Carbon Capture and Utilization in the Industrial Sector

Abstract

The fabrication and manufacturing processes of industrial commodities such as iron, glass, and cement are carbon-intensive, accounting for 23% of global CO emissions. As a climate mitigation strategy, CO capture from flue gases of industrial processes-much like that of the power sector-has not experienced wide adoption given its high associated costs. However, some industrial processes with relatively high CO flue concentration may be viable candidates to cost-competitively supply CO for utilization purposes (e.g., polymer manufacturing, etc.). This work develops a methodology that determines the levelized cost ($/tCO) of separating, compressing, and transporting carbon dioxide. A top-down model determines the cost of separating and compressing CO across 18 industrial processes. Further, the study calculates the cost of transporting CO via pipeline and tanker truck to appropriately paired sinks using a bottom-up cost model and geo-referencing approach. The results show that truck transportation is generally the low-cost alternative given the relatively small volumes (ca. 100 kt CO/a). We apply our methodology to a regional case study in Pennsylvania, which shows steel and cement manufacturing paired to suitable sinks as having the lowest levelized cost of capture, compression, and transportation.

Near-term deployment of carbon capture and sequestration from biorefineries in the United States

“…2 A ). The current paradigm suggests that, although CCS from existing biorefineries has lower capture costs than for less-concentrated CO 2 sources, like coal, it faces higher transport and sequestration costs due to their small scale ( 13 , 14 , 23 ). In contrast, our analysis shows that integrated pipeline networks allow sequestration of biorefinery CO 2 emissions at low overall cost.…”

“…While transport costs increase with quantity of CO 2 sequestered, pipeline aggregation and the inherently low cost of CO 2 capture allow 68% of the available resource to be sequestered at costs at or below $60/tCO 2 . At short transportation distances, truck transportation of CO 2 may be more cost-effective than pipeline transport ( 14 ). Integrated pipelines also reduce the barriers to entry and are more likely to lead to faster development and deployment of CCS.…”

“…Thus, purification, dehydration, and compression of fermentation CO 2 streams can be accomplished at relatively low cost via existing technologies, including reciprocating or centrifugal compressors, pumps, and glycol dehydration ( 12 ). Cost estimates for CO 2 capture and compression from fermentation are typically $30/tCO 2 , among the lowest of all CO 2 point sources ( 12 – 14 ). In comparison, the ranges of estimates of capture and compression costs from coal-fired power plants and other large-scale industrial processes that emit dilute combustion gases are 60–90 and 100–120 $/tCO 2 , respectively ( 13 , 15 ).…”

The potential of decarbonising rice and wheat by incorporating carbon capture, utilisation and storage into fertiliser production

“…The industrial sector (including ammonia and fertiliser synthesis) has not received the same attention as power plants for the deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) due to its associated costs and no economic incentive. 10 However, there are opportunities for CO 2 utilisation (CU) based on ammonia production because the CO 2 concentration in the flue gas is higher than those in other processes e.g. power plants which are usually in the range from 4% to 20%.…”

Multi-objective analysis of the co-mitigation of CO2 and PM2.5 pollution by China's iron and steel industry

“…Removal devices are also planned to be widely applied to remove air pollutants according to China's 12th Five Year Plan (The State Council, 2011). In addition, carbon capture and storage is a promising technology that can capture and store CO 2 emitted from the blast furnaces (Psarras et al, 2017). Nevertheless, cost factors limit China's capacity to simultaneously reduce CO 2 and PM 2.5 pollution, and the adoption of technologies to reduce CO 2 and PM 2.5 is dependent on the cost of the technology.…”