Compression modelling in gPROMS for Carbon Capture and Storage Systems: Surge and speed control strategies for

centrifugal compressors
Elton Medeiros Dias elton.dias@ist.utl.pt Instituto Superior T ecnico, Lisboa, Portugal October 2012
Abstract Carbon capture and storage (CCS) has arisen as a powerful candidate to mitigate the huge amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2 ) released by the current energy production paradigm. However, the use of this specic technology to retrot power plants has not been proven at the industrial level. This work presents the development of a fast and high delity means to simulate a real CO2 compression system, one of the critical sections within a CCS chain, exploring at the same time, the possible congurations for pressure and surge control in the given system. The modeling of each equipment was implemented using the software gPROMS, an advanced modeling platform, with the purpose of represent correctly the fundamental behavior of the units. The models were evaluated against a technical report from the International Energy Agency in order to qualify their degree of accuracy. It was veried that the simulation of a compression system with a stream derived from a post-combustion capture process had low deviations: for the outlet compressor unit streams, the pressure deviation values were between 0.06% and 2.29%, and between 0.69% and 2.89% for the temperature deviations. These results indicate that the models eectively reproduce a real compression system. Further work was developed in the pressure control, where two congurations were tested, being the best option the one that involved cascade control. Surge control was also implemented in order to provide a safe operation to each individual compressor and, consequently, to the whole compression operation. Keywords: CCS, compression systems, gPROMS, modelling, pressure control, surge control.

1. Introduction Since the early 20th century, Earths mean surface temperature has increased by about 0.8 C, with around two-thirds of the increase occurring since 1980 [1]. Global warming of the climate system is unequivocal and scientists are very certain that it is primarily caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHG) produced by human activities such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels [2, 3]. Carbon dioxide (CO2 ) is the main greenhouse gas and in the UK accounted for about 84 per cent of the total GHG emissions, in the year of 2010 [4]. About 39% (weighted in Mt CO2 equivalent) of the CO2 released came from power supply activities that resulted from the burning of fossil fuels. In 1997 the UK government committed, when agreed with the Kyoto Protocol, to reduce the emissions of CO2 , and other greenhouse gases by 80 per cent by 2050 from the 1990 level [5]. A solution to solve the emissions is the integration of carbon 1

capture and storage (CCS) in the existing power plants. This option has taken a lot of credit in the present time and with the expected increase of the carbon price it will be more aordable to spend energy in the sequestration of the CO2 instead of paying for its release to the atmosphere [6]. Modelling is a fast and cheap way to represent the reality, simulate the eects of changing environment variables and test the consequences of certain actions. This kind of technology has proved to be a good tool to support decisions with very good predictions of the results leading to a reliable test platform. Optimization procedures may be tried in modellation, giving the best solution to a certain problem, even if the system is of high complexity. The commercial product gPROMS R , has the potential to describe all process of the CCS chain. Indeed, the company Process Systems Enterprise is currently developing a modelling toolkit, know as gCCS, to reproduce all the CCS process.

2. CCS Technology The disposal concept has been used for many years now as the main way to deal with CO2 . The default reservoir to disposal CO2 is the atmosphere, but it is now proven that it cannot manage such large amounts of emissions since CO2 concentrations are increasing at an unsustainable rate worldwide [7]. In that sense, the concept of CCS has risen up as a potential solution to the enormous CO2 emissions. This concept implies that for every ton of carbon taken from the ground, another ton of carbon has to be permanently and safely stored, and away from the mobile carbon pool. Storage options for CO2 have been around the injection below the ground, either below the continents or below the ocean oor. Depleted oil and gas elds or salt cavities, are the main examples of such reservoirs. The CCS technology is based on a few steps of collection and permanent storage of CO2 . In the rst place there is the capture of the CO2 from the industrial process, followed by the compression and transportation to the injection site.

in order to dry the CO2 stream. This topology allows a dehydration along the compression system and a nal tunning in the dehydrator. Liquefaction and pumping to the desired pressure can also be done, depending on the chosen process path.

