Search

This paper is included in the Proceedings of the 16th Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies Conference (GHGT-16), organized 23-27 October 2022 in Lyon, France This work introduces a systematic design procedure for CO2 absorption-based processes using as solvent the mixture of AMP-PZ. We propose to minimize the total CO2 avoided cost. We make the assumption that the capture plant is retrofitted to an existing industrial plant whose operation and production are not changed. Under this assumption, we can define the total CO2 avoided cost by using a method which considers the discounted cash flow resulted from implementing the capture unit. We consider a standard absorber-desorber process configuration, and we model the process in AspenPlus®. We systematically identify the degrees of freedom available for design, and we divided these into degrees of freedom used internally in the simulation in a Design-Specification block (e.g., solvent flowrate and reboiler duty), and degrees of freedom available to an external derivative-free optimizer (e.g., absorber packing height, AMP and PZ composition, and lean solvent loading). As a case study we consider a Waste-to-Energy plant.

This white paper presents a new set of guidelines developed to address important carbon capture and storage (CCS) cost issues in three areas. The first area of study tackles the establishment of improved guidelines for cost evaluation of advanced low-carbon technology (such as a new CO2 capture process or a novel power plant design). The second area of study focuses on CCS from non-power industries (such as cement plants, steel mills, refineries, and other industrial sources of CO2 emissions), which is a growing area of focus for CCS implementation. The final area addresses quality assurance and uncertainty evaluations of data and models used in CCS cost analysis. &nbsp

In CEMCAP, four different CO2 capture technologies for cement plants are investigated: the oxyfuel technology, the chilled ammonia process, membrane-assisted CO2 liquefaction, and the calcium looping technology. This report presents a techno-economic evaluation of these technologies. Key performance indicators such as specific primary energy consumption for CO2 avoided (SPECCA), cost of clinker and cost of CO2 avoided are calculated. The calculations are based on process simulations, with input from experimental work carried out in the project. The SPECCA of the CEMCAP technologies are all lower than 60% of the reference technology (MEA) under the defined base case conditions. The cost of clinker increases with 49-92% compared to the cost of clinker without capture. The cost of CO2 avoided is between 42 €/tCO2 (oxyfuel process) which is approximately halved compared to MEA, and 84 €/tCO2 (MAL process), which is on the same level as MEA. The techno-economic KPIs are strongly dependent on factors such as steam source, electricity mix, electricity price, fuel price, etc. For the assessment of a CO2 capture technology for a specific plant, a more plant specific techno-economic evaluation should be performed. Changes in revision 1 Information and reference on cost and climate impact of steam import is included in Section 4.5. Oxygen flow rates are corrected in Table 6.1. Figures 9.2 and 10.2 are revised. Some other minor revisions are made in the text.

In this deliverable the methodology for estimation of equipment costs and installation costs of critical process components is established. A brief overview of the costing method that will be used for standard process components is given, before more detailed descriptions of costing methodologies and assumptions are given for each of the non-standard components. The costing of the non-standard components is either based on experience and databases of the CEMCAP partners, or on information available in the literature.

