integration + 2 ORC with LNG regasification
Case 2: NGCC + Modified MEA absorption + Compression with
LNG regasification
Case 3: NGCC + Cryogenic CCS
In addition, if adding the assumption that a plant that requires CO2 in
the solid phase is geographically located nearby, there is no additional
energy consumption to maintain the temperature of CO2 in the solid
phase. Therefore, the efficiency penalty resulting from maintaining the
low temperature of CO2 in the solid phase was not calculated. As a result,
the summarized overall energy flow of the NGCC power plant according
to CCS processes is shown in Fig. 9.
To confirm whether the cryogenic CCS process using LNG cold en­
ergy was the best way to reduce the efficiency penalty, the performance
of the NGCC power plant was compared with those obtained in previous
studies. The performances of the NGCC power plant in different cases are
listed in Table 12. In case 1, the efficiency penalty of the conventional
CCS process was reduced by generating power using LNG cold energy
through two additional ORCs. In case 2, the efficiency penalty was
reduced by retrofitting the conventional MEA-based CO2 absorption
process and liquefying the CO2 compressed above triple point pressure
using LNG cold energy during the compression process. As shown in
Table 12, the cryogenic CCS process exhibited lower efficiency penalty
than the retrofitted conventional CCS process configuration using LNG
cold energy. Therefore, it was confirmed that using LNG cold energy for
CO2 capture and storage can improve the performance of NGCC power
plants the most. In addition, it was confirmed that the performance of
cryogenic CCS was better than that of the existing MEA-based absorption
and compression-based CCS processes.
4. Conclusions
In this study, a novel cryogenic CCS process using LNG cold energy
was proposed for the NGCC power plant. The NGCC power plant, MEA-
based absorption process, and four-stage compression process were
modeled and validated with previous studies to investigate the effi­
ciency penalty of the conventional CCS process. Consequently, the
process model error was lower than 5.09 %, verifying the accuracy of the
model. Subsequently, a model was developed for proposing a cryogenic
CCS process. During model development, the flue gas compressor
discharge pressure was considered the primary design variable because
it affected the CO2 capture rate and net power consumption of the
cryogenic CCS process. Maximizing the CO2 capture rate while mini­
mizing the net power consumption was possible when the flue gas was
compressed to 1.0 bar. Consequently, the proposed cryogenic CCS pro­
cess reduces the efficiency penalty from 14.34 to 3.51 % with a CO2
capture rate of 99.93 %.
The findings of this study make major contributions to the literature.
The proposed cryogenic CCS process using LNG cold energy in the solid
phase can reduce the efficiency penalty for two reasons. First, the
cryogenic CCS process using LNG cold energy can replace the energy-
intensive thermal treatment of the MEA-based absorption process. Sec­
ond, the cryogenic CCS process in the solid phase does not require
compression of CO2 to 150 bar for storage, which incurs significant
power consumption. Furthermore, the cryogenic CCS process minimizes
additional equipment installation for using LNG cold energy by inte­
grating the CCS and energy utilization processes. We believe that this
study will provide a novel guideline for reducing the efficiency penalty
by overcoming the challenges of the conventional CCS process.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.

9
Y. Kim et al.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
Acknowledgements
Funding: This work was supported by the Korea Institute of Industrial
Technology within the framework of the “Development and application
of carbon-neutral engineering platform based on carbon emission
database and prediction model” project [Grant Nos. KM-22-0348].
References
[1] J. Bao, L. Zhang, C. Song, N. Zhang, M. Guo, X. Zhang, Reduction of efficiency
penalty for a natural gas combined cycle power plant with post-combustion CO2
capture: Integration of liquid natural gas cold energy, Energy Convers. Manag. 198
(2019), 111852, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.111852.
[2] S. Lee, J.-K. Kim, Process-integrated design of a sub-ambient membrane process for
CO2 removal from natural gas power plants, Appl. Energy. 260 (2020), 114255,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114255.
[3] A. Kazemi, J. Moreno, D. Iribarren, Techno-economic comparison of optimized
natural gas combined cycle power plants with CO2 capture, Energy 255 (2022),
124617, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.124617.
[4] J. Lee, S. Cho, H. Cho, S. Cho, I. Lee, I. Moon, J. Kim, CFD modeling on natural and
forced ventilation during hydrogen leaks in a pressure regulator process of a
residential area, Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 161 (2022) 436–446, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.psep.2022.03.065.
[5] J. Lee, C. Joo, H. Cho, Y. Kim, S. Ga, J. Kim, Design of multistage fixed bed reactors
for SMR hydrogen production based on the intrinsic kinetics of Ru-based catalysts,
Energy Convers. Manag. 268 (2022), 115981, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ENCONMAN.2022.115981.
[6] H. Sultan, H.A. Muhammad, U.H. Bhatti, G.H. Min, I.H. Baek, Y.J. Baik, S.C. Nam,
Reducing the efficiency penalty of carbon dioxide capture and compression process
in a natural gas combined cycle power plant by process modification and liquefied
natural gas cold energy integration, Energy Convers. Manag. 244 (2021), 114495,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.114495.
[7] S. Hong, J. Lee, H. Cho, M. Kim, I. Moon, J. Kim, Multi-objective optimization of
CO 2 emission and thermal efficiency for on-site steam methane reforming
hydrogen production process using machine learning, J. Clean. Prod. 359 (2022),
132133, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132133.
[8] D. Jansen, M. Gazzani, G. Manzolini, E. Van Dijk, M. Carbo, Pre-combustion CO2
capture, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 40 (2015) 167–187, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijggc.2015.05.028.
[9] Y. Hu, H. Ahn, Process integration of a Calcium-looping process with a natural gas
combined cycle power plant for CO2 capture and its improvement by exhaust gas
recirculation, Appl. Energy. 187 (2017) 480–488, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2016.11.014.
[10] G.G. Esquivel Patiño, F. Nápoles Rivera, Global warming potential and net power
output analysis of natural gas combined cycle power plants coupled with CO2
capture systems and organic Rankine cycles, J. Clean. Prod. 208 (2019) 11–18,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.098.
[11] K.E. Zanganeh, A. Shafeen, A novel process integration, optimization and design
approach for large-scale implementation of oxy-fired coal power plants with CO2
capture, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 1 (2007) 47–54, https://doi.org/10.1016/
S1750-5836(07)00035-7.
[12] B. Jin, H. Zhao, C. Zheng, Dynamic simulation for mode switching strategy in a
conceptual 600 MWe oxy-combustion pulverized-coal-fired boiler, Fuel 137 (2014)
135–144, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.07.104.
[13] S.-Y. Oh, M. Binns, H. Cho, J.-K. Kim, Energy minimization of MEA-based CO2
capture process, Appl. Energy. 169 (2016) 353–362, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2016.02.046.
[14] M. Qi, J. Lee, S. Hong, J. Kim, Y. Liu, J. Park, I. Moon, Flexible and efficient
renewable-power-to-methane concept enabled by liquid CO2 energy storage:
10
Chemical Engineering Journal 456 (2023) 140980
Optimization with power allocation and storage sizing, Energy 256 (2022),
124583, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.124583.
[15] J. Lee, S. Hong, H. Cho, B. Lyu, M. Kim, J. Kim, I.l. Moon, Machine learning-based
energy optimization for on-site SMR hydrogen production, Energy Convers.
Manag. 244 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.114438.
[16] J. Lee, J. Lim, C. Joo, Y. Ahn, H. Cho, J. Kim, Multiobjective Optimization of Plastic
Waste Sorting and Recycling Processes Considering Economic Profit and CO 2
Emissions Using Nondominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II, ACS Sustainable
Chem. Eng. 10 (40) (2022) 13325–13334.
[17] J. Xu, W. Lin, A CO2 cryogenic capture system for flue gas of an LNG-fired power
plant, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy. 42 (2017) 18674–18680, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2017.04.135.