2.2.1. Compressors A compressor is a mechanical device that increases the pressure of a gas by reducing its volume. A side eect of compression is the rise in temperature due to the waste of energy as heat. There are two main types of compressors : the axial and the centrifugal compressors, which are both dynamic compressors, and also the positive displacement ones such as the reciprocating compressors. In dynamic compressors the compression ratio depends on gas properties and inlet volumetric ow rate, while positive displacement compressors work at a xed ow rate and the pressure ratio capability is not aected by gas properties. Generically, dynamic compressors have higher efciencies and working exibility (in terms of ow rates range) when compared to positive displace2.1. Compression/liquefaction and transport ment ones [10, 11]. Centrifugal compressors repreAfter CO2 is separated from the other components sent the current state of the art for CCS applicaof the ue gas, it is either compressed to the desired tions [9]. pressure using a gas compressor or liqueed at lower pressures by refrigeration systems and then pumped 2.2.2. Cooler and knockout drum Compressor intercoolers are a very critical comto the desired pressure. Carbon dioxide capture plants need to have CO2 ponent, since they are the primary equipments compression facilities since all the typical processes that minimize compressor horsepower. For a comcapture CO2 at pressures well below those needed pression system upstream of the dehydration unit, for transport and underground injection. Nowa- temperature at the discharge of each intercooler days, CO2 is transported by pipeline, by ship and must be controlled to maintain the process stream by tanker, primarily for use in industry or to recover above the hydrate formation temperature. Hydrate formation in the compression system would plug more oil and gas from oil and gas elds [8]. The power required for the compression and/or orices and valves, damaging the rotating equipliquefaction represents a signicant part of the par- ment [12]. Also, the removal of water by refrigeraasitic energy consumption in CCS. The projected tion allows the reduction of corrosion in compressor compression power requirements are expected to equipments, therefore diminishing the amount of become signicant in comparison with for example corrosion resistant expensive materials in compresthose for natural gas transmission in the coming sors construction. Vapor-liquid separator drums are needed to ensure no liquid entrainment to the comdecades if CCS is adopted on a large scale [9]. pressors and to remove most of the water after com2.2. Compression and liquefaction equipments pression and cooling [13]. 2.2.3. Dehydrator The composition of the CO2 stream delivered by the capture plant is not appropriate to the compression/transmission and its high water content is a problem that can lead to corrosion in the equipments, formation of water hydrates and condensation of free water in the transmission systems. At high pressures and lower temperatures the formation of hydrates represents a serious problem, blocking pipelines and interrupting production.The water solubility in a CO2 stream reaches a minimum between 40 and 50 bara (see Fig. 2 [14]), where a de2

Figure 1: Typical CO2 compression owsheet. A typical compression sequence is presented in Fig. 1, where the process stream is compressed and dehydrated in condensers and knock-out drums. At some point of the process, a dehydrator is included

hydrator should work. Molecular sieves desiccants provide the lowest dew point, which is a critical factor since it may be required very low amounts of water content in the stream. A common conguration of a dehydrator makes use of two or more columns, working in parallel and based on shifts. This kind of conguration simulates a continuous process from the ow point of view since always allows the circulation of the stream through one or more columns in drying stage, while the another is regenerating.

working pressure of a liquefaction unit in a compression plant,. 2.3. Compression and liquefaction control The CCS chain requires absolute, precise, and safe control of the process, from the equipment to the whole process level.

2.3.1. Pressure control The control of pressure in the compression/liquefaction plant is one of the most important parameters to control. The needs to maintain a stable and accurate output pressure from the compression system to the transportation and injection have all sort of implications, namely safety, correct process operation and energy eciency. The power requirements in the power plant can change during the day, the same happens with the ow rate of the CO2 stream generated, due to the more or less burn of fuel. With those changes in the ow, the rotating velocity of the compressor should change to meet the pressure specications, like for example the inlet pressure on the dehydrator or the outlet pressure of the compression system, being the latter example of great importance too achieve the necessary pressure to allow the injection of the CO2 Figure 2: Saturated water content in CO2 , CH4 and into the well. mixture of both at 37.8 C. 2.3.2. Surge control Surge is dened as the operating point at which 2.2.4. Electric drive motor the compressor peak head capability and minimum An electric drive motor is a machine that delivers ow limit are reached. The compressor loses the the energy necessary to work with a compressor or ability to maintain the peak head when surge ocpump. This type of motor provide the compres- curs and the entire system becomes unstable. Howsion/pumping power to the compressor or pump, ever, as uctuations in ow rate occur, or under since these equipments are not self-powered. The startup / emergency shutdown, the operating point torque necessary to rotate the impellers of a com- will move towards the surge line because ow is repressor is transmitted through a shaft rotating at a duced. If conditions are such that the operating given speed. There are two main types of electric point approaches the surge line, the impeller and motors: xed speed motors or variable frequency diuser begin to operate in stall and ow recircudrive (VFD) incorporated in the motor, that allow lation occurs. The ow separation will eventually a precise control in the speed output of the motor. cause a decrease in the discharge pressure and ow A common conguration for compression is to from suction to discharge will resume dening the have some compressors in in-line disposition, shar- surge cycle of a compressor (Fig. 3). ing the same shaft power from a single motor. In The surge cycle will repeat itself unless control this conguration several compressors are coupled systems are installed or operational changes are to a shaft driven by a single motor. made to bring the compressor out of the surge cycle. A surge control system should be capable of detect 2.2.5. Liquefaction unit the approach to surge and provide more ow to the The liquefaction approach is founded in the knowl- compressor through opening the recycle valve. edge that liquid pumps require signicantly less power to raise pressure and are considerably less 3. Models Implementation expensive than gas compressors. But, liquefaction The software gPROMS R ModelBuilder was used also requires variable amounts of energy to perform to create the models. Some models were build from the liquefaction of a CO2 stream. scratch for this work, while others were developed The cooling medium for liquefaction units can by improving existing models within the PML v3.5 change a lot depending on the required liquefaction of gPROMS ModelBuilder v3.5.1. The improving temperatures. Energetic and economic trade-os process was based in making the proper changes on must be evaluated in order to determine the best fundamental equations and/or in the user interface. 3

tion allows multistage compression, and calculates the polytropic and isentropic eciency of each compression stage.This model assumes that the compressor has innitely fast dynamics, and negligible hold-up and inertia of gas within the compressor. The model performs a compression of real gases by the use fundamental of the equations described in [15, 16], which are the calculation of the isentropic eciency for each stage, through the relation between isentropic and polytropic eciency. 3.4. Controllers The model algorithm supports bump-less switching between dierent classes and modes to eliminate any undesirable disturbance into the process when changing the operation mode or the algorithm class. However, bump-less switching is not implemented for changes between direct and reverse action. An anti reset windup algorithm is included in the model to ensure that the controller output lies within the specied upper and lower bounds. If the bounds are violated, the time derivative of the integral error is set to zero and the controller output is clipped to the bounds. Once the controller output is back in the range of the bounds, the integral error will change according to the current error. This base model of a PID controller was used to build two controllers needed for CCS. One is the VFD controller, a simple PID controller to control the ElectricDrive speed in order to maintain the outlet pressure at a given point of the owsheet, and the other is the Surge controller (a PI controller) whose function is to control the surge at each CompressionSection.

Figure 3: Typical surge cycle on a performance map. 3.1. CO2 Junction unit The CO2Junction model is used to mix or divide a variable number of streams. The number of inlet and outlet streams is a dynamic variable, which means it can virtually mix and divide an innite number of streams. This model assumes that are no heat losses nor pressure drop in the equipment. The equipment does an isenthalpic mixture of the inlet streams and all outlet streams have the same composition, temperature and pressure. The fundamental equations of this model are based on the mass balance for each mixed component in the junction, and the temperature calculation after the isenthalpic mixture. 3.2. CO2 Liquefaction unit The CO2Liquefaction model simulates a CO2 liquefaction unit operating in continuous mode. It calculates the total heat for the liquefaction of the stream and possible sub-cooling. The model also provides the total electrical duty based on a refrigeration cycle. It is assumed that are no heat losses in the heat exchanger, that the refrigeration cycle is completely sealed and therefore does not lose eciency over time. It is also assumed a pressure drop in the equipment. The fundamental equations that describe this model are the calculation of the energy required to remove from the CO2 stream and the electric power required to undergo the refrigeration, based on the dened coecient of performance of the refrigeration cycle.

