Intercooling appears to have a minimal or negative effect on thermal efficiency for the 95% CO2 capture cases as the driving force limiting higher temperatures are pushed to the top of the absorber; further optimisation of return temperatures, intercooler location or additional packing beds may mitigate this. However, this is beyond the scope of this work. It should also be noted that, for simplicity, in the CCGT cases with 24m meters of packing, the intercooler location was maintained at the centre of the absorber. In reality, this is unlikely as it does not relate to an interbed location where the installation of intercooling would be most simple; as this case represents a 3 bed x 8m packing absorber, an intercooler would be situated between one or both of the liquid collection/redistribution sections between each bed. Additionally, in situ absorber intercooling was assumed within the degradation framework with no residence time or hold-up volume ascribed to the intercoolers; this may result in an underestimation of the oxidative degradation rates in the intercooler cases. However, this effect is expected to be minor if residence times and intercooler return temperatures are low.