Carbon capture for decarbonisation of energy-intensive industries: a comparative review of techno-economic feasibility of solid looping cycles

doi:10.1007/s11705-022-2151-5

Front. Chem. Sci. Eng.

2022, Vol. 16

Issue (9) : 1291-1317 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11705-022-2151-5

REVIEW ARTICLE

Carbon capture for decarbonisation of energy-intensive industries: a comparative review of techno-economic feasibility of solid looping cycles

Mónica P. S. Santos, Dawid P. Hanak(

)

Energy and Power, School of Water, Energy and Environment, Cranfield University, Bedfordshire MK43 0AL, UK

Download: PDF(3634 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

Carbon capture and storage will play a crucial role in industrial decarbonisation. However, the current literature presents a large variability in the techno-economic feasibility of CO₂ capture technologies. Consequently, reliable pathways for carbon capture deployment in energy-intensive industries are still missing. This work provides a comprehensive review of the state-of-the-art CO₂ capture technologies for decarbonisation of the iron and steel, cement, petroleum refining, and pulp and paper industries. Amine scrubbing was shown to be the least feasible option, resulting in the average avoided CO₂ cost of between 62.7 $€·t CO 2 − 1$ for the pulp and paper and 104.6 $€·t CO 2 − 1$ for the iron and steel industry. Its average equivalent energy requirement varied between 2.7 (iron and steel) and 5.1 $MJ th ⋅ kg CO 2 − 1$ (cement). Retrofits of emerging calcium looping were shown to improve the overall viability of CO₂ capture for industrial decarbonisation. Calcium looping was shown to result in the average avoided CO₂ cost of between 32.7 (iron and steel) and 42.9 $€·t CO 2 − 1$ (cement). Its average equivalent energy requirement varied between 2.0 (iron and steel) and 3.7 $MJ th ⋅ kg CO 2 − 1$ (pulp and paper). Such performance demonstrated the superiority of calcium looping for industrial decarbonisation. Further work should focus on standardising the techno-economic assessment of technologies for industrial decarbonisation.

Keywords industrial CO₂ emissions CCS deployment carbonate looping net-zero industry carbon capture benchmarks

Corresponding Author(s): Dawid P. Hanak

About author:

Tongcan Cui and Yizhe Hou contributed equally to this work.

Online First Date: 16 May 2022 Issue Date: 20 September 2022

Cite this article:

Mónica P. S. Santos,Dawid P. Hanak. Carbon capture for decarbonisation of energy-intensive industries: a comparative review of techno-economic feasibility of solid looping cycles[J]. Front. Chem. Sci. Eng., 2022, 16(9): 1291-1317.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fcse/EN/10.1007/s11705-022-2151-5
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fcse/EN/Y2022/V16/I9/1291