3.5. Cooler and knock-out drum The CoolerKODrum is a steady state model that simulates a two-phase separator based on vapor liquid phase equilibrium with a specied exit temperature and pressure drop. It is assumed an accurate estimation of the equilibrium phase compositions. The outlet streams (vapour and liquid) and the cooling duty are also calculated by the model. It is assumed in this model that no liquid entrainment exists in the drum nor the cooler, no mass nor energy hold-ups occur in the cooler or in the ash drum and that the eect of drum internals on hydraulics is irrelevant. The fundamental equations of this model are the mass balance for the output 3.3. Compressor Section streams that leave the KO drum and the cooling This model represents a single centrifugal compres- duty required to perform the dened cooling. sor section performing a compression of a CO2 stream. The compression head is given by a map 3.6. Dehydration unit of ow-head and ow-polytropic eciency in order In this unit, a carbon dioxide stream is dehydrated to determine the outlet properties of the stream af- to a dened water concentration. The unit consists ter each compression stage. The model communi- of three molecular sieve beds: two beds in drying cates with the ElectricDrive model to receive speed operation, one in regeneration. The regeneration from it, and in return, send the power requirement is performed with a small fraction (typically 10% to execute such compression. The CompressorSec- [17]) of the dried product. The heat necessary for 4

Capture Plant

Pipeline system

M101 K101 K102 D101 J101

M102 K103 K104

CKOD101

CKOD102

CKOD103

CKOD104

Figure 4: Post-combustion compression system owsheet. the regeneration of the molecular sieve beds is also calculated. It is assumed that there is no loss in the capacity of the molecular sieves over time, that only water is adsorbed in the molecular sieves and that the pressure drop per bed does not depend on ow or mode operation of the bed. Some fundamental equations within this model are the mass and energy balance that is calculate for each drying and regeneration operation, for water and remaining components. 3.7. Electric drive 4. Results The main results include the output of the owsheet simulation and the controllers parameters of the congurations tested in the control assessment. The symbology for the equipment and connections types used in the owsheets is described in Tab. 2.

Table 2: Equipment symbology. Symbol Description CKOD D J K M PC PS SC V Cooler knockout drum model Dehydrator model JunctionCO2 model CompressorSection model ElectricDrive model VFD controller model Generic pressure sensor Surge controller model Valve gas model Stream connection Stream connection Stream connection

This model represents the motor that through a drive shaft connects to the compressors. The model sends the rotational speed to the compressor sections and in return, gets the power used by each compressor section to perform the required compression. The total power required is then calculated and sent to the power supply as a request. The rst-order dynamics of this model are due to the moment of inertia of the group connected to the shaft. The model can operate as xed speed drive or as variable speed drive, where it receives the speed from an external signal. The fundamental equations of this model are the speed dynamics 4.1. Post-combustion simulation results and calculation of the required electrical power. The Post-combustion case study present in [9], named Post-combustion: Base Case (B0) was used as a blueprint to test the developed models 3.8. Gas valve unit and is presented in Fig. 4. The Valve gas model is used to provide a pressureTab. 1 presents the main stream properties before driven valve for gas mixture. This valve calculates and after each CompressorSection, obtained after the amount of ow going through it, taking into running the owsheet of Fig. 4 in gPROMS, with account the sizing parameters of the valve. The the given inputs of the technical report [9] . valve has also a stem with variable position, alA comparison between the data contained in the lowing the use of this model for control purposes. technical report [9] and the results of the simulation This model assumes that the valve is isenthalpic, is presented in Tab. 3. The two main properties that no phase change occurs in the simulation and compared are the outlet temperatures (TRep for the that exists rst-order dynamics in changes of the report data and TSim for the simulation results) stem position. Some fundamental equations of this and pressures (pRep for the report data and pSim for model are the calculation of the mass ow based on the simulation results). These two properties, along the valve sizing and the outlet temperature of the with the composition which does not change in a stream after the expansion. compression process, can dene the thermodynamic 5

Properties Inlet F T p FV w(CO2 ) w(H2 O) w(N2 ) Outlet F T p FV w(CO2 ) w(H2 O) w(N2 )

