| 000 | 02859ntm a2200253 a 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | vtls000084663 | ||
| 003 | KUKTEM | ||
| 005 | 20251117113246.0 | ||
| 008 | 141224t2014 my a f m 000 0 eng d | ||
| 020 | _aTHE0004336(Local) | ||
| 039 | 9 |
_a201905161016 _brohana _y201412241102 _zfawwaz |
|
| 040 | _aUMP | ||
| 090 | _aTP248.A4 N35 2014 r Bc. | ||
| 100 | 0 | _aSiti Najibah Abd Rahman | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 |
_aComparison of chemical solvent for co2 removal from power plant using amine scrubbing process / _cSiti Najibah Abd Rahman |
| 260 |
_aKuantan, Pahang : _bUMP, _c2014 |
||
| 300 |
_axvi, 49 p. : _bill. ; _c30 cm. + _e1 CD-ROM |
||
| 500 | _aFaculty of Chemical & Natural Resources Engineering | ||
| 502 | _aProject paper (Bachelor of Chemical Engineering) -- Universiti Malaysia Pahang – 2014 | ||
| 504 | _aBibliography : p. 45-49 | ||
| 520 | 3 | _aThis research is aims to compare monoethanolamine (MEA), diethanolamine (DEA), and N-methyldiethanolamine (MDEA) solvents to achieve higher CO2 removal efficiency in absorber column by varying some process parameters including amine concentration, lean solvent flow rate and temperature. Process model was developed using Aspen Plus v12.1 with the electrolyte property inserts for each amine using electrolyte-NRTL thermodynamic model. The rate-based Radfrac absorber column are model by using data adapted from pilot plant data Case 32 at University of Texas, Austin by Dugas (2006). From the results obtained, it showed shows that the CO2 removal efficiency is increased with increasing of amine concentration for each amine. The CO2 removal efficiency using the MEA solvent is the highest compared than DEA and MDEA solvent. Besides that, it is more realistic to used MEA concentration not more than 31.5 wt. % as it can achieved 99.8% CO2 removal efficiency and to avoid corrosion effect to equipment in real plant. As the lean solvent flow rate increases, the CO2 removal efficiency for studied amines increases that can be arranged as the following order: MEA > DEA > MDEA. MEA shows high CO2 removal efficiency because MEA is primary amine which has high CO2 absorption capacity and reactivity than to DEA and MDEA. However, CO2 removal efficiency was decrease as lean solvent temperature increase for all amines. This is due to the reduction of amine in lean solvent since it were vaporised before entering the absorber. MEA solvent can achieved approximately 99% CO2 removal at 1 kg/s lean solvent flow rate. While the DEA and MDEA can achieve 99% CO2 removal efficiency around 133 kg/s and 110 kg/s lean solvent flow rate respectively. It proved that the MEA can achieve very high CO2 removal efficiency at low lean solvent flow rate and concentration compared to DEA and MDEA | |
| 650 | 0 | _aAspen plus | |
| 999 |
_aVIRTUA40 _c5611 _d5617 |
||
| 999 | _aVTLSSORT0080*0200*0400*0900*1000*2450*2600*3000*5000*5020*5040*5200*6500*9992 | ||