Carbon Capture Overview
Government research funding initially emphasizing pre-combustion (CO2 capture from syngas) has led to the realization that less-glamorous post-combustion (flue gas scrubbing) most likely represents the best option for timely, cost-effective Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in the immediate future. A better understanding of capture costs resulting from the renewed interest in post-combustion has prompted the U.S. Government to increase the acceptable target for increased cost of energy required for flue gas scrubbing from 20% in 2006 to 35% today, highlighting the importance of advancing the current technology. While acid gas removal from process streams using alkanolamines is a mature technology, flue gas scrubbing presents many new challenges still not adequately met on the scale necessary for GHG abatement. In addition to discussing those challenges, this paper reviews (1) flue-gas scrubbing facilities installed over the past 30+ years for commercial purposes such as EOR, urea manufacture, soda ash manufacture and food processing, and (2) current status of innovative technologies employing, for example, sterically hindered amines and aqueous ammonia. While the GHG contribution of sulphur recovery activities is arguably insignificant, potential monetary CO2 reduction incentives will likely improve the economics of reducing incineration fuel by simple, established means as discussed.
Capturing Carbon from Existing Coal-Fired Power Plants
oal-ﬁ red power plants generate about half of the electricity in the United States today, and will con-tinue to be a major source of energy for the fore-seeable future. The U.S. Dept. of Energy’s (DOE) Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that the nation’s 300+ gigawatts (GW) of coal-ﬁ red electricity-generating capacity currently in operation will increase to more than 400 GW by 2030 (
Economic and Cost Analysis for CO 2 Capture Costs in The CO 2 Capture Project Scenarios
This chapter introduces a common economic model (CEM) to facilitate direct and transparent comparison of the technologies studied and selected by the CO 2 Capture Project (CCP). The CEM accounted for site-specific scenarios, comparative case analysis, significant non-capture facility costs, multi or byproduct output, technology comparison rather than project evaluation, and genetic versus regional pricing. These factors were used along with single discount factors, pre-tax analysis, and emission taxes to ensure a fair comparison. Each scenario was evaluated and compared exhaustively. For some technologies cost reductions above 50% on a CO 2 -avoided basis are indicated. The chapter graphically represents the evaluated economic performance of capture technologies scenario by scenario, measured in terms of cost per tonne of CO 2 captured or avoided compared to original, uncontrolled CO 2 emissions.