Next Article in Journal
An Emissions Arbitrage Algorithm to Improve the Environmental Performance of Domestic PV-Battery Systems
Previous Article in Journal
On-Board Cold Thermal Energy Storage System for Hydrogen Fueling Process
Previous Article in Special Issue
Comparison of Technologies for CO2 Capture from Cement Production—Part 2: Cost Analysis
Article Menu
Issue 3 (February-1) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Energies 2019, 12(3), 559; https://doi.org/10.3390/en12030559

Comparison of Technologies for CO2 Capture from Cement Production—Part 1: Technical Evaluation

1
SINTEF Energy Research, 7465 Trondheim, Norway
2
Politecnico di Milano, Department of Energy, 20156 Milan, Italy
3
ETH Zurich, Institute of Process Engineering, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland
4
VDZ gGmbH, 40476 Düsseldorf, Germany
5
Utrecht University, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, 3584 CB Utrecht, The Netherlands
6
Italcementi Heidelberg Group, 24126 Bergamo, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 6 December 2018 / Revised: 2 February 2019 / Accepted: 4 February 2019 / Published: 12 February 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Carbon Capture and Storage)
Full-Text   |   PDF [12801 KB, uploaded 12 February 2019]   |  

Abstract

A technical evaluation of CO2 capture technologies when retrofitted to a cement plant is performed. The investigated technologies are the oxyfuel process, the chilled ammonia process, membrane-assisted CO2 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 CO2 avoided are 73–90%, while it is 64% for MEA, considering the average EU-28 electricity mix. The specific primary energy consumption for CO2 avoided is 1.63–4.07 MJ/kg CO2, compared to 7.08 MJ/kg CO2 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 CO2 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. View Full-Text
Keywords: CO2 capture; cement production with CO2 capture; CO2 capture in industry; CO2 capture retrofitability; oxyfuel; chilled ammonia; membrane-assisted CO2 liquefaction; calcium looping CO2 capture; cement production with CO2 capture; CO2 capture in industry; CO2 capture retrofitability; oxyfuel; chilled ammonia; membrane-assisted CO2 liquefaction; calcium looping
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (CC BY 4.0).

Supplementary material

SciFeed

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

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. Comparison of Technologies for CO2 Capture from Cement Production—Part 1: Technical Evaluation. Energies 2019, 12, 559.

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.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Energies EISSN 1996-1073 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top