Ref.	Review scope	Main conclusions
[12]	• Extensive review about the CO₂ capture technologies applied to three industries, iron and steel, cement, petroleum refineries and petrochemicals;• Techno and economic assessment of the technologies, based on standardisation of performance parameters;• Estimation of potential reduction of CO₂ emissions and respective costs for what they categorised as short/medium term and long term technologies.	• No dominant technology for any of the industries analysed;• The costs could be so diverse that for the cement industry, they could vary from 29.2 to 141.5 $€·t CO 2 − 1$ avoided when the carbon capture is obtained by calcium looping applied to the pre-calciner or by absorption with monoethanolamine, respectively;• Short-mid-term technologies may have a cost of 43.2−70.2, above 70.2 and 54.0−64.8 $€·t CO 2 − 1$ avoided in the iron and steel, cement and refining industries, respectively;• Long-term technologies could be achieved at lower cost, 32.4−59.4, 27.0−59.4 and 32.4 $€·t CO 2 − 1$ avoided in the iron and steel, cement and refining industries, respectively;• The economic feasibility of these technologies is strongly dependent to the power market once the excess electricity produced is exported to the grid.
[14]	• Overview of CO₂ capture, transport and utilisation;• Comparison of efficiency, energy consumption and technical viability of the main routes available for CCS;• Assessment of environmental impact of CCS technologies;• Summary of the largest CCS projects worldwide.	• At that time, there was no best CCS technology, but gas separation by membranes and solid looping cycles were seen as promising technologies;• The CO₂ use as a raw material could have an effective contribution to a decrease in CO₂ emissions.
[10]	• Brief review about the costs of CCS application to five industries, iron and steel, cement, refinery, biomass and high purity sources.	• Unlike the power industry and due to the heterogeneity of the processes involved in petrochemical industries, the costs could reach 150.9 $€·t CO 2 − 1$ avoided;• The cost of cement decarbonisation could be as low as 17.2 $€·t CO 2 − 1$ avoided when calcium looping is employed;• In the cement and iron and steel industries, which involve high-temperature processes, the integration of solid looping cycles seems to be the distinctive solution for the deep decarbonisation of these two industries.
[15]	• Comprehensive review about decarbonisation of three industrial industries, iron and steel, cement and refineries;• Review of the energy-efficient technologies in these industries as well as the potential of their implementation;• Assessment of different routes for these industries decarbonisation;• Discussion about the policies that should be adopted as a strategy to mitigate CO₂ emissions.	• An energy/emissions monitorisation system should be implemented and the best available technologies;• Fuel switching, CCS capture, co-location of industries and re-design of the processes were proposed as routes for these industries decarbonisation;• The replacement of fossil fuel by biomass and wastes should be encouraged and CCS should be seen as an option for deep decarbonisation.
[13]	• Exhaustive review about different CCS technologies employed in five industries, iron and steel, cement, refining and petrochemical, pulp and paper and high purity sources;• Technical and economic assessment of these technologies;• A mathematical model was proposed to estimate the costs of CCS implementation until 2050;• A sensitivity analysis was also performed.	• The studies about the costs of CCS implementation were scarce and practically non-existent for the pulp and paper industry;• Costs in the other industries could vary from 17.8−106.8 $€·t CO 2 − 1$ avoided, which contributes to a high economic uncertainty associated with these technologies and consequently to the delay of its commercialisation;• Delaying CCS implementation will lead to higher costs.
[8]	• Review of technologies and policies available to reduce CO₂ emissions in pulp and paper, iron and steel and cement.	• The biomass conversion in heat and power for the pulp and paper plant seems to be the key to decarbonise this industry;• Unlike the previous industry, in the steelmaking process and refining industry, there is not a dominant route although the replacement of fossil fuel by BECCS is mentioned [28];• In the cement industry, the carbon capture, usage and storage (CCUS) employing calcium looping is the most straightforward route to decrease CO₂ emissions;• Even though some of the technologies are near commercial, policies and incentives to research must be put in practice to reach the Paris agreement targets.
[11]	• Evaluation of carbon capture utilisation (CCU) technologies as well as the potential of use pre- and post-combustion capture in the thermal power, Ells and other industries;• Detailed list of commercial projects where carbon capture was already implemented and proved that is a feasible option in the CO₂ emissions abatement.	• The CO₂ utilisation in conjunction with the use of incentives in implementing carbon capture technologies must be seen as a route to follow.
[5]	• Comprehensive review of decarbonisation of seven industries, iron and steel, cement, petrochemical, pulp and paper, ceramics, glass and food;• Roadmap for the deep decarbonisation of these industries and their potential to reach the imposed targets until 2050.	• CCS, biomass and bio-based waste, process heat provision, alternative feedstock, electrolysis, combined heat & power (CHP), industrial ovens and membrane process were the main routes identified;• CCS was the only trans-sectional option that had the potential to mitigate the CO ₂ emissions with a potential between 25% and 55% for total decarbonisation;• All the work done so far is not enough for deep decarbonisation and there is no yet a dominant technology being necessary to develop new technologies.
[16]	• Review of technologies and policies to reach net GHG emissions by 2050−2070 in the cement, iron and steel, chemical, and plastics industries.	• Use of mineral and chemical admixtures, re-design building techniques to decrease the demand for concrete, improvement of the thermal efficiency of processes during cement production, fuel switching, electrification of cement kilns and CCS were the main options to full decarbonisation of cement industry;• In the iron and steel industry, the implementation of CCS and the replacement of fossil fuels by hydrogen or direct electrolysis were the main paths for reducing the CO₂ emissions of this industry;• Development of clean processes, by avoiding the use of fossil fuels, the use of biomass feedstocks and recycled chemicals, and the use of CO₂ as feedstock, the improvement of separation technologies and CCS were identified as the main routes to decarbonise the chemical and plastics industry;• Although the low carbon technologies will become cheaper, they are not enough for deep decarbonisation across the studied industries. Certain policies such as carbon pricing, government incentives for research, development and deployment, and energy efficiency or emissions standards should be adopted.
[17]	• Review of technical options, policies and barries to decarbonise the iron and steel, mining, cement and refinery industries, taking the Swedish case as reference.	• Electrification, fuel switching to low carbon fuels, CCS and when possible, a fossil free production are necessary deep decarbonisation of EIIs;• The use of less raw materials, improvement of material efficiency and implementation of circular economy were also identified as decarbonisation pathways;• There is necessary keep going development of decarbonisation technologies and its test at large scale in order to reach the commercial viability;• The incentive of low carbon technologies should be a priority, which can be achieved by implementation of new policies and incentives.
[9]	• Comprehensive review of decarbonisation of five industries, iron and steel, cement, petrochemical, pulp and paper and hydrogen;• Techno and economic assessment of the technologies CCS or BECCS based on a standardisation of performance parameters;• Estimation of CO₂ mitigation potential and respective costs.	• CCS only had the CO₂ mitigation potential up to 74% however, this figure could reach the 2548% for BECCS implementation in pulp and paper industry;• The iron and steel, pulp and paper and hydrogen could become carbon negative industries;• These results could be achieved with a CO₂ avoided cost lower than 100 $€·t CO 2 − 1$ ;• There were some discrepancies in literature regarding the potential and the economic assessment of the reviewed technologies.

Tab.1 A summary of the review studies about EIIs decarbonisation

Fig.1 Block flow diagrams for (a) pre-combustion capture, (b) post-combustion capture, and (c) oxy-fuel combustion CO₂ capture.

Fig.2 Simplified scheme of chemical looping process (black text: products from CLC; red text: products from chemical looping gasification).

Fig.3 Simplified scheme of calcium Looping technology (black: products from calcium looping; red: products from calcium looping gasification).