This report evaluates post-capture CO2 management options for the cement industry. A number of possible CCU products are evaluated according to metrics such as the energy demand, the technology readiness level and the market size. Six scenarios were proposed and evaluated in this report, in order to illustrate of the options available for the reference CEMCAP cement plant. 1) CCS1: CO2 capture from a cement plant in Belgium and injection in a saline aquifer in the Dutch continental shelf is estimated to cost 114 €/ton CO2 avoided. 2) CCS2: CO2 capture from a cement plant in costal Germany and injection in a saline aquifer in the Norwegian continental shelf is estimated to cost 153 €/ton CO2 avoided. The difference between these two scenarios show the impact of the transportation mode and the distance between source and sink on the CO2 cost. 3) CCS3: mineralization to MgCO3 is expected to between 150 and 400 €/ton CO2 avoided. The process efficiency, the transportation of rock and MgCO3, as well as the heat demand, play an important role in the final cost. Further process developments and an optimized chain can bring the costs significantly down; 4) CCS1+U1: blue ethanol production using 3,1% of the emitted CO2 requires 50 MW excess renewable power. The remaining fraction of the captured CO2 (86,9%) is sequestered using CCS1. The total CCUS cost is 111 €/ton of CO2 avoided (3% reduction as compared to CCS1) when blue ethanol replaces green ethanol from sugarcane. In case of replacement of green ethanol from wheat, the cost drops to 96 €/ton of CO2 avoided (16% reduction as compared to CCS1). 5) CCS1+U2: by using 7,5% of the emitted CO2, 288 kt/y of blue polyol are produced. 82,5% of the CO2 is stored via CCS1. This configuration may lead to a positive business case, depending on the spread between the polyol market price and that of propylene oxide. If both prices are set as 1400 €/ton (zero spread), the CCUS chain leads to a profit of 18 €/ton CO2 captured. 6) CCS1+U3: purifying 6,5% of the emitted CO2 to food-grade (blue CO2) and placing it in the food market lowers the integrated CCUS cost as long blue CO2 replaces fossil-derived CO2: in that case, the cost drops to 108 €/ton CO2 captured. If green CO2 is available (e.g. from fermentation), the CCUS option actually leads to a higher cost than CCS1: 120 €/ton CO2 avoided. Polyol and ethanol are representative of other CO2 utilization routes, and the overall conclusions derived for these processes can be extended to high value specialties and fuels, respectively. CO2 utilization should always be considered in combination with storage. The fraction of the CO2 that is utilized in a full scale CCUS implementation in a cement plant is expected to be lower than 10%. High added-values products may lead to positive business cases. However. the number of cement plants that could benefit from this option will be strongly limited by the product’s market. The utilization of CO2 to replace CO2 intensive raw materials or products (e.g. ethanol from wheat or propylene oxide) lead to improved costs when the basis of calculation is CO2 avoided. LCA should be conducted for the different technological routes, in order to take this important factor into consideration., This work was supported by the Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI) under contract number 15.0160

This document provides av framework for comparative techno-economic analysis in the CEMCAP Project, where four different CO2 capture Technologies are to be evaluated for Application in cement plants.

The mass and energy balances of the reference cement plant reproduced by SINTEF-ER based on data from VDZs process model are presented. The possibility for heat recovery at the reference cement plant is assessed. Simulations of CO2 capture from the reference plant with MEA are presented, and a techno-economic evaluation is carried out. In the case where steam was produced by heat recovery at the plant and a natural gas boiler, it was found that the cost of cement would be 81 €/tcement and 71 €/tcement for 90% and 60% CO2 capture rates, respectively. The CO2 avoided cost would be 83 €/tCO2,avoided and 88 €/tCO2,avoided, respectively. However, it was shown that the cost is highly dependent on the scenario for steam production.

The mass and energy balances of the reference cement plant reproduced by SINTEF-ER based on data from VDZs process model are presented. The possibility for heat recovery at the reference cement plant is assessed. Simulations of CO2 capture from the reference plant with MEA are presented, and a techno-economic evaluation is carried out. In the case where steam was produced by heat recovery at the plant and a natural gas boiler, it was found that the cost of cement would be 81 €/tcement and 71 €/tcement for 90% and 60% CO2 capture rates, respectively. The CO2 avoided cost would be 83 €/tCO2,avoided and 88 €/tCO2,avoided, respectively. However, it was shown that the cost is highly dependent on the scenario for steam production.

In CEMCAP, four different CO2 capture technologies for cement plants are investigated: the oxyfuel technology, the chilled ammonia process, membrane-assisted CO2 liquefaction, and the calcium looping technology. This report presents a techno-economic evaluation of these technologies. Key performance indicators such as specific primary energy consumption for CO2 avoided (SPECCA), cost of clinker and cost of CO2 avoided are calculated. The calculations are based on process simulations, with input from experimental work carried out in the project. The SPECCA of the CEMCAP technologies are all lower than 60% of the reference technology (MEA) under the defined base case conditions. The cost of clinker increases with 49-92% compared to the cost of clinker without capture. The cost of CO2 avoided is between 42 €/tCO2 (oxyfuel process) which is approximately halved compared to MEA, and 84 €/tCO2 (MAL process), which is on the same level as MEA. The techno-economic KPIs are strongly dependent on factors such as steam source, electricity mix, electricity price, fuel price, etc. For the assessment of a CO2 capture technology for a specific plant, a more plant specific techno-economic evaluation should be performed. Changes in revision 1 Information and reference on cost and climate impact of steam import is included in Section 4.5. Oxygen flow rates are corrected in Table 6.1. Figures 9.2 and 10.2 are revised. Some other minor revisions are made in the text., This work was supported by the Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI) under contract number 15.0160