A pilot study comparing MEA and AEEA solvents in carbon capture.

• Experimental pilot data results using an aqueous 2-(2-aminoethylamino)ethanol (AEEA) compared to ethanolamine (MEA) solution. Data provided for various flow configurations, for systems having patented interheated reboiler unskillful running of the pilot CO 2 removal process with AEEA solution can lead to excessive heat consumption, higher than for MEA. • For three different absorbent flow configurations (standard, multi absorber feed, and split flow) with AEEA solution used the lowest reboiler heat duty was obtained for the split flow system. • Running the AEEA CO 2 capture process with the split flow system almost 10 per cent point lower reboiler heat duty than for MEA at the same L/G ratio was achieved. The goal of reducing the energy consumption of the CO 2 removal process from flue gas may be pursued by modifying the process flow system, insertion of new technical solutions or developing new solvents. This paper provides data and discussion of the pilot plant experimental results using an aqueous 2-(2-aminoethylamino)ethanol (AEEA) compared to ethanolamine (MEA) solution. The post-combustion carbon capture pilot plant study was conducted with stripper inter-heating for advanced various flow systems, mainly for multi absorber feed (MAF) process setups, namely one with the lean amine stream being split 50/50 and served at different heights of the absorption column. A comparison with the standard (S) and split flow (SF) process flow modification has been also performed. The test showed that unskillful running of the process with AEEA solution can lead to excessive heat consumption, higher than for MEA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]