Generalized penalties and standard efficiencies of carbon capture and storage processes
Corresponding Author
Mauro Capocelli
Research Unit of Process Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Rome "Campus Bio-Medico", Rome, Italy
Correspondence
Mauro Capocelli, Research Unit of Process Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Rome "Campus Bio-Medico", via Alvaro del Portillo 21, 00128 Rome, Italy.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorMarcello De Falco
Research Unit of Process Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Rome "Campus Bio-Medico", Rome, Italy
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Mauro Capocelli
Research Unit of Process Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Rome "Campus Bio-Medico", Rome, Italy
Correspondence
Mauro Capocelli, Research Unit of Process Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Rome "Campus Bio-Medico", via Alvaro del Portillo 21, 00128 Rome, Italy.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorMarcello De Falco
Research Unit of Process Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Rome "Campus Bio-Medico", Rome, Italy
Search for more papers by this authorSummary
Any possible sustainable way to meet climate targets relies on carbon capture and storage (CCS). Many literature works focus on the comparison between CCS approaches and technologies, also utilizing thermodynamic analysis to evaluate the inefficiencies of the processes, to understand and locate the additional consumption of primary energy, and, eventually, to provide a rigorous instrument for comparison. In this article, we provide a comprehensive assessment of the energy consumption and exergy destruction in CCS and propose a general and novel methodology that allows to unify the various available approaches. According to our calculations, the lowest energy and fuel penalties can be achieved with precombustion capture schemes. The minimum values found are around 8% to 9% for energy penalty, very close to the minimum achievable penalty of 3%. In addition, this results into a fuel penalty of 10% against the thermodynamic limit of 3.5% to 4%. The postcombustion scheme shows slightly worse performance that can be improved with mechanical energy-driven processes (such as cryogenic separation or adsorption process) that, if optimized, can reach a work of separation quite below 1 MJ/kg CO2. The methodology and results can be useful for engineers as well as for decision-makers to evaluate the optimal technological pathways of decarbonization.
REFERENCES
- 1Gabrielli P, Gazzani M, Mazzotti M. The role of carbon capture and utilization, carbon capture and storage, and biomass to enable a net-zero-CO2 emissions chemical industry. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2020; 59(15): 7033-7045.
- 2Davis SJ, Lewis NS, Shaner M, et al. Net-zero emissions energy systems. Science. 2018; 360(6396): 9793.
- 3Bednar J, Obersteiner M, Baklanov A, et al. Operationalizing the net-negative carbon economy. Nature. 2021; 596: 377-383. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03723-9
- 4Zolfaghari Z, Aslani A, Moshari A, Malekli M. Direct air capture from demonstration to commercialization stage: a bibliometric analysis. Int J Energy Res. 2021; 1-14. doi:10.1002/er.7203
- 5Bui M, Adjiman CS, Bardow A, et al. Carbon capture and storage (CCS): the way forward. Energy Environ Sci. 2018; 11: 1062-1176.
- 6Townsend A, Raji N, Zapantis A. The value of carbon capture and storage (CCS). Global CCS Institute; 2020.
- 7Xiao K, Zhu Z, Wang L, Zeng S, Li Y. Energy-effective carbon dioxide capture and storage design in hydrogen production from liquefied natural gas. Int J Energy Res. 2021; 45: 9408-9421.
- 8Calbry-Mazukya AS, Edwards CF. Thermodynamic benchmarking of CO2 capture systems: exergy analysis methodology for adsorption processes. Energy Procedia. 2014; 63: 1-17.
10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.002 Google Scholar
- 9House KZ, Harvey CF, Aziz MJ, Schrag DP. The energy penalty of post-combustion CO2 capture & storage and its implications for retrofitting the U.S. Installed Base. Energy Environ Sci. 2009; 2(2): 193.
- 10House KZ, Baclig AC, Ranjan M, van Nierop EA, Wilcox J, Herzog HJ. Economic and energetic analysis of capturing CO2 from ambient air. PNAS. 2011; 108: 51.
- 11Boroumandazi B, Rismanchi B, Saidur R. A review on exergy analysis of industrial sector. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2013; 27: 198-203.
- 12De Falco M, Capocelli M. Process analysis and plant simulation in a sustainable economy. Surface Science and Catalysis. Vol 179. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier; 2019: 121-140.
- 13Magnanelli E, Berglihn OT, Kjelstrup S. Exergy-based performance indicators for industrial practice. Int J Energy Res. 2018; 42(13): 3989-4007.
- 14Gaggioli RA, Wepfer WJ. Exergy economics: I. cost accounting applications. Energy. 1980; 5: 823-837.
- 15Moran MJ, Sciubba E. Exergy analysis: principles and practice article. J Eng Gas Turbines Power. 1994; 116: 285-290.
- 16Mistry KH, Lienhard VJH. Generalized least energy of separation for desalination and other chemical separation processes. Entropy. 2013; 15: 2046-2080.
- 17Bejan A. Advanced Engineering Thermodynamics. 4th ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2016.
10.1002/9781119245964 Google Scholar
- 18Calbry-Muzyka AS. Comparative analysis of CO2 capture systems: an exergetic framework [PhD Thesis]. Stanford University, USA; 2015.
- 19Olaleye AK, Wang M. Conventional and advanced exergy analysis of post-combustion CO2 capture based on chemical absorption integrated with supercritical coal-fired power plant. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control. 2017; 64: 246-256.
- 20Olaleye AK, Wang M, Kelsall G. Steady state simulation and exergy analysis of supercritical coal-fired power plant with CO2 capture. Fuel. 2015; 151: 57-72.
- 21Budzianowski WM. Assessment of thermodynamic efficiency of carbon dioxide separation in capture plants by using gas–liquid absorption. Energy Efficient Solvents for CO2 Capture by Gas–Liquid Absorption: Green Energy and Technology. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2017. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-47262-1_2
10.1007/978-3-319-47262-1_2 Google Scholar
- 22Petrakopoulou F, Tsatsaronis G, Morosuk T. Advanced exergonomic advanced exergoeconomic analysis of a power plant with CO2 capture. Energy Procedia. 2015; 75: 2253-2260.
- 23Kim S, Lim Y-I, Lee D, Seo MW, Mun T-Y, Lee J-G. Effects of flue gas recirculation on energy, exergy, environment, and economics in oxy-coal circulating fluidized-bed power plants with CO2 capture. Int J Energy Res. 2021; 45: 5852-5865. doi:10.1002/er.6205
- 24Pillai BBK, Surywanshi GD, Patnaikuni VS, Anne SB, Vooradi R. A novel calcium looping–integrated NGCC power plant configuration for carbon capture and utilization—comprehensive performance analysis. Int J Energy Res. 2021; 1-23. doi:10.1002/er.7212
- 25Habib MA, Badr HM, Ahmed SF, et al. A review of recent developments in carbon capture utilizing oxy-fuel combustion in conventional and ion transport membrane systems. Int J Energy Res. 2011; 35: 741-764. doi:10.1002/er.1798
- 26Prakash D, Singh O. Exergy analysis of combined cycle power plant with carbon capture and utilization. Energy Sources, Part A. 2020; 1-22. doi:10.1080/15567036.2020.1810827
10.1080/15567036.2020.1810827 Google Scholar
- 27Ertesvåg IS, Kvamsdal HM, Bolland O. Exergy analysis of a gas-turbine combined-cycle power plant with precombustion CO2 capture. Energy. 2005; 30(1): 5-39. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2004.05.029
- 28Yu Z, Yang S, Gu Y, Deng J. Numerical approach of liquid carbon dioxide injection in crushed coal and its experimental validation. Int J Energy Res. 2020; 45: 2070-2084.
- 29Capocelli M, Moliterni E, Piemonte V, De Falco M. Reuse of waste geothermal brine: process, thermodynamic and economic analysis. Water. 2020; 12: 316. doi:10.3390/w12020316
- 30Chen B, Wang F. Numerical simulation of heat-pipe and folded reformers for efficient hydrogen production through methane autothermal reforming. Int J Energy Res. 2020; 44: 10430-10441. doi:10.1002/er.5668Reforming
- 31Capocelli M, Luberti M, Inno S, D'Antonio F, Di Natale F, Lancia A. Post-combustion CO2 capture by RVPSA in a large-scale steam reforming plant. J CO₂ Util. 2019; 32: 53-65.
- 32Romano MC, Chiesa P, Lozza G. Pre-combustion CO2 capture from natural gas power plants with ATR and MDEA processes. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control. 2010; 4: 785-797.
- 33Sipöcz N, Tobiesen FA. Natural gas combined cycle power plants with CO2 capture–opportunities to reduce cost. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control. 2012; 7: 98-106.
- 34Kvamsdal HM, Hetland J, Haugen G, et al. Maintaining a neutral water balance in a 450MWe NGCC-CCS power system with post-combustion carbon dioxide capture aimed at offshore operation. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control. 2010; 4: 613-622.
- 35Godoy ME, Mussati SF, Scenna NJ. A NGCC power plant with a CO2 post-combustion capture option. Optimal economics for different generation/capture goals. Chem Eng Res Des. 2014; 92: 1329-1353.
- 36Biliyok C, Young H. Evaluation of natural gas combined cycle power plant for post-combustion CO2 capture integration. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control. 2013; 19: 396-405.
- 37Atsonios K, Panopoulos K, Grammelis P, Kakaras E. Exergetic comparison of CO2 capture techniques from solid fossil fuel power plants. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control. 2016; 45: 106-117.
- 38Astarita G, Savage DW, Bisio A. Gas Treating with Chemical Solvents. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 1983.
- 39Ahn H, Luberti M, Liu Z, Brandani S. Process configuration studies of the amine capture process for coal-fired power plants. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control. 2013; 16: 29-40.
- 40 Fluor. Improvement in power generation with post-combustion capture of CO2, report number PH4/33. IEA Greenhouse gas R&D Programme; 2004.
- 41White CW. DOE/NETL-2002/1182. ASPEN Plus Simulation of CO2 Recovery Process.
- 42Wilcox J. Introduction to carbon capture. Carbon Capture. New York, NY: Springer; 2012.
10.1007/978-1-4614-2215-0_1 Google Scholar
- 43Lara Y, Martínez A, Lisbona P, Bolea I, González A, Romeo LM. Using the second law of thermodynamic to improve CO2 capture systems. Energy Procedia. 2011; 4: 1043-1050.
10.1016/j.egypro.2011.01.153 Google Scholar
- 44Jackson S, Brodal E. A comparison of the energy consumption for CO2 compression process alternatives. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci. 2018; 167:012031.
10.1088/1755-1315/167/1/012031 Google Scholar
- 45Jensen M. Energy process enabled by cryogenic carbon capture. ASPEN plus simulation of CO2 recovery process [BYU Scholars Theses and Dissertations]; 2011.5711. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/5711
- 46Swanson CE, Elzey JW, Hershberger RE, Donnelly RJ. Thermodynamic analysis of low-temperature carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide capture from coal-burning power plants. Phys Rev. 2012; 86:016103.
- 47Jansen D, Gazzani M, Manzolini G, van Dijkc E, Carbo M. Pre-combustion CO2 capture. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control. 2015; 40: 167-187.
- 48Gazzani M, Chiesa P, Martelli L. Using hydrogen as gas turbine fuel: premixed versus diffusive flame combustors. J Eng Gas Turbines Power. 2014; 136:051504.
- 49Mores PL, Godoy E, Mussati SF, Scenna NJ. A NGCC power plant with a CO2 post-combustioncapture option. Optimal economics for different generation/capture goals. Chem Eng Res Des. 2014; 92: 1329-1353.
- 50Lozza G, Chiesa P. Natural gas Decarbonization to reduce CO2 emission from combined cycles—part I: partial oxidation. Trans ASME. 2002; 124: 82-88.
- 51Lozza G, Chiesa P. Natural gas decarbonization to reduce CO2 emission from combined cycles—part II: steam-methane reforming. Trans ASME. 2002; 124: 89-95.
- 52Escudero AI, Espatolero S, Romeo LM, et al. Minimization of CO2 capture energy penalty in second generation oxy-fuel power plants. Appl Therm Eng. 2016; 103: 274-281.
- 53Mathieu P. Presentation of an innovative zero-emission cycle for mitigation the global climate change. Int J Appl Thermodyn. 1998; 1–4: 21-30.
- 54Cabral RP, Mac Dowell N. Oxy-fuel combustion capture technology. Carbon Capture and Storage. London, England: The Royal Society of Chemistry; 2021. doi:10.1039/9781788012744-00168
- 55Allam R, Martin S, Forrest B, et al. Demonstration of the Allam cycle: an update on the development status of a high efficiency supercritical carbon dioxide power process employing full carbon capture. Energy Procedia. 2017; 114: 5948-5966.
- 56Sleiti AK, Al-Ammari WA. Energy and exergy analyses of novel supercritical CO2 Brayton cycles driven by direct oxy-fuel combustor. Fuel. 2021; 294:120557.
- 57Taniguchi M, Asaoka H, Ayugara T. Energy saving air-separation plant based on exergy analysis. Kobelco Technol Rev. 2015; 33: 34-38.
- 58Kotowicz Y, Dryjanska A. Supercritical power plant 600 MW with cryogenic oxygen plant and CCS installation. Arch Thermodyn. 2013; 34(3): 123-137. doi:10.2478/aoter-2013-0019
- 59van der Ham LV, Kjelstrup S. Exergy analysis of two cryogenic air separation processes. Energy. 2010; 35(12): 4731-4739.
- 60Cau G, Tola V, Ferrara F, Porcu A, Pettinau A. CO2-free coal-fired power generation by partial oxy-fuel and post-combustion CO2 capture: techno-economic analysis. Fuel. 2018; 214: 423-435.
- 61Fu C, Gundersen T. Using exergy analysis to reduce power consumption in air separation units for oxy-combustion processes. Energy. 2012; 44: 60-68.