Table 1: Post-combustion simulation results. Units K101 K102 K103 kg s1 K Pa m 3 s 1 kg kg1 kg kg1 kg kg1 kg s1 K Pa m 3 s 1 kg kg1 kg kg1 kg kg1

K104

77.3 311.0 1.62 105 28.5 0.983 0.017 6.52 105

84.5 292.1 6.60 105 6.82 0.998 1.46 103 6.63 105

76.0 297.1 3.27 106 1.05 1.00 5.00 105 6.64 105

76.0 313.15 6.93 106 0.39 1.00 5.00 105 6.64 105

77.3 443.9 7.00 105 9.40 0.983 0.017 6.52 105

84.5 444.1 3.40 106 2.01 0.998 1.46 103 6.63 105

76.0 366.1 6.97 106 0.62 1.00 5.00 105 6.64 105

76.0 351.7 1.087 107 0.30 1.00 5.00 105 6.64 105

state of the stream at any point, thereby their use as comparison parameters. The deviation against the reported values was also evaluated, in order to determine how close the simulation results are from the technical report.

Table 3: Comparison between the technical report and the simulation results. Equipment TRep (K) TSim (K) T (%) K101 K102 K103 K104 457 449 370 454 pRep (Pa) K101 K102 K103 K104 7.0 10 3.40 106 7.00 106 1.11 107
5

444 444 366 352 pSim (Pa) 7.0 10 3.40 106 6.97 106 1.09 107
5

2.89 1.13 1.09 0.69 p(%) 0.07 0.06 0.43 2.28

4.2.1. First conguration for pressure control In this conguration (see Fig. 5), two VFD controllers, PC101 and PC102, are connected to two ElectricDrives, M101 and M102, respectively, operating in variable speed mode. The design of the controllers was performed using the direct synthesis method. The constant times, c , used to design the controllers were dierent, according to the requirements of each part. For instance, it was given a reduced (about half) settling time to the second control loop (Loop M102), since this loop is critical in maintaining the output pressure, entering the transmission system. With a lower settling time, the time necessary to travel from old set-point to the new one is lowered and therefore, the control system can react quickly, securing a correct outlet pressure. As the rst control loop is going to the dehydrator, and only after goes to the second loop, the settling time could be managed to have higher values. The controllers parameters, settling time (4c ), proportional gain (Kc ) and integral constant time (I ) are presented in Tab. 4.

4.2. Control strategies

The control of pressure and surge were explored in order to try to obtain an optimal conguration that PC101 60 0.92 19.7 would allow a normal operation of the compression PC102 30 14.0 12.7 unit. Two pressure control congurations (one with cascade control and other without) were compared in order to evaluate dierent pressure control strategies, and the parameters for the given controllers 4.2.2. Second conguration for pressure control were tunned. For the surge control, the tuning of In this conguration (see Fig. 6), the rst control the controllers was performed as well. loop is the main dierence from rst conguration. 6

Table 4: Parameters of the controllers in the rst conguration of pressure control. Controller 4c Kc I

Capture Plant

Loop M101

Loop M102
PC102

Pipeline system

PC101 PS102

PS101 M101 K101 K102 D101 J101 M102 K103 CKOD103 K104

CKOD104 CKOD101 CKOD102

Figure 5: First conguration for pressure control.

