Search

• The impact of delivery pressure on the design and cost of CO 2 liquefaction is investigated. • Different impurity and purity requirement scenarios are considered. • The CO 2 liquefaction cost decreases significantly with pressure for the range 7–40 bar. • Impurities have a strong impact on design, cost and comparison of the different pressures. • Purity requirements can have a strong impact on the pressure level comparison. As a first step towards identifying the optimal transport conditions for shipping CO 2 , this study investigates the impact of post-liquefaction delivery pressure on the design and cost of CO 2 liquefaction for (a) pure CO 2 (b) three impurity scenarios (c) two purity requirements. For pure CO 2 , the highest liquefaction cost is obtained at 7 bar amongst the range considered (7 to 70 bar), while a minimum lies around 40–50 bar. When different potential impurity scenarios are considered, impurities need to be purged for the low-pressure cases as these are not necessarily soluble in the liquefied CO 2 stream. As a consequence, the liquefaction cost increases significantly for low-pressure cases (up to 34% compared to the pure CO 2), and wider differences between the pressure levels are obtained. Purity requirements also have a significant impact on comparisons of delivery pressures, although this impact depends on both the impurities present and the purity requirement considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper present the techno-economic assessment of an MEA-based CO 2 capture from a cement plant and the importance of the steam supply on the costs. The evaluations present the energy performances of the CO 2 capture process based on a cement plant with a clinker capacity of 3,000 t/d. The cost evaluation lead to a cost of cement of 45 €/t cement without capture, while the cost of cement with CO 2 capture is estimated to 81 €/t cement , resulting in a CO 2 avoided cost of 83 €/t CO2,avoided . As the steam consumption accounts for close to half of the CO 2 avoided cost, the impact of six alternative steam supply scenarios are considered. The evaluations show that the CO 2 avoided cost can decrease by up to 35% depending on the steam supply and electricity price. However the possibility of these steam supply alternatives are specific to the considered cement plant, emphasizing therefore that CO 2 avoided cost from cement shall rather be given as a range depending on the steam supply than as a unique value as often illustrated in the literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper focuses on identifying the cost limits of two single-stage pressure–vacuum swing adsorption (PVSA) cycles for post-combustion CO 2 capture if the "ideal" zero-cost adsorbent can be discovered. Through an integrated techno-economic optimisation, we simultaneously optimise the adsorbent properties (adsorption isotherms and particle morphology) and process design variables to determine the lowest possible cost of CO 2 avoided (excluding the CO 2 conditioning, transport and storage) for different industrial flue gas CO 2 compositions and flow rates. The CO 2 avoided cost for PVSA ranges from 87.1 to 10.4 € per tonne of CO 2 avoided, corresponding to CO 2 feed compositions of 3.5 mol% to 30 mol %, respectively. The corresponding costs for a monoethanolamine based absorption process, using heat from a natural gas plant, are 76.8 to 54.8 € per tonne of CO 2 avoided, respectively showing that PVSA can be attractive for flue gas streams with high CO 2 compositions. The "ideal" adsorbents needed to attain the lowest possible CO 2 avoided costs have a range of CO 2 affinities with close to zero N 2 adsorption, demonstrating promise for adsorbent discovery and development. The need for simultaneously optimising the particle morphology and the process conditions are emphasised. • Minimum cost of capture for the ideal "zero-cost" adsorbent calculated. • Process inversion optimises adsorbent properties and process simultaneously. • Minimum CO 2 avoided cost: 10.4 €/t (30% CO 2 in feed) to 87.1 €/t (3.5% CO 2 in feed). • PVSA attractive for high CO 2 concentration streams (steel, cement). • Ideal adsorbent: Wide range of CO 2 affinity and negligible N 2 affinity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• We develop improved guidelines for cost evaluation of CCS from industry. • We recommend understanding the impact of possible energy supply strategies on cost. • We provide basis on how to better account for retrofitting costs. • We recommend including case representative transport and storage costs. • We discuss how to better reflect technological maturity for industrial applications. This paper contributes to the development of improved guidelines for cost evaluation of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) from industrial applications building on previous work in the field. It discusses key challenges and factors that have a large impact on the results of cost evaluations, but are often overlooked or insufficiently addressed. These include cost metrics (especially in the context of industrial plants with multiple output products), energy supply aspects, retrofitting costs, CO 2 transport and storage, maturity of the capture technology. Where possible examples are given to demonstrate their quantitative impact and show how costs may vary widely on a case-by-case basis. Recommendations are given to consider different possible heat and power supply strategies, as well as future energy and carbon price scenarios, to better understand cost performances under various framework conditions. Since retrofitting CCS is very relevant for industrial facilities, further considerations are made on how to better account for the key elements that constitute retrofitting costs. Furthermore, instead of using a fixed unit cost for CO 2 transport and storage, cost