Comparison of Technologies for CO2 Capture from Cement Production—Part 2: Cost Analysis

Abstract

This paper presents an assessment of the cost performance of CO2 capture technologies when retrofitted to a cement plant: MEA-based absorption, oxyfuel, chilled ammonia-based absorption (Chilled Ammonia Process), membrane-assisted CO2 liquefaction, and calcium looping. While the technical basis for this study is presented in Part 1 of this paper series, this work presents a comprehensive techno-economic analysis of these CO2 capture technologies based on a capital and operating costs evaluation for retrofit in a cement plant. The cost of the cement plant product, clinker, is shown to increase with 49 to 92% compared to the cost of clinker without capture. The cost of CO2 avoided is between 42 €/tCO2 (for the oxyfuel-based capture process) and 84 €/tCO2 (for the membrane-based assisted liquefaction capture process), while the reference MEA-based absorption capture technology has a cost of 80 €/tCO2. Notably, the cost figures depend strongly on factors such as steam source, electricity mix, electricity price, fuel price and plant-specific characteristics. Hence, this confirms the conclusion of the technical evaluation in Part 1 that for final selection of CO2 capture technology at a specific plant, a plant-specific techno-economic evaluation should be performed, also considering more practical considerations.

Toward electrochemical synthesis of cement—An electrolyzer-based process for decarbonating CaCO 3 while producing useful gas streams

“…The concentration of CO 2 in the flue gas from conventional cement kilns is ∼25% (48). For chemical absorption with amines, the most technologically mature postcombustion capture method for a combined stream (37,38), increasing the concentration of CO 2 up to 60% has been shown to decrease heat requirements, solvent regeneration energy, and steam costs of capture (49)(50)(51)(52)(53). The gas stream from our decarbonation cell is higher still (67%), which should make amine scrubbing more efficient.…”

“…However, this cost comparison neglects the cost of carbon capture and sequestration, which for amine scrubbing of conventional cement flue gas has been estimated to be on the order of $91 per ton (50). In the electrochemical sequence modeled above, where electrolytic H 2 is combusted to heat the kiln, the cost of directly capturing CO 2 from the O 2 /CO 2 stream exhibiting the decarbonation reactor should be less than $40 per ton (50). This would swing net energy costs in favor of the electrochemical process, in an environment where policies require carbon remediation, and where low-cost renewable electricity is available.…”

An air CO2 capture system based on the passive carbonation of large Ca(OH)2 structures

“…Oxy-red Circulating Fluidized Bed (CFB) technology has been chosen for the calcination operation, due to the substantial amount of information available in the literature on the cost of these systems for power generation, 63,71 Calcium Looping processes 62 or even cement plants. 61,72 However, other types of calciners (e.g. rotary kilns, entrained beds etc.)…”

Efficient Removal of Ammonia by Hierarchically Porous Carbons from a CO2 Capture Process

“…To mitigate CO 2 emissions from point sources, post-combustion CO 2 capture (PCC) using amines has been recognized as a promising technology because the process can remove the massive CO 2 emissions. The PCC processes are generally installed in coal-fired power plants, and in cement and steel industries generating large amounts of CO 2 , because CO 2 is a major contributor to climate change [7,8]. Recently, a pilot-scale PCC process installed in the Technology Center Mongstad and demonstration projects utilizing the captured CO 2 for enhanced oil recovery have been further developed to improve economic efficiency [9][10][11].…”