Fig.4 Difference between CO₂ avoided and CO₂ captured.

Fig.5 Block flow diagram of an iron and steel plant with steel production via BF-BOF (BFG, blast furnace gas; BOGF, basic oxygen furnace gas; COG, coke oven gas).

Fig.6 Techno-economic performance of different CO₂ capture technologies for decarbonisation of iron and steel industry: equivalent energy consumption vs. mean CO₂ avoided cost (Error bars represent the range of figures found in the literature. The bubbles without error bars have only one source. The area of each bubble is proportional to the number of studies reviewed).

Fig.7 Block flow diagram of a cement plant.

Fig.8 Techno-economic performance of different CO₂ capture technologies for decarbonisation of cement industry: equivalent energy consumption vs mean CO₂ avoided cost (Error bars represent the range of figures found in the literature. The area of the bubble is proportional to the number of works reviewed).

Fig.9 Simplified diagram of a conversion refinery plant.

Item		Post-combustion		Pre-combustion
Item		Short-term	Long-term	Short-term
Refineries	CO₂ capture rate/%	86–85	89–79	82–72
	Equivalent energy consumption /( $MJ th ? kg CO 2 − 1$ )	3.4–4.0	2.6–3.3	1.1–1.2
	Cost of CO₂ avoided/( $€·t CO 2 − 1$ )	78.3–82.4	71.1	89.6–92.7
Chemical plants	CO₂ capture rate/%	80–84	80–88	100
	Equivalent energy consumption/( $MJ th ? kg CO 2 − 1$ )	4.7–4.0	3.3–2.1	1.1
	Cost of CO₂ avoided/( $€·t CO 2 − 1$ )	94.8–120.5	83.5–98.9	117.5–172.1
Steam reforming H₂ plant	CO₂ capture rate/%	80	89	56
	Equivalent energy consumption/( $MJ th ? kg CO 2 − 1$ )	5.8	4.8	3.1
	Cost of CO₂ avoided/( $€·t CO 2 − 1$ )	117.5	101.0	62.8

Tab.2 CO₂ capture rate, equivalent energy consumption and cost of CO₂ avoided for post- and pre-combustion

Item		Short-term	Long-term
Refineries	CO₂ capture rate/%	65–73	70–76
	Equivalent energy consumption/( $MJ th ? kg CO 2 − 1$ )	2.6–2.8	1.9–2.2
	Cost of CO₂ avoided/( $€·t CO 2 − 1$ )	53.6–58.7	24.7–31.9
Chemical plants	CO₂ capture rate/%	100–95	100–88
	Equivalent energy consumption/( $MJ th ? kg CO 2 − 1$ )	2.7–3.9	2.2–5.2
	Cost of CO₂ avoided/( $€·t CO 2 − 1$ )	82.4–127.8	38.1–74.2

Tab.3 CO₂ capture rate, equivalent energy consumption and cost of CO₂ avoided for oxy-fuel combustion

Fig.10 Techno-economic performance of different CO₂ capture technologies for decarbonisation of petroleum refining industry: equivalent energy consumption vs mean CO₂ avoided cost (Error bars represent the range of figures found in the literature. The area of the bubble is proportional to the number of works reviewed).

Fig.11 Simplified diagram of a pulp and paper plant.

Fig.12 Techno-economic performance of different CO₂ capture technologies for decarbonisation of pulp and paper industry: equivalent energy consumption vs mean CO₂ avoided cost (Error bars represent the range of figures found in the literature. The bubble without error bars has only one source. The area of the bubble is proportional to the number of works reviewed).

Fig.13 Cost of CO₂ avoided of each technology for Energy Intensive Industries (AS: amine scrubbing; PA: physical absorption; CaL: calcium looping; Oxy: oxy-fuel combustion; VPSA: vacuum pressure swing adsorption).

