Next Article in Journal
Self-Shattering Defect Detection of Glass Insulators Based on Spatial Features
Previous Article in Journal
Thermal Non-Equilibrium Heat Transfer Modeling of Hybrid Nanofluids in a Structure Composed of the Layers of Solid and Porous Media and Free Nanofluids
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effect of the Implementation of Carbon Capture Systems on the Environmental, Energy and Economic Performance of the Brazilian Electricity Matrix
Open AccessArticle

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

1
SINTEF Energy Research, Department of Gas Technology, NO-7465 Trondheim, Norway
2
Politecnico di Milano, Department of Energy, 20156 Milan, Italy
3
Institute of Process Engineering, Department of Mechanical and Process Engineering, ETH Zurich, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland
4
Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Energy and Resources, Utrecht University, 3584 CB Utrecht, The Netherlands
5
Italcementi Heidelberg Group, 24126 Bergamo, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2019, 12(3), 542; https://doi.org/10.3390/en12030542
Received: 5 December 2018 / Revised: 11 January 2019 / Accepted: 30 January 2019 / Published: 10 February 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Carbon Capture and Storage)
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. View Full-Text
Keywords: CCS; cement; techno-economic analysis; MEA-based absorption; chilled ammonia; membrane-assisted CO2 liquefaction; oxyfuel; calcium looping CCS; cement; techno-economic analysis; MEA-based absorption; chilled ammonia; membrane-assisted CO2 liquefaction; oxyfuel; calcium looping
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Gardarsdottir, S.O.; De Lena, E.; Romano, M.; Roussanaly, S.; Voldsund, M.; Pérez-Calvo, J.-F.; Berstad, D.; Fu, C.; Anantharaman, R.; Sutter, D.; Gazzani, M.; Mazzotti, M.; Cinti, G. Comparison of Technologies for CO2 Capture from Cement Production—Part 2: Cost Analysis. Energies 2019, 12, 542.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop