Comparison of Technologies for CO<sub>2</sub> Capture from Cement Production—Part 1: Technical Evaluation
A technical evaluation of CO<sub>2</sub> capture technologies when retrofitted to a cement plant is performed. The investigated technologies are the oxyfuel process, the chilled ammonia process, membrane-assisted CO<sub>2</sub> liquefaction, and the calcium looping process wi...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2019-02-01
|
| Series: | Energies |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/3/559 |
| _version_ | 1818001874022825984 |
|---|---|
| author | Mari Voldsund Stefania Osk Gardarsdottir Edoardo De Lena José-Francisco Pérez-Calvo Armin Jamali David Berstad Chao Fu Matteo Romano Simon Roussanaly Rahul Anantharaman Helmut Hoppe Daniel Sutter Marco Mazzotti Matteo Gazzani Giovanni Cinti Kristin Jordal |
| author_facet | Mari Voldsund Stefania Osk Gardarsdottir Edoardo De Lena José-Francisco Pérez-Calvo Armin Jamali David Berstad Chao Fu Matteo Romano Simon Roussanaly Rahul Anantharaman Helmut Hoppe Daniel Sutter Marco Mazzotti Matteo Gazzani Giovanni Cinti Kristin Jordal |
| author_sort | Mari Voldsund |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | A technical evaluation of CO<sub>2</sub> capture technologies when retrofitted to a cement plant is performed. The investigated technologies are the oxyfuel process, the chilled ammonia process, membrane-assisted CO<sub>2</sub> liquefaction, and the calcium looping process with tail-end and integrated configurations. For comparison, absorption with monoethanolamine (MEA) is used as reference technology. The focus of the evaluation is on emission abatement, energy performance, and retrofitability. All the investigated technologies perform better than the reference both in terms of emission abatement and energy consumption. The equivalent CO<sub>2</sub> avoided are 73⁻90%, while it is 64% for MEA, considering the average EU-28 electricity mix. The specific primary energy consumption for CO<sub>2</sub> avoided is 1.63⁻4.07 MJ/kg CO<sub>2</sub>, compared to 7.08 MJ/kg CO<sub>2</sub> for MEA. The calcium looping technologies have the highest emission abatement potential, while the oxyfuel process has the best energy performance. When it comes to retrofitability, the post-combustion technologies show significant advantages compared to the oxyfuel and to the integrated calcium looping technologies. Furthermore, the performance of the individual technologies shows strong dependencies on site-specific and plant-specific factors. Therefore, rather than identifying one single best technology, it is emphasized that CO<sub>2</sub> capture in the cement industry should be performed with a portfolio of capture technologies, where the preferred choice for each specific plant depends on local factors. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-14T03:39:53Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-c42504d76ef54430b40c519aeec85b70 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1996-1073 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-14T03:39:53Z |
| publishDate | 2019-02-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Energies |
| spelling | doaj.art-c42504d76ef54430b40c519aeec85b702022-12-22T02:14:35ZengMDPI AGEnergies1996-10732019-02-0112355910.3390/en12030559en12030559Comparison of Technologies for CO<sub>2</sub> Capture from Cement Production—Part 1: Technical EvaluationMari Voldsund0Stefania Osk Gardarsdottir1Edoardo De Lena2José-Francisco Pérez-Calvo3Armin Jamali4David Berstad5Chao Fu6Matteo Romano7Simon Roussanaly8Rahul Anantharaman9Helmut Hoppe10Daniel Sutter11Marco Mazzotti12Matteo Gazzani13Giovanni Cinti14Kristin Jordal15SINTEF Energy Research, 7465 Trondheim, NorwaySINTEF Energy Research, 7465 Trondheim, NorwayPolitecnico di Milano, Department of Energy, 20156 Milan, ItalyETH Zurich, Institute of Process Engineering, 8092 Zurich, SwitzerlandVDZ gGmbH, 40476 Düsseldorf, GermanySINTEF Energy Research, 7465 Trondheim, NorwaySINTEF Energy Research, 7465 Trondheim, NorwayPolitecnico di Milano, Department of Energy, 20156 Milan, ItalySINTEF Energy Research, 7465 Trondheim, NorwaySINTEF Energy Research, 7465 Trondheim, NorwayVDZ gGmbH, 40476 Düsseldorf, GermanyETH Zurich, Institute of Process Engineering, 8092 Zurich, SwitzerlandETH Zurich, Institute of Process Engineering, 8092 Zurich, SwitzerlandUtrecht University, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, 3584 CB Utrecht, The NetherlandsItalcementi Heidelberg Group, 24126 Bergamo, ItalySINTEF Energy Research, 7465 Trondheim, NorwayA technical evaluation of CO<sub>2</sub> capture technologies when retrofitted to a cement plant is performed. The investigated technologies are the oxyfuel process, the chilled ammonia process, membrane-assisted CO<sub>2</sub> liquefaction, and the calcium looping process with tail-end and integrated configurations. For comparison, absorption with monoethanolamine (MEA) is