Comparison of Technologies for CO<sub>2</sub> Capture from Cement Production—Part 2: Cost Analysis
This paper presents an assessment of the cost performance of CO<sub>2</sub> capture technologies when retrofitted to a cement plant: MEA-based absorption, oxyfuel, chilled ammonia-based absorption (Chilled Ammonia Process), membrane-assisted CO<sub>2</sub> liquefaction, and c...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2019-02-01
|
| Series: | Energies |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/3/542 |
| _version_ | 1811213355840438272 |
|---|---|
| author | Stefania Osk Gardarsdottir Edoardo De Lena Matteo Romano Simon Roussanaly Mari Voldsund José-Francisco Pérez-Calvo David Berstad Chao Fu Rahul Anantharaman Daniel Sutter Matteo Gazzani Marco Mazzotti Giovanni Cinti |
| author_facet | Stefania Osk Gardarsdottir Edoardo De Lena Matteo Romano Simon Roussanaly Mari Voldsund José-Francisco Pérez-Calvo David Berstad Chao Fu Rahul Anantharaman Daniel Sutter Matteo Gazzani Marco Mazzotti Giovanni Cinti |
| author_sort | Stefania Osk Gardarsdottir |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | This paper presents an assessment of the cost performance of CO<sub>2</sub> capture technologies when retrofitted to a cement plant: MEA-based absorption, oxyfuel, chilled ammonia-based absorption (Chilled Ammonia Process), membrane-assisted CO<sub>2</sub> 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 CO<sub>2</sub> 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 CO<sub>2</sub> avoided is between 42 €/t<sub>CO2</sub> (for the oxyfuel-based capture process) and 84 €/t<sub>CO2</sub> (for the membrane-based assisted liquefaction capture process), while the reference MEA-based absorption capture technology has a cost of 80 €/t<sub>CO2</sub>. 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 CO<sub>2</sub> capture technology at a specific plant, a plant-specific techno-economic evaluation should be performed, also considering more practical considerations. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-12T05:45:27Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-78d7690b9880452baeba5aeddb952a04 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1996-1073 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-12T05:45:27Z |
| publishDate | 2019-02-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Energies |
| spelling | doaj.art-78d7690b9880452baeba5aeddb952a042022-12-22T03:45:29ZengMDPI AGEnergies1996-10732019-02-0112354210.3390/en12030542en12030542Comparison of Technologies for CO<sub>2</sub> Capture from Cement Production—Part 2: Cost AnalysisStefania Osk Gardarsdottir0Edoardo De Lena1Matteo Romano2Simon Roussanaly3Mari Voldsund4José-Francisco Pérez-Calvo5David Berstad6Chao Fu7Rahul Anantharaman8Daniel Sutter9Matteo Gazzani10Marco Mazzotti11Giovanni Cinti12SINTEF Energy Research, Department of Gas Technology, NO-7465 Trondheim, NorwayPolitecnico di Milano, Department of Energy, 20156 Milan, ItalyPolitecnico di Milano, Department of Energy, 20156 Milan, ItalySINTEF Energy Research, Department of Gas Technology, NO-7465 Trondheim, NorwaySINTEF Energy Research, Department of Gas Technology, NO-7465 Trondheim, NorwayInstitute of Process Engineering, Department of Mechanical and Process Engineering, ETH Zurich, 8092 Zurich, SwitzerlandSINTEF Energy Research, Department of Gas Technology, NO-7465 Trondheim, NorwaySINTEF Energy Research, Department of Gas Technology, NO-7465 Trondheim, NorwaySINTEF Energy Research, Department of Gas Technology, NO-7465 Trondheim, NorwayInstitute of Process Engineering, Department of Mechanical and Process Engineering, ETH Zurich, 8092 Zurich, SwitzerlandCopernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Energy and Resources, Utrecht University, 3584 CB Utrecht, The NetherlandsInstitute of Process Engineering, Department of Mechanical and Process Engineering, ETH Zurich, 8092 