Qiao, Yuanting, Liu, Weishan, Guo, Ruonan, Sun, Shuzhuang, Zhang, Shuming, Bailey, Josh J., Fang, Mengxiang, and Wu, Chunfei
• The techno-economic analysis including mass balance, energy balance, CO cost, etc, confirmed ICCU better. • The Cost of CO 2 avoided of ICCU is much lower than that of CCU. • H 2 cost was the main contributor to the total cost. Currently, excessive CO 2 emissions have become a global challenge due to their influence on the climate. According to the Paris Agreement, global warming should be limited to 1.5 °C by 2100. Carbon capture and utilisation (CCU) are attractive as they can both reduce CO 2 content and utilise CO 2 as a carbon resource. However, in conventional CCU processes, CO 2 needs first to be extracted and purified for the following utilisation. In contrast, the recently reported Integrated Carbon Capture and Utilisation (ICCU) was designed to realise the overall process in one reactor, where CO 2 is captured by adsorbents (e.g., CaO) and utilised in-situ with the introduction of a reducing agent (e.g., H 2). This ICCU technology can promote CO 2 conversion with fewer intermediate steps, leading to a reduction in overall cost. Energy and economic analysis of ICCU are thus urgently required. According to several recent research, the operational cost of ICCU has been reported to be cheaper than that of CCU. However, a comprehensive view of ICCU is still expected due to further application. This paper focuses on comparing ICCU and conventional CCU processes based on Aspen simulations covering mass balance (i.e., CaCO 3 consumption, purge production, annual CO production), energy balance, the total annual cost and the CO cost, etc. Analysis shows that the ICCU process can produce more CO (1.20 Mt year−1), less purge (0.21 Mt year−1), and less consumption of CaCO 3 (0.62 Mt year−1) with higher energy efficiency (37.1 %) than the CCU process. The results also show that the total annual cost of ICCU is $867.07 million, corresponding to a total cost of CO of $720.25 per tonne. In contrast, CCU has higher costs, with a total annual cost of $1027.61 million and a total cost of CO of $1004.53 per tonne. The Cost of CO 2 Avoided of ICCU (317.11$/ton) is much lower than that CCU (1230.27 $/ton). Therefore, ICCU was confirmed as a better choice for further industrial applications. In addition, H 2 is shown to have a significant influence on economic performance, which remains a challenge for further application. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]