1	P W Griffin, G P Hammond. Industrial energy use and carbon emissions reduction in the iron and steel sector: a UK perspective. Applied Energy, 2019, 249 : 109– 125 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.04.148
2	J Rogelj, A Popp, K V Calvin, G Luderer, J Emmerling, D Gernaat, S Fujimori, J Strefler, T Hasegawa, G Marangoni. et al.. Scenarios towards limiting global mean temperature increase below 1.5 °C. Nature Climate Change, 2018, 8( 4): 325– 332 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0091-3
3	B P McGrail, C J Freeman, C F Brown, E C Sullivan, S K White, S Reddy, R D Garber, D Tobin, J J Gilmartin, E J Steffensen. Overcoming business model uncertainty in a carbon dioxide capture and sequestration project: case study at the Boise White Paper Mill. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2012, 9 : 91– 102 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2012.03.009
4	IPCC. Summary for Policymakers. Climate Change 2014 Mitigation of Climate Change. Summary for Policymakers and Technical Summary, 2015
5	T Gerres, Ávila J P Chaves, P L Llamas, Román T G San. A review of cross-sector decarbonisation potentials in the European energy intensive industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2019, 210 : 585– 601 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.036
6	IEA. Industry Direct CO2 Emissions in the Sustainable Development Scenario, 2000–2030 . Paris: IEA Publications, 2020
7	C Bataille. Low and Zero Emissions in the Steel and Cement Industries: Barriers, Technologies and Policies. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2019, 2– 42
8	C Bataille, M Åhman, K Neuhoff, L J Nilsson, M Fischedick, S Lechtenböhmer, B Solano-Rodriquez, A Denis-Ryan, S Stiebert, H Waisman. et al.. A review of technology and policy deep decarbonization pathway options for making energy-intensive industry production consistent with the Paris Agreement. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018, 187 : 960– 973 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.107
9	F Yang, J C Meerman, A P C Faaij. Carbon capture and biomass in industry: a techno-economic analysis and comparison of negative emission options. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2021, 144 : 111028 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111028
10	P S Fennell, N Florin, T Napp, T Hills. CCS from Industrial Sources. Sustainable Technologies, Systems and Policies, 2012, 2012 : 17
11	E I Koytsoumpa, C Bergins, E Kakaras. The CO2 economy: review of CO2 capture and reuse technologies. Journal of Supercritical Fluids, 2018, 132 : 3– 16 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.supflu.2017.07.029
12	T Kuramochi, A Ramírez, W Turkenburg, A Faaij. Comparative assessment of CO2 capture technologies for carbon-intensive industrial processes. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 2012, 38( 1): 87– 112 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2011.05.001
13	D Leeson, N Mac Dowell, N Shah, C Petit, P S Fennell. A techno-economic analysis and systematic review of carbon capture and storage (CCS) applied to the iron and steel, cement, oil refining and pulp and paper industries, as well as other high purity sources. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2017, 61 : 71– 84 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2017.03.020
14	P Markewitz, W Kuckshinrichs, W Leitner, J Linssen, P Zapp, R Bongartz, A Schreiber, T E Müller. Worldwide innovations in the development of carbon capture technologies and the utilization of CO2. Energy & Environmental Science, 2012, 5( 6): 7281– 7305 https://doi.org/10.1039/c2ee03403d
15	T A Napp, A Gambhir, T P Hills, N Florin, P Fennell. A review of the technologies, economics and policy instruments for decarbonising energy-intensive manufacturing industries. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2014, 30 : 616– 640 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.10.036
16	J Rissman, C Bataille, E Masanet, N Aden, W R III Morrow, N Zhou, N Elliott, R Dell, N Heeren, B Huckestein. et al.. Technologies and policies to decarbonize global industry: review and assessment of mitigation drivers through 2070. Applied Energy, 2020, 266 : 114848 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114848
17	A Nurdiawati, F Urban. Towards deep decarbonisation of energy-intensive industries: a review of current status, technologies and policies. Energies, 2021, 14( 9): 2408 https://doi.org/10.3390/en14092408
18	D P Hanak, E J Anthony, V Manovic. A review of developments in pilot-plant testing and modelling of calcium looping process for CO2 capture from power generation systems. Energy & Environmental Science, 2015, 8( 8): 2199– 2249 https://doi.org/10.1039/C5EE01228G
19	S Tian, J Jiang, Z Zhang, V Manovic. Inherent potential of steelmaking to contribute to decarbonisation targets via industrial carbon capture and storage. Nature Communications, 2018, 9( 1): 1– 8 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-06886-8
20	E De Lena, M Spinelli, M Gatti, R Scaccabarozzi, S Campanari, S Consonni, G Cinti, M C Romano. Techno-economic analysis of calcium looping processes for low CO2 emission cement plants. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2019, 82 : 244– 260 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.01.005
21	M P S Santos, V Manovic, D P Hanak. Unlocking the potential of pulp and paper industry to achieve carbon-negative emissions via calcium looping retrofit. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2021, 280 : 124431 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124431
22	S Yun, M G Jang, J K Kim. Techno-economic assessment and comparison of absorption and membrane CO2 capture processes for iron and steel industry. Energy, 2021, 229 : 120778 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.120778