used as reference technology. The focus of the evaluation is on emission abatement, energy performance, and retrofitability. All the investigated technologies perform better than the reference both in terms of emission abatement and energy consumption. The equivalent CO<sub>2</sub> avoided are 73⁻90%, while it is 64% for MEA, considering the average EU-28 electricity mix. The specific primary energy consumption for CO<sub>2</sub> avoided is 1.63⁻4.07 MJ/kg CO<sub>2</sub>, compared to 7.08 MJ/kg CO<sub>2</sub> for MEA. The calcium looping technologies have the highest emission abatement potential, while the oxyfuel process has the best energy performance. When it comes to retrofitability, the post-combustion technologies show significant advantages compared to the oxyfuel and to the integrated calcium looping technologies. Furthermore, the performance of the individual technologies shows strong dependencies on site-specific and plant-specific factors. Therefore, rather than identifying one single best technology, it is emphasized that CO<sub>2</sub> capture in the cement industry should be performed with a portfolio of capture technologies, where the preferred choice for each specific plant depends on local factors.https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/3/559CO<sub>2</sub> capturecement production with CO<sub>2</sub> captureCO<sub>2</sub> capture in industryCO<sub>2</sub> capture retrofitabilityoxyfuelchilled ammoniamembrane-assisted CO<sub>2</sub> liquefactioncalcium looping |
| spellingShingle | Mari Voldsund Stefania Osk Gardarsdottir Edoardo De Lena José-Francisco Pérez-Calvo Armin Jamali David Berstad Chao Fu Matteo Romano Simon Roussanaly Rahul Anantharaman Helmut Hoppe Daniel Sutter Marco Mazzotti Matteo Gazzani Giovanni Cinti Kristin Jordal Comparison of Technologies for CO<sub>2</sub> Capture from Cement Production—Part 1: Technical Evaluation Energies CO<sub>2</sub> capture cement production with CO<sub>2</sub> capture CO<sub>2</sub> capture in industry CO<sub>2</sub> capture retrofitability oxyfuel chilled ammonia membrane-assisted CO<sub>2</sub> liquefaction calcium looping |
| title | Comparison of Technologies for CO<sub>2</sub> Capture from Cement Production—Part 1: Technical Evaluation |
| title_full | Comparison of Technologies for CO<sub>2</sub> Capture from Cement Production—Part 1: Technical Evaluation |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of Technologies for CO<sub>2</sub> Capture from Cement Production—Part 1: Technical Evaluation |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Technologies for CO<sub>2</sub> Capture from Cement Production—Part 1: Technical Evaluation |
| title_short | Comparison of Technologies for CO<sub>2</sub> Capture from Cement Production—Part 1: Technical Evaluation |
| title_sort | comparison of technologies for co sub 2 sub capture from cement production part 1 technical evaluation |
| topic | CO<sub>2</sub> capture cement production with CO<sub>2</sub> capture CO<sub>2</sub> capture in industry CO<sub>2</sub> capture retrofitability oxyfuel chilled ammonia membrane-assisted CO<sub>2</sub> liquefaction calcium looping |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/3/559 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT marivoldsund comparisonoftechnologiesforcosub2subcapturefromcementproductionpart1technicalevaluation AT stefaniaoskgardarsdottir comparisonoftechnologiesforcosub2subcapturefromcementproductionpart1technicalevaluation AT edoardodelena comparisonoftechnologiesforcosub2subcapturefromcementproductionpart1technicalevaluation AT josefranciscoperezcalvo comparisonoftechnologiesforcosub2subcapturefromcementproductionpart1technicalevaluation AT arminjamali comparisonoftechnologiesforcosub2subcapturefromcementproductionpart1technicalevaluation AT davidberstad comparisonoftechnologiesforcosub2subcapturefromcementproductionpart1technicalevaluation AT chaofu comparisonoftechnologiesforcosub2subcapturefromcementproductionpart1technicalevaluation AT matteoromano comparisonoftechnologiesforcosub2subcapturefromcementproductionpart1technicalevaluation AT simonroussanaly comparisonoftechnologiesforcosub2subcapturefromcementproductionpart1technicalevaluation AT rahulanantharaman comparisonoftechnologiesforcosub2subcapturefromcementproductionpart1technicalevaluation AT helmuthoppe comparisonoftechnologiesforcosub2subcapturefromcementproductionpart1technicalevaluation AT danielsutter comparisonoftechnologiesforcosub2subcapturefromcementproductionpart1technicalevaluation AT marcomazzotti comparisonoftechnologiesforcosub2subcapturefromcementproductionpart1technicalevaluation AT matteogazzani comparisonoftechnologiesforcosub2subcapturefromcementproductionpart1technicalevaluation AT giovannicinti comparisonoftechnologiesforcosub2subcapturefromcementproductionpart1technicalevaluation AT kristinjordal comparisonoftechnologiesforcosub2subcapturefromcementproductionpart1technicalevaluation |