4.2 Article

Cutting the cost of carbon capture: a case for carbon capture and utilization

Journal

FARADAY DISCUSSIONS
Volume 192, Issue -, Pages 391-414

Publisher

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c6fd00031b

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Flemish Fund for Scientific Research [FWO12/ ASP/151]
  2. BELSPO [IAP/7/05]
  3. European Research Council under European Community ERC [240483]
  4. European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovative programme under consolidator ERC grant [647755-DYNPOR]
  5. Center for Gas Separations Relevant to Clean Energy Technologies, an Energy Frontier Research Center - U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science
  6. Office of Basic Energy Sciences [DE-SC0001015]
  7. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) [SPP 1570]
  8. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) [DE-SC0001015] Funding Source: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A significant part of the cost for carbon capture and storage ( CCS) is related to the compression of captured CO2 to its supercritical state, at 150 bar and typically 99% purity. These stringent conditions may however not always be necessary for specific cases of carbon capture and utilization ( CCU). In this manuscript, we investigate how much the parasitic energy of an adsorbent-based carbon capture process may be lowered by utilizing CO2 at 1 bar and adapting the final purity requirement for CO2 from 99% to 70% or 50%. We compare different CO2 sources: the flue gases of coal-fired or natural gas-fired power plants and ambient air. We evaluate the carbon capture performance of over 60 nanoporous materials and determine the influence of the initial and final CO2 purity on the parasitic energy of the carbon capture process. Moreover, we demonstrate the underlying principles of the parasitic energy minimization in more detail using the commercially available NaX zeolite. Finally, the calculated utilization cost of CO2 is compared with the reported prices for CO2 and published costs for CCS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available