Assessing the Potential of Utilization and Storage Strategies for Post-Combustion CO2 Emissions Reduction

Abstract

The emissions reduction potential of three carbon dioxide handling strategies for postcombustion capture is considered. These are carbon capture and sequestration/storage (CCS), enhanced hydrocarbon recovery (EHR), and carbon dioxide utilization (CDU) to produce synthetic oil. This is performed using common and comparable boundary conditions including net CO 2 sequestered based on equivalent boundary conditions. This is achieved using a "cradle to grave approach" where the final destination and fate of any product is considered. The input boundary is pure CO 2 that has been produced using a post-combustion capture process as this is common between all processes. The output boundary is the emissions resulting from any product produced with the assumption that the majority of the oil will go to combustion processes. We also consider the "cradle to gate" approach where the ultimate fate of the oil is not considered as this is a boundary condition often applied to EHR processes. Results show that while CCS can make an impact on CO 2 emissions, CDU will have a comparable effect whilst generating income while EHR will ultimately increase net emissions. The global capacity for CDU is also compared against CCS using data based on current and planned CCS projects. Analysis shows that current CDU represent a greater volume of capture than CCS processes and that this gap is likely to remain well beyond 2020 which is the limit of the CCS projects in the database.

Assessing Early‐Stage CO2 utilization Technologies—Comparing Apples and Oranges?

“…While on the one hand large CO 2 storage volumes can be achieved,onthe other hand fossil fuels are produced, leading to additional emissions. [21][22][23] FurthermoreE OR, especially its sequestration of CO 2 in oil fields,c an also be understood as carbon capture and storage (CCS), where CO 2 is pumped into geological formations for long-term storage.C CS has ab ad reputation in Germany and other countries that has decelerated demonstration activities and further technology diffusion. [24] That is why another motivation for excluding EOR could be to avoid the shift of bad reputationf rom CCS to CO 2 utilization.…”

Two Blind Mice: It Is Time for Greater Collaboration between Engineers and Social Scientists around the RDD & D of Industrial Technologies

“…Launched in 2013 and hosted by the University of Sheffield, CDUUK provides a cohesive, virtual centre for interdisciplinary research into Carbon Dioxide Utilisation; actioned in part through funded initiatives like 4CU and CO2Chem. The centre currently unites researchers in seven academic departments across engineering (e.g., chemical and biological engineering), the sciences (e.g., physics, chemistry, psychology) and the social sciences (e.g., management) with the focus of pursuing research into all areas of CDU; from the development of carbon capture agents, life-cycle analysis of product options and public perception among others (e.g., [21,22,27,28]). Beyond the internal opportunities afforded to the University of Sheffield, CDUUK also provides an international knowledge-exchange and networking forum for external academics, industry, research funders and policy makers; with the ultimate aim of creating a critical mass of world class CDU research.…”

Novel Sorbent Materials for Carbon Capture

“…5 We have a mixed stream of gases emitted from a combustion process. 55 It will not replace CCS, merely complement it; but it will be an essential component not only on mitigation potential, but also on economic and environmental sustainability. Particulates can be removed by filtration, and the acid gases can be removed by adsorption.…”

“…In conventional combustion, this will essentially be a dilute (5e15%) mixture of carbon dioxide in nitrogen and water (steam) with trace impurities of SO x and NO x compounds and particulate matter. 55,56 The rationale behind this statement will be discussed in section 4 shortly. We then need to separate the CO 2 from the other gases.…”

“…55 This offers the opportunity for seasonal energy storage using a power-to-gas or power-toliquid fuels approach using renewable energy sources, a process not feasible using battery storage, which is more suited to short time (e.g., daily) chargeedischarge cycles.…”