23	Á A Ramírez-Santos, M Bozorg, B Addis, V Piccialli, C Castel, E Favre. Optimization of multistage membrane gas separation processes. Example of application to CO2 capture from blast furnace gas. Journal of Membrane Science , 2018, 566 : 346– 366 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2018.08.024
24	R W Baker, B Freeman, J Kniep, Y I Huang, T C Merkel. CO2 capture from cement plants and steel mills using membranes. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2018, 57( 47): 15963– 15970 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.8b02574
25	M Voldsund, S O Gardarsdottir, Lena E De, J F Pérez-Calvo, A Jamali, D Berstad, C Fu, M Romano, S Roussanaly, R Anantharaman. et al.. Comparison of technologies for CO2 capture from cement production—Part 1: Technical evaluation. Energies, 2019, 12( 3): 559 https://doi.org/10.3390/en12030559
26	S Gardarsdottir, Lena E De, M Romano, S Roussanaly, M Voldsund, J F Pérez-Calvo, D Berstad, C Fu, R Anantharaman, D Sutter. et al.. Comparison of technologies for CO2 capture from cement production—Part 2: Cost analysis. Energies, 2019, 12( 3): 542 https://doi.org/10.3390/en12030542
27	M C Ferrari, A Amelio, G M Nardelli, R Costi. Assessment on the application of facilitated transport membranes in cement plants for CO2 capture. Energies, 2021, 14( 16): 1– 15 https://doi.org/10.3390/en14164772
28	IRENA. Renewable Energy in Manufacturing—a Technology Roadmap for REmap 2030. Technical Report, 2014
29	C C Dean, J Blamey, N H Florin, M J Al-Jeboori, P S Fennell. The calcium looping cycle for CO2 capture from power generation, cement manufacture and hydrogen production. Chemical Engineering Research & Design, 2011, 89( 6): 836– 855 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2010.10.013
30	T Hills, N Florin, P S Fennell. Decarbonising the cement sector: a bottom-up model for optimising carbon capture application in the UK. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2016, 139 : 1351– 1361 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.129
31	K Damen, M V Troost, A Faaij, W Turkenburg. A comparison of electricity and hydrogen production systems with CO2 capture and storage. Part A: review and selection of promising conversion and capture technologies. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 2006, 32( 2): 215– 246 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2005.11.005
32	J van Straelen, F Geuzebroek, N Goodchild, G Protopapas, L Mahony. CO2 capture for refineries, a practical approach. Energy Procedia, 2009, 1( 1): 179– 185 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2009.01.026
33	P H M Feron, C A Hendriks. CO2 capture process principles and costs. Oil & Gas Science and Technology, 2005, 60( 3): 451– 459 https://doi.org/10.2516/ogst:2005027
34	R Bottoms. Process for separating acidic gases. US Patent, 1783901, 1930-12-02
35	A B Rao, E S Rubin. A technical, economic, and environmental assessment of amine-based CO2 capture technology for power plant greenhouse gas control. Environmental Science & Technology, 2002, 36( 20): 4467– 4475 https://doi.org/10.1021/es0158861
36	R Shao A Stangeland. Amines Used in CO2 Capture—Health and Environmental Impacts . Bellona Report, 2009
37	G Xu, H Jin, Y Yang, Y Xu, H Lin, L Duan. A comprehensive techno-economic analysis method for power generation systems with CO2 capture. International Journal of Energy Research, 2010, 34( 4): 321– 332 https://doi.org/10.1002/er.1559
38	L Nurrokhmah, T Mezher, M R M Abu-Zahra. Evaluation of handling and reuse approaches for the waste generated from MEA-based CO2 capture with the consideration of regulations in the UAE. Environmental Science & Technology, 2013, 47( 23): 13644– 13651 https://doi.org/10.1021/es4027198
39	J C M Farla, C A Hendriks, K Blok. Carbon dioxide recovery from industrial processes. Climatic Change, 1995, 29( 4): 439– 461 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01092428
40	D E Wiley, M T Ho, A Bustamante. Assessment of opportunities for CO2 capture at iron and steel mills: an Australian perspective. Energy Procedia, 2011, 4 : 2654– 2661 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.165
41	A Arasto, E Tsupari, J Kärki, E Pisilä, L Sorsamäki. Post-combustion capture of CO2 at an integrated steel mill—Part I: technical concept analysis. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2013, 16 : 271– 277 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2012.08.018
42	E Tsupari, J Kärki, A Arasto, E Pisilä. Post-combustion capture of CO2 at an integrated steel mill—Part II: economic feasibility. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2013, 16 : 278– 286 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2012.08.017
43	K Onarheim, S Santos, P Kangas, V Hankalin. Performance and cost of CCS in the pulp and paper industry part 2: economic feasibility of amine-based post-combustion CO2 capture. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2017, 66 : 60– 75 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2017.09.010
44	C Nwaoha, P Tontiwachwuthikul. Carbon dioxide capture from pulp mill using 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol and monoethanolamine blend: techno-economic assessment of advanced process configuration. Applied Energy, 2019, 250 : 1202– 1216 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.05.097
45	K Han, C K Ahn, M S Lee, C H Rhee, J Y Kim, H D Chun. Current status and challenges of the ammonia-based CO2 capture technologies toward commercialization. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2013, 14 : 270– 281 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.01.007
46	N Rodríguez, R Murillo, J C Abanades. CO2 capture from cement plants using oxyfired precalcination and/or calcium looping. Environmental Science & Technology, 2012, 46( 4): 2460– 2466 https://doi.org/10.1021/es2030593