Zurich, SwitzerlandItalcementi Heidelberg Group, 24126 Bergamo, ItalyThis paper presents an assessment of the cost performance of CO<sub>2</sub> capture technologies when retrofitted to a cement plant: MEA-based absorption, oxyfuel, chilled ammonia-based absorption (Chilled Ammonia Process), membrane-assisted CO<sub>2</sub> 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 CO<sub>2</sub> 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 CO<sub>2</sub> avoided is between 42 €/t<sub>CO2</sub> (for the oxyfuel-based capture process) and 84 €/t<sub>CO2</sub> (for the membrane-based assisted liquefaction capture process), while the reference MEA-based absorption capture technology has a cost of 80 €/t<sub>CO2</sub>. 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 CO<sub>2</sub> capture technology at a specific plant, a plant-specific techno-economic evaluation should be performed, also considering more practical considerations.https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/3/542CCScementtechno-economic analysisMEA-based absorptionchilled ammoniamembrane-assisted CO<sub>2</sub> liquefactionoxyfuelcalcium looping |
| spellingShingle | Stefania Osk Gardarsdottir Edoardo De Lena Matteo Romano Simon Roussanaly Mari Voldsund José-Francisco Pérez-Calvo David Berstad Chao Fu Rahul Anantharaman Daniel Sutter Matteo Gazzani Marco Mazzotti Giovanni Cinti Comparison of Technologies for CO<sub>2</sub> Capture from Cement Production—Part 2: Cost Analysis Energies CCS cement techno-economic analysis MEA-based absorption chilled ammonia membrane-assisted CO<sub>2</sub> liquefaction oxyfuel calcium looping |
| title | Comparison of Technologies for CO<sub>2</sub> Capture from Cement Production—Part 2: Cost Analysis |
| title_full | Comparison of Technologies for CO<sub>2</sub> Capture from Cement Production—Part 2: Cost Analysis |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of Technologies for CO<sub>2</sub> Capture from Cement Production—Part 2: Cost Analysis |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Technologies for CO<sub>2</sub> Capture from Cement Production—Part 2: Cost Analysis |
| title_short | Comparison of Technologies for CO<sub>2</sub> Capture from Cement Production—Part 2: Cost Analysis |
| title_sort | comparison of technologies for co sub 2 sub capture from cement production part 2 cost analysis |
| topic | CCS cement techno-economic analysis MEA-based absorption chilled ammonia membrane-assisted CO<sub>2</sub> liquefaction oxyfuel calcium looping |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/3/542 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT stefaniaoskgardarsdottir comparisonoftechnologiesforcosub2subcapturefromcementproductionpart2costanalysis AT edoardodelena comparisonoftechnologiesforcosub2subcapturefromcementproductionpart2costanalysis AT matteoromano comparisonoftechnologiesforcosub2subcapturefromcementproductionpart2costanalysis AT simonroussanaly comparisonoftechnologiesforcosub2subcapturefromcementproductionpart2costanalysis AT marivoldsund comparisonoftechnologiesforcosub2subcapturefromcementproductionpart2costanalysis AT josefranciscoperezcalvo comparisonoftechnologiesforcosub2subcapturefromcementproductionpart2costanalysis AT davidberstad comparisonoftechnologiesforcosub2subcapturefromcementproductionpart2costanalysis AT chaofu comparisonoftechnologiesforcosub2subcapturefromcementproductionpart2costanalysis AT rahulanantharaman comparisonoftechnologiesforcosub2subcapturefromcementproductionpart2costanalysis AT danielsutter comparisonoftechnologiesforcosub2subcapturefromcementproductionpart2costanalysis AT matteogazzani comparisonoftechnologiesforcosub2subcapturefromcementproductionpart2costanalysis AT marcomazzotti comparisonoftechnologiesforcosub2subcapturefromcementproductionpart2costanalysis AT giovannicinti comparisonoftechnologiesforcosub2subcapturefromcementproductionpart2costanalysis |