Capture Plant

Master 101
PC201

Pipeline system

Loop M102
PC102 PC101 PS102

M101 K101 K102

PS101

M102 K103 D101 K104

Slave 101
J101

CKOD103

CKOD104

CKOD101

CKOD102

Figure 6: Second conguration for pressure control. This conguration explores the possibility of using cascade control to control the pressure entering the dehydrator. The exibility of changing the desired pressure entering the dehydrator, is justied by the fact that the working pressure to realize the dehydration does not have to be strictly xed, but instead has to be within a certain range that allows an easy dehydration in the molecular sieves. That said, this conguration is composed of two VFD controllers (PC101 and PC201), in cascade, controlling the ElectricDrive M101. The slave controller, PC101, has its set-point given by the master controller, PC201, and compares this value with the pressure at the entry of the dehydrator. The output of this controller is the manipulated variable, in other words, the rotating speed of ElectricDrive M101. The master controller receives the output pressure of the compression system and compares it with the set-point given by the user, being the output of this controller the set-point of the slave controller. The second control loop maintains unaltered relatively to the rst conguration. This conguration has also the aim of distributing the compression eort for both the ElectricDrives, as both control loops get information of the outlet pressure of the system, and in case of great disturbances, the cascade control can help to predict how to accommodate the inlet perturbations, relieving the eort of compression of the last compressor frame. The results of Loop M102 are the same as in the rst conguration. The choice of using a P controller to the controller PC101 was due to the lower oset ( = 0.87) provided by just using proportional action, for a settling time of 10 seconds. Also relevant is to know that the lower settling time was specically picked to provide a fast response, since the secondary loop should have dynamics must faster then the primary loop [18]. For the primary loop it was chosen a PI controller, since it was assumed that derivative action would not be needed. The bandwidth and phase margin of the closed-loop were optimized to deliver a short settling time and a minor overshoot. Tab. 5 shows controllers parameters obtained after tunning. 7

Table 5: Parameters of the controllers in the second conguration of pressure control. Controller 4c Kc I PC101 PC201 PC102 10 10 30 4.66 2.20 14.0 9.41 12.7

4.2.3. Pressure control simulations (a) Inlet dehydrator pressure In order to do a comparison of both designed congurations, a step increase of 10% (occurring at time 100 s) in the inlet ow rate of the compression system was imposed, and the pressure prior to the dehydrator and at the output of the compression system was measured. This kind of perturbation can be a result of a sudden change in the energy produced in a power plant, leading to an instant (for simulation purposes) change in the volume of CO2 generated. In the simulations, the controllers had their parameters given by the results of the tuning. (b) Outlet compression system pressure The Fig. 7 represents the pressure response at the inlet of the dehydrator and outlet pressure of the Figure 8: Response of pressures after a step-change compression system, for the rst conguration of in ow, for the second conguration. pressure control. Fig. 8 shows the system response to the step-change, but for the second pressure consafe operation. In Fig. 9, each compressor section trol conguration. has its own recycle loop that supports the recycle of downstream ow to the upstream, providing the means to handle any decrease in ow that may lead to surge on any stage of compression. The design of the controllers was made by using the direct synthesis method. The constant time used in all closed-loop surge cycles had the value c = 2.5, to provide a relatively fast settling time of 10 seconds. With this order of settling time, the surge control system should be fast enough to react to ow changes that could cause the appearance of (a) Inlet dehydrator pressure surge and damage the compressors. The controllers parameters are presented in Tab. 6. Table 6: Parameters of the controllers used for surge control. Controller 4c Kc I SC101 SC102 SC103 SC104 10 10 10 10 0.0198 0.0186 0.0183 0.0178 9.88 9.28 9.15 8.89

(b) Outlet compression system pressure

The step-response of each closed-loop was tested Figure 7: Response of pressures after a step-change with the parameters retrieved by the direct synthein ow, for the rst conguration. sis, and therefore a step perturbation in the setpoint of the stem position at each Valve gas was 4.2.4. Surge control simulations implemented and the response in the surge was obSurge control systems were implemented for each served. The normalized response of each closedcompressor unit in order to guarantee a correct and loop, as it was designed to have the same closed8

