Comparison of technologies for CO                         2                          capture from cement production—Part 1: Technical evaluation

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

doi:10.3390/en12030559

Comparison of technologies for CO ₂ capture from cement production—Part 1: Technical evaluation

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

^*Corresponding author for this work

SINTEF
Polytechnic University of Milan
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich
VDZ gGmbH
Italcementi Heidelberg Group

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

Abstract

A technical evaluation of CO ₂ capture technologies when retrofitted to a cement plant is performed. The investigated technologies are the oxyfuel process, the chilled ammonia process, membrane-assisted CO ₂ 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 ₂ avoided are 73–90%, while it is 64% for MEA, considering the average EU-28 electricity mix. The specific primary energy consumption for CO ₂ avoided is 1.63–4.07 MJ/kg CO ₂ , compared to 7.08 MJ/kg CO ₂ 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 ₂ 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.

Original language	English
Article number	559
Journal	Energies
Volume	12
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.3390/en12030559
Publication status	Published - 2019

Funding

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement no. 641185, and the Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI) under contract number 15.0160.

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

SDG 7 Affordable and Clean Energy

Keywords

Calcium looping
Cement production with CO capture
Chilled ammonia
CO capture
CO capture in industry
CO capture retrofitability
Membrane-assisted CO liquefaction
Oxyfuel

Access to Document

10.3390/en12030559Licence: CC BY

energies-12-00559Final published version, 12.5 MBLicence: CC BY

Cite this

Voldsund, M., Gardarsdottir, S. O., De Lena, E., Pérez-Calvo, J. F., Jamali, A., Berstad, D., Fu, C., Romano, M., Roussanaly, S., Anantharaman, R., Hoppe, H., Sutter, D., Mazzotti, M., Gazzani, M., Cinti, G., & Jordal, K. (2019). Comparison of technologies for CO ₂ capture from cement production—Part 1: Technical evaluation. Energies, 12(3), Article 559. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12030559

@article{0d8f11f76fe54a2885f3283fd541ae39,

title = "Comparison of technologies for CO 2 capture from cement production{\textemdash}Part 1: Technical evaluation",

abstract = " A technical evaluation of CO 2 capture technologies when retrofitted to a cement plant is performed. The investigated technologies are the oxyfuel process, the chilled ammonia process, membrane-assisted CO 2 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 2 avoided are 73{\textendash}90\%, while it is 64\% for MEA, considering the average EU-28 electricity mix. The specific primary energy consumption for CO 2 avoided is 1.63{\textendash}4.07 MJ/kg CO 2 , compared to 7.08 MJ/kg CO 2 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 2 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. ",

keywords = "Calcium looping, Cement production with CO capture, Chilled ammonia, CO capture, CO capture in industry, CO capture retrofitability, Membrane-assisted CO liquefaction, Oxyfuel",

author = "Mari Voldsund and Gardarsdottir, \{Stefania Osk\} and \{De Lena\}, Edoardo and P{\'e}rez-Calvo, \{Jos{\'e} Francisco\} and Armin Jamali and David Berstad and Chao Fu and Matteo Romano and Simon Roussanaly and Rahul Anantharaman and Helmut Hoppe and Daniel Sutter and Marco Mazzotti and Matteo Gazzani and Giovanni Cinti and Kristin Jordal",

year = "2019",

doi = "10.3390/en12030559",

language = "English",

volume = "12",

journal = "Energies",

issn = "1996-1073",

publisher = "Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)",

number = "3",

}

Voldsund, M, Gardarsdottir, SO, De Lena, E, Pérez-Calvo, JF, Jamali, A, Berstad, D, Fu, C, Romano, M, Roussanaly, S, Anantharaman, R, Hoppe, H, Sutter, D, Mazzotti, M, Gazzani, M, Cinti, G & Jordal, K 2019, 'Comparison of technologies for CO ₂ capture from cement production—Part 1: Technical evaluation', Energies, vol. 12, no. 3, 559. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12030559

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of technologies for CO 2 capture from cement production—Part 1

T2 - Technical evaluation

AU - Voldsund, Mari

AU - Gardarsdottir, Stefania Osk

AU - De Lena, Edoardo

AU - Pérez-Calvo, José Francisco

AU - Jamali, Armin

AU - Berstad, David

AU - Fu, Chao

AU - Romano, Matteo

AU - Roussanaly, Simon

AU - Anantharaman, Rahul

AU - Hoppe, Helmut

AU - Sutter, Daniel

AU - Mazzotti, Marco

AU - Gazzani, Matteo

AU - Cinti, Giovanni

AU - Jordal, Kristin

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - A technical evaluation of CO 2 capture technologies when retrofitted to a cement plant is performed. The investigated technologies are the oxyfuel process, the chilled ammonia process, membrane-assisted CO 2 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 2 avoided are 73–90%, while it is 64% for MEA, considering the average EU-28 electricity mix. The specific primary energy consumption for CO 2 avoided is 1.63–4.07 MJ/kg CO 2 , compared to 7.08 MJ/kg CO 2 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 2 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.

AB - A technical evaluation of CO 2 capture technologies when retrofitted to a cement plant is performed. The investigated technologies are the oxyfuel process, the chilled ammonia process, membrane-assisted CO 2 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 2 avoided are 73–90%, while it is 64% for MEA, considering the average EU-28 electricity mix. The specific primary energy consumption for CO 2 avoided is 1.63–4.07 MJ/kg CO 2 , compared to 7.08 MJ/kg CO 2 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 2 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.

KW - Calcium looping

KW - Cement production with CO capture

KW - Chilled ammonia

KW - CO capture

KW - CO capture in industry

KW - CO capture retrofitability

KW - Membrane-assisted CO liquefaction

KW - Oxyfuel

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85061524565

U2 - 10.3390/en12030559

DO - 10.3390/en12030559

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85061524565

SN - 1996-1073

VL - 12

JO - Energies

JF - Energies

IS - 3

M1 - 559

ER -