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

Stefania Osk Gardarsdottir, Edoardo De Lena, Matteo Romano, Simon Roussanaly, Mari Voldsund, José-Francisco Pérez-Calvo, David Berstad, Chao Fu, Rahul Anantharaman, Daniel Sutter, Matteo Gazzani, Marco Mazzotti and Giovanni Cinti
Additional contact information
Stefania Osk Gardarsdottir: SINTEF Energy Research, Department of Gas Technology, NO-7465 Trondheim, Norway
Edoardo De Lena: Politecnico di Milano, Department of Energy, 20156 Milan, Italy
Matteo Romano: Politecnico di Milano, Department of Energy, 20156 Milan, Italy
Simon Roussanaly: SINTEF Energy Research, Department of Gas Technology, NO-7465 Trondheim, Norway
Mari Voldsund: SINTEF Energy Research, Department of Gas Technology, NO-7465 Trondheim, Norway
José-Francisco Pérez-Calvo: Institute of Process Engineering, Department of Mechanical and Process Engineering, ETH Zurich, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland
David Berstad: SINTEF Energy Research, Department of Gas Technology, NO-7465 Trondheim, Norway
Chao Fu: SINTEF Energy Research, Department of Gas Technology, NO-7465 Trondheim, Norway
Rahul Anantharaman: SINTEF Energy Research, Department of Gas Technology, NO-7465 Trondheim, Norway
Daniel Sutter: Institute of Process Engineering, Department of Mechanical and Process Engineering, ETH Zurich, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland
Matteo Gazzani: Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Energy and Resources, Utrecht University, 3584 CB Utrecht, The Netherlands
Marco Mazzotti: Institute of Process Engineering, Department of Mechanical and Process Engineering, ETH Zurich, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland
Giovanni Cinti: Italcementi Heidelberg Group, 24126 Bergamo, Italy

Energies, 2019, vol. 12, issue 3, 1-20

Abstract: This paper presents an assessment of the cost performance of CO 2 capture technologies when retrofitted to a cement plant: MEA-based absorption, oxyfuel, chilled ammonia-based absorption (Chilled Ammonia Process), membrane-assisted CO 2 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 CO 2 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 CO 2 avoided is between 42 €/t CO2 (for the oxyfuel-based capture process) and 84 €/t CO2 (for the membrane-based assisted liquefaction capture process), while the reference MEA-based absorption capture technology has a cost of 80 €/t CO2 . 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 CO 2 capture technology at a specific plant, a plant-specific techno-economic evaluation should be performed, also considering more practical considerations.

Keywords: CCS; cement; techno-economic analysis; MEA-based absorption; chilled ammonia; membrane-assisted CO 2 liquefaction; oxyfuel; calcium looping (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q Q0 Q4 Q40 Q41 Q42 Q43 Q47 Q48 Q49 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2019
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (14)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/3/542/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/3/542/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jeners:v:12:y:2019:i:3:p:542-:d:204578

Access Statistics for this article

Energies is currently edited by Ms. Agatha Cao

More articles in Energies from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().