We examined the cost implications of selecting six different types of heat exchangers as the lean/rich heat exchanger in an amine-based CO₂ capture process. The difference in total capital cost between different capture plant scenarios due to the different costs of the heat exchangers used as the lean/rich heat exchanger, in each case, is in millions of Euros. The gasketed-plate heat exchanger (G-PHE) saves significant space, and it saves considerable costs. Selecting the G-PHE instead of the shell and tube heat exchangers (STHXs) will save €33 million–€39 million in total capital cost (CAPEX), depending on the type of STHX. About €43 million and €2 million in total installed costs (CAPEX) can be saved if the G-PHE is selected instead of the finned double-pipe heat exchanger (FDP-HX) or welded-plate heat exchanger, respectively. The savings in total annual cost is also in millions of Euros/year. Capture costs of €5/tCO₂–€6/tCO₂ can be saved by replacing conventional STHXs with the G-PHE, and over €6/tCO₂ in the case of the FDP-HX. This is significant, and it indicates the importance of clearly stating the exact type and not just the broad classification of heat exchanger used as lean/rich heat exchanger. This is required for cost estimates to be as accurate as possible and allow for appropriate comparisons with other studies. Therefore, the gasketed-plate heat exchanger is recommended to save substantial costs. The CO₂ capture costs of all scenarios are most sensitive to the steam cost. The plate and frame heat exchangers (PHEs) scenario’s capture cost can decline from about €77/tCO₂ to €59/tCO₂ or rise to €95/tCO₂.

The performance of a plate heat exchanger (PHE), in comparison with the conventional shell and tube types, through a trade-off analysis of energy cost and capital cost resulting from different temperature approaches in the cross-exchanger of a solvent-based CO₂ capture process, was evaluated. The aim was to examine the cost reduction and CO₂ emission reduction potentials of the different heat exchangers. Each specific heat exchanger type was assumed for the cross-exchanger, the lean amine cooler and the cooler to cool the direct contact cooler’s circulation water. The study was conducted for flue gases from a natural-gas combined-cycle power plant and the Brevik cement plant in Norway. The standard and the lean vapour compression CO₂ absorption configurations were used for the study. The PHE outperformed the fixed tube sheet shell and tube heat exchanger (FTS-STHX) and the other STHXs economically and in emissions reduction. The optimal minimum temperature approach for the PHE cases based on CO₂ avoided cost were achieved at 4 °C to 7 °C. This is where the energy consumption and indirect emissions are relatively low. The lean vapour compression CO₂ capture process with optimum PHE achieved a 16% reduction in CO₂ avoided cost in the cement plant process. When the available excess heat for the production of steam for 50% CO₂ capture was considered together with the optimum PHE case of the lean vapour compression process, a cost reduction of about 34% was estimated. That is compared to a standard capture process with FTS-STHX without consideration of the excess heat. This highlights the importance of the waste heat at the Norcem cement plant. This study recommends the use of plate heat exchangers for the cross-heat exchanger (at 4–7 °C), lean amine cooler and the DCC unit’s circulation water cooler. To achieve the best possible CO₂ capture process economically and in respect of emissions reduction, it is imperative to perform energy cost and capital cost trade-off analysis based on different minimum temperature approaches.