Capture Plant

Pipeline system

Surge 102
J101 J103

Surge 103
J105 J107

SC101 M101

SC102 M102 K102 K101 J102 J104 V102 J103 D101

SC103

SC104

K103 J106 V103 V104

K104 J108

V101

Surge 101

Surge 104
CKOD104 CKOD103

CKOD101

CKOD102

Figure 9: Flowsheet with surge control. loop transfer function, is very similar in all cases and can be observed in Fig. 10. 5. Conclusions A solution to overcome the global warming due to CO2 emissions is to use CCS. This technology has not yet been proven to retrot power plants at an industrial level but, with the arise of higher computational power, modellation has been proven as a powerful tool to address this challenge. The equipments of the compression system of a CCS chain were created in gPROMS R and each model was tested and evaluated, in order to determine its accuracy/delity. Higher complexity environment tests were performed by means of putting together a owsheet based on a case study of postcombustion technology from the report [9]. The main simulation results show that the models created were able to reproduce with good accuracy the results of the technical report [9], with a maximum deviation of 2.28% for the pressure, and 1.09% for the temperature. A possible explanation for those deviations can be found in the thermophysical property package used to determine the CO2 stream properties, specially at high pressure around or over the critical pressure of the mixture. For the pressure control, two control strategies were tested. One with a classical PI control conguration and the other using cascade control. It is safe to say that the cascade control would bring valuable benets to the control in the eventuality of a real compression system. For the surge control, the response speed of the system was a priority in the design of the controllers and it was observed that all control loops could respond eectively within the given time. 6. Future Work Although the models created were suitable within the scope of this work, there is still further work to be done due to simplications assumed during the 9 development. Most of models should have dynamics regarding the hold-up mass and / or energy, to be developed in the CompressionSection, the CO2 liquefaction unit and the CoolerKODrum. More detailed dynamics would be desirable in the electric drive motor in order to relate the eort of changing the rotational speed with load power of each compressor connected to the same shaft. Other types of specic properties could also be added to the models, like the eects of drum internals on hydraulics, equipment geometries, inertia of the impeller tips, liquid entrainment, more accurate pressure losses, global heat transfer as a function of the uid properties and ow velocities in the equipment, etc.. A pipe model should also be developed to connect the equipments as well as the creation of ttings models to add a more realistic behavior of the ux from one equipment to another, and consequently, add eects of inertia to the ow passage. Acknowledgements The author would like to thank to Dipl.-Ing. Alfredo Ramos, Prof. Dr. Carla Pinheiro and company Process System Enterprise Ltd., for the working facilities provided and all the knowledge kindly shared. References [1] Americas Climate Choices. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C, 2011. [2] S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H. L. Miller, editors. Climate change 2007 : the physical science basis : contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge New York, 2007. [3] Advancing the science of climate change. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C,

[5] Carbon Emissions Reduction Target (CERT). http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/ funding/funding_ops/cert/cert.aspx. Last accessed: 28 June 2012. [6] R. Black. Whatever happened to carbon capture? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ science-environment-18019710. Last accessed: 28 June 2012.
(a) Surge 101

[7] R. E. Hester and R. M. Harrison, editors. Carbon capture : sequestration and storage, volume 29 of Issues in Environmental Science and technology. RSC Pub, Cambridge, UK, 2010. [8] What is CCS? http://www. globalccsinstitute.com. Last accessed: 26 July 2012. [9] IEAGHG. Rotating equipment for carbon dioxide capture and storage. Technical Report 2011/07, September 2011. [10] Compressors and the Compressed Air System. http://www.pipingguide.net/2009/12/ compressors-and-compressed-air-system. html, Last accessed: 28 September 2012. [11] P. C. Hanlon, editor. Compressor handbook. McGraw-Hill, New York, 2001. [12] T. Maramba and D. Bhattacharya. CO2 Compression and Dehydration for Carbon Capture and Sequestration. Bechtel Technology Journal, 3(1):110, June 2011. [13] A. Aspelund and K. Jordal. A study of the interface between CO2 capture and transport. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT-8), 2006. [14] Engineering Data Book, FPS Version, volume 2. Gas Processors Suppliers Association, 20th edition, 2004.

(b) Surge 102

(c) Surge 103

(d) Surge 104

[15] J. M. Schultz. The polytropic analysis of centrifugal compressors. Journal of Engineering Figure 10: Step-response of the surge closed-loops for Power, pages 6982, January 1962. after controller tuning. [16] Honeywell, Ontario, Canada. UniSin Design, r350 edition, June 2005. 2010. [4] 2011 UK greenhouse gas emissions, provisional gures and 2010 UK greenhouse gas emissions, [18] D. E. Seborg, T. F. Edgar, and D. A. Melnal gures by fuel type and end-user. Statistilichamp. Process dynamics and control. John cal release, Department of Energy and Climate Wiley & Sons, New York, 2nd edition, 2004. Change, March 2012. [17] A. Kohl. Gas purication. Gulf Pub, Houston, Tex, 1997.

10