47	J Blamey, E J Anthony, J Wang, P S Fennell. The calcium looping cycle for large-scale CO2 capture. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 2010, 36( 2): 260– 279 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2009.10.001
48	E J Anthony. Solid looping cycles: a new technology for coal conversion. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2008, 47( 6): 1747– 1754 https://doi.org/10.1021/ie071310u
49	Morin J X, Béal C. Chapter 37: chemical looping combustion of refinery fuel gas with CO2 Capture. In: Carbon Dioxide Capture for Storage in Deep Geologic Formations, Volume 1. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2005, 647–654
50	J Adánez, A Abad, T Mendiara, P Gayán, Diego L F de, F García-Labiano. Chemical looping combustion of solid fuels. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 2018, 65 : 6– 66 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2017.07.005
51	T B Vilches, F Lind, M Rydén, H Thunman. Experience of more than 1000 h of operation with oxygen carriers and solid biomass at large scale. Applied Energy, 2017, 190 : 1174– 1183 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.01.032
52	J R Fernández, V Spallina, J C Abanades. Advanced packed-bed Ca−Cu looping process for the CO2 capture from steel mill off-gases. Frontiers in Energy Research, 2020, 8( 146): 1– 13 https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2020.00146
53	Diego L F de, F García-Labiano, P Gayán, J Celaya, J M Palacios, J Adánez. Operation of a 10 kWth chemical-looping combustor during 200 h with a CuO-Al2O3 oxygen carrier. Fuel, 2007, 86( 7-8): 1036– 1045 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2006.10.004
54	Q Zafar, T Mattisson, B Gevert. Integrated hydrogen and power production with CO2 capture using chemical-looping reforming redox reactivity of particles of CuO, Mn2O3, NiO, and Fe2O3 using SiO2 as a support. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2005, 44( 10): 3485– 3496 https://doi.org/10.1021/ie048978i
55	X Zhao, H Zhou, V S Sikarwar, M Zhao, A H A Park, P S Fennell, L Shen, L S Fan. Biomass-based chemical looping technologies: the good, the bad and the future. Energy & Environmental Science, 2017, 10( 9): 1885– 1910 https://doi.org/10.1039/C6EE03718F
56	P Wang, N Means, D Shekhawat, D Berry, M Massoudi. Chemical-looping combustion and gasification of coals and oxygen carrier development: a brief review. Energies, 2015, 8( 10): 10605– 10635 https://doi.org/10.3390/en81010605
57	A Darmawan, M W Ajiwibowo, K Yoshikawa, M Aziz, K Tokimatsu. Energy-efficient recovery of black liquor through gasification and syngas chemical looping. Applied Energy, 2018, 219 : 290– 298 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.03.033
58	A Darmawan, M W Ajiwibowo, M K Biddinika, K Tokimatsu, M Aziz. Black liquor-based hydrogen and power co-production: combination of supercritical water gasification and syngas chemical looping. Applied Energy, 2019, 252 : 113446 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113446
59	T Mattisson, A Järdnäs, A Lyngfelt. Reactivity of some metal oxides supported on alumina with alternating methane and oxygen-application for chemical-looping combustion. Energy & Fuels, 2003, 17( 3): 643– 651 https://doi.org/10.1021/ef020151i
60	M M Hossain, H I de Lasa. Chemical-looping combustion (CLC) for inherent CO2 separations—a review. Chemical Engineering Science, 2008, 63 : 4433– 4451 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2008.05.028
61	T Shimizu, T Hirama, H Hosoda, K Kitano, M Inagaki, K Tejima. A twin fluid-bed reactor for removal of CO2 from combustion processes. Chemical Engineering Research & Design, 1999, 77( 1): 62– 68 https://doi.org/10.1205/026387699525882
62	J Hilz, M Helbig, M Haaf, A Daikeler, J Ströhle, B Epple. Long-term pilot testing of the carbonate looping process in 1 MWth scale. Fuel, 2017, 210 : 892– 899 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.08.105
63	A Rolfe, Y Huang, M Haaf, A Pita, S Rezvani, A Dave, N J Hewitt. Technical and environmental study of calcium carbonate looping versus oxy-fuel options for low CO2 emission cement plants. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2018, 75 : 85– 97 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2018.05.020
64	D C Ozcan, A Macchi, D Lu, A Kierzkowska, H Ahn, C Müller, S Brandani. Ca−Cu looping process for CO2 capture from a power plant and its comparison with Ca-looping, oxy-combustion and amine-based CO2 capture processes. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2015, 43 : 198– 212 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.10.021
65	M A Cuenca E J Anthony. Pressurized Fluidized Bed Combustion of Coal. 1st ed. Dordrecht: Springer, 1995
66	B Arias, M E Diego, J C Abanades, M Lorenzo, L Diaz, D Martínez, J Alvarez, A Sánchez-Biezma. Demonstration of steady state CO2 capture in a 1.7 MWth calcium looping pilot. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2013, 18 : 237– 245 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.07.014
67	M Erans, T Beisheim, V Manovic, M Jeremias, K Patchigolla, H Dieter, L Duan, E J Anthony. Effect of SO2 and steam on CO2 capture performance of biomass-templated calcium aluminate pellets. Faraday Discussions, 2016, 192 : 97– 111 https://doi.org/10.1039/C6FD00027D
68	G S Grasa, J C Abanades. CO2 capture capacity of CaO in long series of carbonation/calcination cycles. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2006, 45( 26): 8846– 8851 https://doi.org/10.1021/ie0606946
69	R H Borgwardt. Sintering of nascent calcium oxide. Chemical Engineering Science, 1989, 44 : 53– 60 https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-2509(89)85232-7