estimates should at least consider the flowrate, transport mode, transport distance and type of storage, to make more realistic cost estimates. Recommendations are also given on factors to consider when assessing the technological maturity level of CCS in various industrial applications, which is important when assessing cost contingencies and cost uncertainties. Lastly, we urge techno-economic analysis practitioners to clearly report all major assumptions and methods, as well as ideally examine the impact of these on their estimates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study focuses on the techno-economic assessment integrated with detailed optimisation of a four step vacuum swing adsorption (VSA) process for post-combustion CO 2 capture and storage (CCS) from steam-methane reformer dried flue gas containing 20 mol% CO 2. The comprehensive techno-economic optimisation model developed herein takes into account VSA process model, peripheral component models, vacuum pump performance, scale-up, process scheduling and a thorough cost model. Three adsorbents, namely, Zeolite 13X (current benchmark material for CO 2 capture) and two metal–organic frameworks, UTSA-16 (widely studied metal–organic framework for CO 2 capture) and IISERP MOF2 (good performer in recent findings) are optimised to minimise the CO 2 capture cost. Monoethanolamine (MEA)-based absorption technology serves as a baseline case to assess and compare optimal techno-economic performances of VSA technology for three adsorbents. The results show that the four step VSA process with IISERP MOF2 outperforms other two adsorbents with a lowest CO 2 capture cost (including flue gas pre-treatment) of 33.6 € per tonne of CO 2 avoided and an associated CO 2 avoided cost of 73.0 € per tonne of CO 2 avoided. Zeolite 13X and UTSA-16 resulted in CO 2 avoided costs of 90.9 and 104.9 € per tonne of CO 2 avoided, respectively. The CO 2 avoided costs obtained for the VSA technology remain higher than that of the baseline MEA-based absorption process which was found to be 66.6 € per tonne of CO 2 avoided. The study also demonstrates the importance of using cost as means of evaluating the separation technique compared to the use of process performance indicators. Accounting for the efficiency of vacuum pumps and the cost of novel materials such as metal–organic frameworks is highlighted. • Techno-economic study of CO 2 capture from steam-methane reformer flue gas (20 mol% CO 2). • Capture costs (€/tonne CO 2 avoided): IISERP-MOF2=33.6; Zeolite 13X=51.4; MEA=30.1. • Cost, instead of energy/productivity, should be used to compare capture technologies. • Effect of Vacuum pump efficiency, L/D ratio and cost of Zeolite and MOF explored. • Complexity of adsorption process is high: multiple columns & multiple trains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents an assessment of the cost performance of CO2 capture technologies when retrofitted to a cement plant: MEA-based absorption, oxyfuel, chilled ammonia-based absorption (Chilled Ammonia Process), membrane-assisted CO2 liquefaction, and calcium looping. While the technical basis for this study is presented in Part 1 of this paper series, this work presents a comprehensive techno-economic analysis of these CO2 capture technologies based on a capital and operating costs evaluation for retrofit in a cement plant. The cost of the cement plant product, clinker, is shown to increase with 49 to 92% compared to the cost of clinker without capture. The cost of CO2 avoided is between 42 €/tCO2 (for the oxyfuel-based capture process) and 84 €/tCO2 (for the membrane-based assisted liquefaction capture process), while the reference MEA-based absorption capture technology has a cost of 80 €/tCO2. Notably, the cost figures depend strongly on factors such as steam source, electricity mix, electricity price, fuel price and plant-specific characteristics. Hence, this confirms the conclusion of the technical evaluation in Part 1 that for final selection of CO2 capture technology at a specific plant, a plant-specific techno-economic evaluation should be performed, also considering more practical considerations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Low-carbon hydrogen is considered as one of the key measures to decarbonise continental Europe and Japan. Northern Norway has abundant renewable energy and natural gas resources which can be converted to low-carbon hydrogen. However, Norway is located relatively far away from these markets and finding efficient ways to transport this hydrogen to the end-user is critical. In this study, liquefied hydrogen (LH 2) and ammonia (NH 3), as H 2 -based energy carriers, are analysed and compared with respect to energy efficiency, CO 2 footprint and cost. It is shown that the LH 2 chain is more energy efficient and has a smaller CO 2 footprint (20 and 23 kg-CO 2 /MWh th for Europe and Japan, respectively) than the NH 3 chain (76 and 122 kg-CO 2 /MWh th). Furthermore, the study finds the levelized cost of hydrogen delivered to Rotterdam to be lower for LH 2 (5.0 EUR/kg-H 2) compared to NH 3 (5.9 EUR/kg-H 2), while the hydrogen costs of the two chains for transport to Japan are in a similar range (about 7 EUR/kg-H 2). It is also shown that under optimistic assumptions, the costs associated with the LH 2 chain (3.2 EUR/kg-H 2) are close to meeting the 2030 hydrogen cost target of Japan (2.5 EUR/kg-H 2). • LH 2 and NH 3 are analysed and compared regarding efficiency, CO 2 footprint and cost. • The LH 2 chain is associated with less CO 2 emissions than the NH 3 chain. • The hydrogen cost delivered to Rotterdam is lower for LH 2 compared to NH 3. • Two chains have similar costs delivered to Japan under conservative assumptions. • The LH 2 chain costs almost meet the target of Japan under optimistic assumptions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]