4.6 Article

Thermodynamic loss analysis of a liquid-sorbent direct air carbon capture plant

期刊

CELL REPORTS PHYSICAL SCIENCE
卷 3, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.xcrp.2022.100791

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) [RGPIN-2016-03679]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article analyzes Carbon Engineering's direct air capture process and finds issues with high energy consumption and irreversible losses. It focuses on the mechanisms of thermodynamic work potential losses in the most energy-intensive plant segments. The article concludes by discussing the problems associated with using natural gas as a heat and power feedstock and suggests further analysis and improvements to make this process viable for large-scale CO2 removal.
Direct air capture of CO2 is often presented as a promising technology to help mitigate climate change, although proposed processes are highly energy intensive. We analyze Carbon Engineering's 1 Mt-CO2/year natural-gas-powered direct air capture (DAC) process, which requires 273.2 MW per plant, where we find that 252 MW are irreversibly lost, corresponding to a second-law efficiency of 7.8%. Our component-level analysis details the mechanisms by which these losses of thermodynamic work potential occur in the most energy-intensive plant segments. Here, we emphasize the effects of chemical exergy dissipation in the air contactor, where stored chemical exergy is released as low-grade heat into the environment. Other major losses occur in the calciner and its preheat cyclones due to the high temperature demanded by its internal chemical reaction, as well as in the water knockout system, CO2 compression system, and power island. Finally, we illustrate the issues arising from the use of natural gas as a feedstock for heat and power, and suggest directions to pursue for further analysis and process improvements, which we consider imperative to make this DAC process a viable option for large-scale CO2 removal toward IPCC targets.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据