70	P Sun, J R Grace, C J Lim, E J Anthony. The effect of CaO sintering on cyclic CO2 capture in energy systems. AIChE Journal. American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 2007, 53( 9): 2432– 2442 https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.11251
71	A Perejón, L M Romeo, Y Lara, P Lisbona, A Martínez, J M Valverde. The calcium-looping technology for CO2 capture: on the important roles of energy integration and sorbent behavior. Applied Energy, 2016, 162 : 787– 807 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.10.121
72	E H Baker. 87. The calcium oxide-carbon dioxide system in the pressure range 1–300 atmospheres. Journal of the Chemical Society, 1962, 0( 0): 464– 470 https://doi.org/10.1039/JR9620000464
73	R K Lyon. Method and apparatus for unmixed combustion as an alternative to fire. US Patent, 5509362, 1996-04-23
74	J C Abanades, R Murillo, J R Fernandez, G Grasa, I Martínez. New CO2 capture process for hydrogen production combining Ca and Cu chemical loops. Environmental Science & Technology, 2010, 44( 17): 6901– 6904 https://doi.org/10.1021/es101707t
75	H Dieter, A R Bidwe, G Varela-Duelli, A Charitos, C Hawthorne, G Scheffknecht. Development of the calcium looping CO2 capture technology from lab to pilot scale at IFK, University of Stuttgart. Fuel, 2014, 127 : 23– 37 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.01.063
76	J Ströhle, M Junk, J Kremer, A Galloy, B Epple. Carbonate looping experiments in a 1 MWth pilot plant and model validation. Fuel, 2014, 127 : 13– 22 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2013.12.043
77	M H Chang, W C Chen, C M Huang, W H Liu, Y C Chou, W C Chang, W Chen, J Y Cheng, K E Huang, H W Hsu. Design and experimental testing of a 1.9 MWth calcium looping pilot plant. Energy Procedia, 2014, 63 : 2100– 2108 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.226
78	K Mayer, E Schanz, T Pröll, H Hofbauer. Performance of an iron based oxygen carrier in a 120 kWth chemical looping combustion pilot plant. Fuel, 2018, 217 : 561– 569 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2018.01.014
79	A Lyngfelt, C Linderholm. Chemical-looping combustion of solid fuels—status and recent progress. Energy Procedia, 2017, 114 : 371– 386 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1179
80	I Abdulally, C Beal, H E Andrus, B Epple, A Lyngfelt, B White. Alstom’s chemical looping technology, program update. In 11th Annual Conference on Carbon Capture Utilization & Sequestration Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 2014,
81	M Yazdanpanah, F Guillou, S Bertholin, A Zhang. Demonstration of chemical looping combustion (CLC) with petcoke feed for refining industry in a 3 MWth pilot plant. SSRN Electronic Journal, 2019, 33 : 1– 8 https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3365950
82	H Croezen M Korteland. Technological Developments in Europe. A Long-Term View of CO2 Efficient Manufacturing in the European Region . Technical Report, 2010
83	IEA. Iron and Steel Technology Roadmap. Paris: IEA Publications, 2020
84	M T Ho, G W Allinson, D E Wiley. Comparison of MEA capture cost for low CO2 emissions sources in Australia. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2011, 5( 1): 49– 60 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2010.06.004
85	Association WorldSteel. About steel. WorldSteel Website, 2021
86	M Bender, T Roussiere, H Schelling, S Schuster, E Schwab. Coupled production of steel and chemicals. Chemieingenieurtechnik (Weinheim), 2018, 90( 11): 1782– 1805 https://doi.org/10.1002/cite.201800048
87	the European steel association EUROFER:. A Steel Roadmap for a Low Carbon Europe 2050. Technical Report, 2013
88	J van der Stel, G Louwerse, D Sert, A Hirsch, N Eklund, M Pettersson. Top gas recycling blast furnace developments for ‘green’ and sustainable ironmaking. Ironmaking & Steelmaking, 2013, 40( 7): 483– 489 https://doi.org/10.1179/0301923313Z.000000000221
89	M T Ho, A Bustamante, D E Wiley. Comparison of CO2 capture economics for iron and steel mills. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2013, 19 : 145– 159 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.08.003
90	M Dreillard, P Broutin, P Briot, T Huard, A Lettat. Application of the DMXTM CO2 capture process in steel industry. Energy Procedia, 2017, 114 : 2573– 2589 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1415
91	S Ó Garðarsdóttir, F Normann, R Skagestad, F Johnsson. Investment costs and CO2 reduction potential of carbon capture from industrial plants—a Swedish case study. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2018, 76 : 111– 124 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2018.06.022
92	A M Cormos, S Dragan, L Petrescu, V Sandu, C C Cormos. Techno-economic and environmental evaluations of decarbonized fossil-intensive industrial processes by reactive absorption & adsorption CO 2 capture systems. Energies, 2020, 13( 5): 1268 https://doi.org/10.3390/en13051268
93	S Tian, J Jiang, F Yan, K Li, X Chen, V Manovic. Highly efficient CO2 capture with simultaneous iron and CaO recycling for the iron and steel industry. Green Chemistry, 2016, 18( 14): 4022– 4031 https://doi.org/10.1039/C6GC00400H
94	S Tian, K Li, J Jiang, X Chen, F Yan. CO2 abatement from the iron and steel industry using a combined Ca-Fe chemical loop. Applied Energy, 2016, 170 : 345– 352 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.02.120
95	J R Fernández, I Martínez, J C Abanades, M C Romano. Conceptual design of a Ca−Cu chemical looping process for hydrogen production in integrated steelworks. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2017, 42( 16): 11023– 11037 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.02.141
96	I Martínez, J R Fernández, J C Abanades, M C Romano. Integration of a fluidised bed Ca−Cu chemical looping process in a steel mill. Energy, 2018, 163 : 570– 584 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.08.123