[18] Y. Kim, S. Cho, K. Jang, J. Lee, M. Kim, I. Moon, Effect of Radial Distribution of
Injected Flow on Simulated Moving Bed Performance, J. Chromatogr. A. 1662
(2021), 462703, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2021.462703.
[19] Y. Kim, T. Kim, C. Park, J. Lee, H. Cho, M. Kim, I. Moon, Development of novel flow
distribution apparatus for simulated moving bed to improve degree of mixing,
Comput. Chem. Eng. 156 (2022), 107553, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compchemeng.2021.107553.
[20] H. Lee, J. Lim, H. Cho, J. Kim, Novel pulp mill wastewater recovery process for
CO2 and SOx utilization, J. Clean. Prod. 371 (2022), 133298, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133298.
[21] H.A. Muhammad, H. Sultan, B. Lee, M. Imran, I.H. Baek, Y.-J. Baik, S.C. Nam,
Energy minimization of carbon capture and storage by means of a novel process
configuration, Energy Convers. Manag. 215 (2020), 112871, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112871.
[22] H.A. Muhammad, G. Lee, J. Cho, U.H. Bhatti, Y.-J. Baik, B. Lee, Design and
optimization of CO2 pressurization system integrated with a supercritical CO2
power cycle for the CO2 capture and storage system, Energy Convers. Manag. 195
(2019) 609–619, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.05.029.
[23] P.R. Díaz-Herrera, A.M. Alcaraz-Calderón, M.O. González-Díaz, A. González-Díaz,
Capture level design for a natural gas combined cycle with post-combustion CO2
capture using novel configurations, Energy 193 (2020), 116769, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2019.116769.
[24] J. Bravo, J. Charles, S. Neti, H. Caram, A. Oztekin, C. Romero, Integration of solar
thermal energy to improve NGCC with CO2 capture plant performance, Int. J.
Greenh. Gas Control. 100 (2020), 103111, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijggc.2020.103111.
[25] P.L. Mores, J.I. Manassaldi, N.J. Scenna, J.A. Caballero, M.C. Mussati, S.F. Mussati,
Optimization of the design, operating conditions, and coupling configuration of
combined cycle power plants and CO2 capture processes by minimizing the
mitigation cost, Chem. Eng. J. 331 (2018) 870–894, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cej.2017.08.111.
[26] G.G. Esquivel-Patiño, M. Serna-González, F. Nápoles-Rivera, Thermal integration
of natural gas combined cycle power plants with CO2 capture systems and organic
Rankine cycles, Energy Convers. Manag. 151 (2017) 334–342, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2017.09.003.
[27] X. Luo, M. Wang, J. Chen, Heat integration of natural gas combined cycle power
plant integrated with post-combustion CO2 capture and compression, Fuel 151
(2015) 110–117, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2015.01.030.
[28] T. Lambert, A. Hoadley, B. Hooper, Process integration of solar thermal energy
with natural gas combined cycle carbon capture, Energy 74 (2014) 248–253,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.06.038.
[29] T.T. Project, S. Angus, B. Armstrong, K.M. de Reuck, International Thermodynamic
Tables of the Fluid State: Carbon dioxide, Butterworths, 1971.
[30] T.T. Project, S. Angus, B. Armstrong, K.M. de Reuck, International Thermodynamic
Tables of the Fluid State: Nitrogen, Butterworths, 1979.
[31] H.J. Hoge, Vapor pressure and fixed points of oxygen and heat capacity in the
critical region, J. Res. Natl. Bur. Stand. 44 (1950) (1934) 321, https://doi.org/
10.6028/jres.044.029.
[32] F. Pavese, The Triple Point of Argon and Oxygen, Metrologia 14 (1978) 93–103,
https://doi.org/10.1088/0026-1394/14/3/001.
[33] Z. Liu, I.A. Karimi, Simulating combined cycle gas turbine power plants in Aspen
HYSYS, Energy Convers. Manag. 171 (2018) 1213–1225, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enconman.2018.06.049.