97	M Gazzani, M C Romano, G Manzolini. CO2 capture in integrated steelworks by commercial-ready technologies and SEWGS process. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2015, 41 : 249– 267 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.07.012
98	G Manzolini, A Giuffrida, P D Cobden, H A J van Dijk, F Ruggeri, F Consonni. Techno-economic assessment of SEWGS technology when applied to integrated steel-plant for CO2 emission mitigation. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2020, 94 : 102935 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.102935
99	D J Barker, S A Turner, P A Napier-Moore, M Clark, J E Davison. CO2 capture in the cement industry. Energy Procedia, 2009, 1( 1): 87– 94 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2009.01.014
100	A Favier, K Scrivener, G Habert. Decarbonizing the cement and concrete sector: integration of the full value chain to reach net zero emissions in Europe. IOP Conference Series. Earth and Environmental Science, 2019, 225( 1): 012009 https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/225/1/012009
101	IEA. Cement. Paris: IEA Publications, 2020
102	K Atsonios, P Grammelis, S K Antiohos, N Nikolopoulos, E Kakaras. Integration of calcium looping technology in existing cement plant for CO2 capture: process modeling and technical considerations. Fuel, 2015, 153 : 210– 223 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2015.02.084
103	A Gomez, P Briot, L Raynal, P Broutin, M Gimenez, M Soazic, P Cessat, S Saysset. ACACIA project—development of a post-combustion CO2 capture process. Case of the DMXTM process. Oil & Gas Science and Technology—Revue d’IFP Energies nouvelles, 2014, 69( 6): 1121– 1129
104	W Zhou, D Jiang, D Chen, C Griffy-Brown, Y Jin, B Zhu. Capturing CO2 from cement plants: a priority for reducing CO2 emissions in China. Energy, 2016, 106 : 464– 474 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.03.090
105	P Markewitz, L Zhao, M Ryssel, G Moumin, Y Wang. Carbon capture for CO2 emission reduction in the cement industry in Germany. Energies, 2019, 12( 12): 2432 https://doi.org/10.3390/en12122432
106	ECRA. ECRA CCS Project—Report on Phase III. Technical Report TR- ECRA119/2012, 2012
107	F Carrasco-Maldonado, R Spörl, K Fleiger, V Hoenig, J Maier, G Scheffknecht. Oxy-fuel combustion technology for cement production—state of the art research and technology development. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2016, 45 : 189– 199 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.12.014
108	L M Romeo, D Catalina, P Lisbona, Y Lara, A Martinez. Ca looping technology: current status, developments and future directions. Greenhouse Gases. Science And Technology, 2011, 1 : 72– 82
109	M E Diego, B Arias, J C Abanades. Analysis of a double calcium loop process configuration for CO2 capture in cement plants. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2016, 117 : 110– 121 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.027
110	D Johansson, J Rootzén, T Berntsson, F Johnsson. Assessment of strategies for CO2 abatement in the European petroleum refining industry. Energy, 2012, 42( 1): 375– 386 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.03.039
111	J van Straelen, F Geuzebroek, N Goodchild, G Protopapas, L Mahony. CO2 capture for refineries, a practical approach. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2010, 4( 2): 316– 320 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2009.09.022
112	P Bains, P Psarras, J Wilcox. CO2 capture from the industry sector. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 2017, 63 : 146– 172 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2017.07.001
113	IEA. Chemicals. Paris: IEA Publications, 2020
114	N Berghout, M van den Broek, A Faaij. Techno-economic performance and challenges of applying CO2 capture in the industry: a case study of five industrial plants. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2013, 17 : 259– 279 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.04.022
115	C Fernández-Dacosta, der Spek M van, C R Hung, G D Oregionni, R Skagestad, P Parihar, D T Gokak, A H Strømman, A Ramirez. Prospective techno-economic and environmental assessment of carbon capture at a refinery and CO2 utilisation in polyol synthesis. Journal of CO2 Utilization , 2017, 21 : 405– 422
116	K Möllersten, J Yan, M Westermark. Potential and cost-effectiveness of CO2 reductions through energy measures in Swedish pulp and paper mills. Energy, 2003, 28( 7): 691– 710 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-5442(03)00002-1
117	K Onarheim, S Santos, P Kangas, V Hankalin. Performance and costs of CCS in the pulp and paper industry part 1: performance of amine-based post-combustion CO2 capture. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2017, 59 : 58– 73 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2017.02.008
118	IEA. Pulp and Paper. Paris: IEA Publications, 2020
119	E Hektor, T Berntsson. Reduction of greenhouse gases in integrated pulp and paper mills: possibilities for CO2 capture and storage. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 2009, 11( 1): 59– 65 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-008-0166-3
120	M Garcia, N Berghout. Toward a common method of cost-review for carbon capture technologies in the industrial sector: cement and iron and steel plants. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2019, 87 : 142– 158 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.05.005
121	S Roussanaly, N Berghout, T Fout, M Garcia, S Gardarsdottir, S M Nazir, A Ramirez, E S Rubin. Towards improved cost evaluation of carbon capture and storage from industry. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2021, 106 : 103263 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2021.103263

[1]

FCE-21085-of-SM_suppl_1

Download

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed