International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 111 (2021) 103484

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijggc

Design and cost estimation of a CO2 capture plant from cement flue gas for
urea production in Nepal
Sijan Devkota 1, Ramesh Pokhrel 1, Bhawana Rayamajhi 1, Bibek Uprety *
Department of Chemical Science and Engineering, Kathmandu University, Dhulikhel 44600, Nepal

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper presents a detailed design, cost estimation and sensitivity analysis for establishing a CO2 capture plant
Emission reduction for use in urea manufacturing in the context of Nepal. The commercially proven post combustion capture pro­
Carbon dioxide capture cess, monoethanolamine (MEA) solvent based scrubbing, was designed with the help of Aspen Plus to determine
Amine scrubbing
the size of scrubbing towers, accessory equipment’s and the utilities for capturing 90% of CO2 from the flue gas.
Cement flue gas
Urea
The flue gas stream data was obtained from a local cement industry. Our analysis showed that absorber and
Nepal stripper columns of 10 m and 7 m packing height respectively are required to capture approximately 250 Ktons/
year of CO2. The columns will have packing diameters of 6 m and 4 m respectively. The total capital cost and the
production cost for the plant of this scale was calculated to be $10 million and $21 million respectively. The bulk
of the total production cost, $18 million per year, was the utility (electricity) cost for regenerating the solvent.
The profitability of the capture plant was found to be highly sensitive to the electricity cost which presents a huge
opportunity for Nepal. Based on our estimate, the total cost per kg of CO2 capture in Nepal will be about $0.086.
A 30% lower electricity cost would lower the capture cost to $0.063/kg CO2. The availability of cheap hydro­
power electricity (lower than $0.01/kWh) makes CO2 capture based urea manufacturing process to be a viable
alternative for Nepal. We hope this economic evaluation data will serve as the baseline for the policy makers to
undertake a more detailed study on the carbon capture and electrolysis based urea manufacturing plant in the
country.

1. Introduction
Fertilizer shortage is an perennial problem faced by Nepal and is one
of the major contributing factor for the low agricultural output of the
country (Bista et al., 2018; Deshar, 2013; Panta, 2018). Although 66% of
the workforce is directly or indirectly employed in agricultural and
livestock production, the country is fully dependent on food import for
daily consumption (Paudel, 2016). In the fiscal year 2019/20 alone,
Nepal imported $2.1 billion (USD) worth of food, which is about 20% of
the country’s total import (Nepal Foreign Trade Statistics, 2020). The
country imports even the most extensively farmed crops such as rice,
lentils, maize and vegetables. The country has an annual fertilizer de­
mand of 800,000 tons per year but the supply is less than half the annual
demand (Suraj et al., 2019; Panta, 2018). Nepal does not have her own
fertilizer manufacturing unit and is solely dependent on import from
neighboring countries. Challenges associated with timely and adequate
import of fertilizer from foreign countries creates the shortage problem.
The demand and supply situation of the fertilizer was further exacer­
bated this year due to the covid related lockdown which further affected
the agricultural output (Adhikari et al., 2021). The covid situation has
underscored the need for Nepal to consider establishing her own fertil­
izer manufacturing plant in order to ensure adequate supply of fertilizer
to increase agricultural production, to ensure long term food security
and to drive forward the economy.
Urea is one of the most efficient and cheapest nitrogen-based fertil­
izer used in Nepal (Panta, 2018). Urea is also one of the oldest fertilizer
used throughout the world that is produced in a two-step process by
reacting carbon dioxide and ammonia at high temperature and pressure.
Ammonia is produced using the Haber’s process by reacting hydrogen
and nitrogen. There are two major pathways to produce hydrogen (H2)
and carbon dioxide (CO2) required for urea production: steam reforming
of natural gas and coal gasification. Further, H2 can also be produced by
water electrolysis and CO2 can be extracted from cement industries flue
gas. Nitrogen is directly separated from atmospheric air by liquefaction

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: bibek.uprety@ku.edu.np (B. Uprety).
1
The authors contributed equally.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2021.103484
Received 26 May 2021; Received in revised form 20 September 2021; Accepted 3 October 2021
1750-5836/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Devkota et al. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 111 (2021) 103484

and fractional distillation. The urea plant based on natural gas or coal Table 1
feedstock will require major import infrastructure and will further Flue gas composition.
create dependence on import as Nepal does not have abundant domestic Variable Value
natural gas or coal reserve. In comparison, the urea plant based on the Flow rate [kg/s] 64.4
electrolysis and CO2 capture technology will use the abundant and Temperature [K] 565
Pressure [bar] 1
cheap hydropower electricity and cement industry exhaust already
Composition [%] Moles Mass
available in the country and help create a new domestic industry. CO2 10.210 15.180
The commercially available hydropower generation potential of CO 0.016 0.0155
Nepal is approximately 42,000 MW and the country expects to have total O2 0.600 0.652
installed capacity of 6000 MW by 2025 and 10,000 MW by 2030 (Thapa H2 0.273 0.019
N2 88.900 84.140
et al., 2021). Likewise, the surplus electricity is projected to be around
H2O 0.000131 0.0000795
3000 MW by 2030 and the cost of electricity generation is estimated to
be lower than $0.01/KWh (Thapa et al., 2021).The electrolysis and CO2
capture are both energy intensive processes which presents a unique for the simulation of MEA-based carbon capture. All the parameters
opportunity for Nepal with its cheap hydropower electricity. Similarly, required for the model development are defined in the simulation in
cement industries are one of the rapidly growing industries in Nepal Aspen Plus. The complete process flow diagram is shown in Fig. 1 which
because of the proven and feasible limestone deposits of 420 million tons is different from the common ones where solvent from the condenser is
(Singh, 2016). The total CO2 emission from cement production in the recycled back to the top of stripping tower. The set-up is used to mini­
year 2014 was approximately 365.4×103 metric ton and is expected to mize the reboiler duty as the liquid from condenser is at a lower tem­
increase up to 1540.7×103 metric ton by the year 2030 under normal perature which would increase the reboiler duty and the column
growth scenario (Singh, 2016). In this regard, utilizing the locally diameter (Madeddu et al., 2018; Oexmann and Kather, 2009). The flue
available raw materials for urea production could be strategically gas stream data (flow rate and the composition) is given in Table 1. To
beneficial pathway for the country. Further, this production method fits simplify the simulation model, we have not considered the water wash
well with Nepal’s nationally determined contribution (NDC) report section at the top of the absorber.
which focuses on reducing emissions and utilizing clean energy The MEA-CO2 capture unit comprises of two major units: absorber
resources. and stripper columns. MEA is an efficient absorber of CO2 and can be
Several separation technologies are available for extraction of CO2 recovered easily hence preferred as the solvent (Vega et al., 2018). The
from cement or power plants flue gas such as adsorption, physical ab­ flue gas is first cooled down to 313 K before contacting counter-currently
sorption, chemical absorption, cryogenics separation and membrane with 30 wt% MEA lean solvent in the absorber column. The rich solvent
based absorption and separation (Bosoaga et al., 2009; Wang et al., coming out of the absorber column is pumped to slightly higher pressure
2011). Among these technologies, amine scrubbing, a post combustion (1.8 bar) and heated in a cross heat exchanger by regenerated solvent
capture process, is a commercially mature technology that can be ret­ from the stripper column. The regenerated solvent is pumped back to the
rofitted in the existing Nepali cement plants for extracting CO2 from flue absorber and the CO2 rich solvent is then sent to the top of the stripper
gas (Bosoaga et al., 2009; Plaza et al., 2020). In this process, CO2 is column where it is regenerated.
extracted using a amine solution such as monoethanolamine (MEA) with
the help of packed or plate columns and then dried, compressed and 2.1. Modeling framework
carried to the storage unit (Bosoaga et al., 2009). Till date, no study is
available on the design and the economics of establishing a CO2 capture The Electrolyte-NRTL thermodynamic model was selected for CO2-
plant from cement flue gas in Nepal. In order to fill this gap, this study MEA-H2O system that was further combined with Redlich-Kwong
focuses on the detailed technical and economic analysis of CO2 capture equation of state for computation of nonidealities of vapor phase
from a local cement plant using the amine scrubbing technology. The (Arachchige et al., 2013; Errico et al., 2016). In general, the reactions
technical analysis was done with the help of the licensed Aspen Plus V11 involved for MEA based CO2 capture involves both equilibrium and ki­
software, the most widely used chemical process simulator software, to netic reactions as described below (Errico et al., 2016).
get the optimum equipment sizes and the utilities required for the cap­
ture process. The economic analysis for CO2 capture was then performed 2H2 O ↔ H3O+ + OH− (1)
based on the equipment and utilities data obtained from the simulation.
We hope this study will serve as a baseline for the policy makers to H2 O + HCO3 − ↔ H3 O+ + CO3 2− (2)
undertake a more detailed study on the carbon capture and electrolysis
based urea manufacturing process in the country. H2 O + MEA+ ↔ H3O+ + MEA (3)
The cement industry we have chosen is Sarbottam Cement Private
Limited which is one of the largest clinker and cement manufacturing MEA + CO2 + H2 O ↔ MEACOO− + H3 O+ (4)
unit in Nepal with a production capacity of 3000 tons clinker per day.
CO2 + OH− ↔ HCO3 − (5)
The industry is located at Jodheni, Nawalparasi about 2.78 km north of
the east west highway in the Terai region (flatlands) of Nepal. The The first, second and the third reactions are equilibrium and the last
factory has 2 kilns with clinker production capacity of 1200 and 1800 two are reversible kinetic reactions. The equilibrium constants for re­
tons per day. Likewise, the total cement production capacity of the actions 1–3 were evaluated by means of standard Gibbs free-energy
factory is 1680 tons per day. Table 1 shows the flue gas stream data change. The kinetic parameters for Eqs. (4) and 5 were obtained from
obtained from the company. The source of the flue gas is the gas formed Aspen plus itself which are based on the works of Hikita et al. (1977) and
during the calcination process inside the kiln, gas from burners (coal and Pinsent et al. (1956)
diesel powered) and the large amount of forced air used for cooling the Aspen Plus rate based (RadFrac) model is used in this case as
clinkers. described and validated by Errico et al. (2016) Rate based model ac­
counts for the different phenomena’s involved in the chemical absorp­
2. Process description tion such as bulk and interfacial mass transfer between the vapor and
liquid phases, the reaction kinetics and the electrolytic interactions. The
Aspen Plus is used for the study as it contains both the physical columns are packed with Sulzer Mellapak 250Y. The liquid hold up and
properties data and binary interaction data that meet the requirements the mass transfer coefficients for the packing were evaluated using the

2
S. Devkota et al. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 111 (2021) 103484

Fig. 1. Process flow diagram of the CO2 capture plant.

correlations developed by (BRAVO, 1985; Bravo et al., 1992) The heat

transfer coefficients were evaluated using the Chilton-Colburn analogy. Table 2
Absorber infinite packing height analysis.
Further, the bulk flow conditions are described by the mixed flow model
available in Aspen Plus Radfrac. For modeling the two films, diffusion CO2 loading value
0.12 0.16 0.2 0.25 0.28
resistances are considered in both the gas and liquid films while the
chemical reactions are only considered in the liquid film (Errico et al., Min. solvent flow rate [kg/s] 102 114.4 130.4 152 185
2016). The liquid film is discretized into 5 segments based on the work Rich solution out [kg/s] 101.8 114.2 130.2 151.9 185.3
Rich solution CO2 loading 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52
by Kucka et al. (2003) Finally, the film discretization ratio (width of the Column height [m] 100 100 100 100 100
segments in the liquid film) was fixed at 10 to concentrate the dis­ Column diameter [m] 5.69 5.78 5.86 5.97 6.13
cretization points close to the interface and reaction condition factor
was set to 0.9 to give bulk conditions higher weightage on the film
modeling as the film reactions are very fast (Kucka et al., 2003; Zhang solvent is needed to get the desired (90%) absorption of CO2 from the
et al., 2009; Errico et al., 2016). flue gas with lower loading value. Further the lean loading values did
not seem to affect the loading value of the rich solution out of the
3. Results and discussion absorber tower. The diameter of the tower increased slightly with in­
crease in the loading value of the lean solution.
In order to make the simulation work easy and smooth, firstly a After determining the minimum solvent flow rate, we looked to
standalone absorber was designed and the results obtained were used to determine the effective column height by varying the solvent flow rates
design a standalone stripper (Alie et al., 2005). Such method of breaking between 1.1 to 1.5 times the minimum solvent flow rate. Table 3 shows
down the flow sheet makes the modeling work simple and provides a the absorber packing dimensions for each multiple of minimum solvent
better starter for the eventual coupled process. The results obtained from flow rate. As seen from Table 3, the packing height decreases consid­
the decomposition approach was then used and combined to an inte­ erably with lower loading and higher solvent flow rates. For solvent flow
grated process flow sheet as shown in Fig. 1. rates higher than 1.2Lmin, the packing height change for CO2 loading
values less than 0.2 was at most 1.6 m. Similarly, packing height change
3.1. Absorber design for CO2 loading values greater than 0.2 was 5.6 m or higher for solvent

The amount of solvent required and the absorber column dimensions

for capturing CO2 were finalized according to the two step procedure by Table 3
Madeddu et al. (2018) First, the minimum solvent flow rate and the Column dimensions for different loading values.
number of absorption units required was determined with an infinite CO2 loading value
packing height. The infinite packing height was fixed at 100 m for this 0.12 0.16 0.2 0.25 0.28
step. Second, the effective packing height was evaluated for different 1.1Lmin
solvent flow rates. The column diameter was evaluated with reference to Packing height [m] 11.2 12.4 15.3 22.5 34
the point in the column where the vapor flow rate reached its maximum Diameter [m] 5.81 5.88 5.98 6.10 6.26
1.2Lmin
value. The CO2 loading rate (mol CO2 / mol MEA) of the lean solution Packing height [m] 9.3 10.3 11.9 14.8 22.2
was varied between 0.12 and 0.28 to investigate the effect of the Diameter [m] 5.87 5.94 6.03 6.15 6.33
parameter on the solvent flow rate, tower dimensions and the reboiler 1.3Lmin
duty (Li et al., 2016; Madeddu et al., 2018). The loading rate was varied Packing height [m] 8.5 9.4 10.7 13.1 19.2
Diameter [m] 5.92 6.00 6.09 6.22 6.34
by changing H2O mass fraction while keeping MEA mass fraction con­
1.4Lmin
stant at 0.3 in the lean solution. The absorber tower was discretized into Packing height [m] 7.9 8.7 9.9 12.0 17.6
100 segments which was sufficient to get a correct model solution based Diameter [m] 5.98 6.05 6.15 6.28 6.47
on liquid temperature and CO2 vapor composition profiles. 1.5Lmin
Table 2 shows the minimum solvent flow rate and the column fea­ Packing height [m] 7.5 8.2 9.3 11.3 16.6
Diameter [m] 6.03 6.11 6.21 6.35 6.54
tures for the five lean loading values selected. As seen from the table, less

3
S. Devkota et al.
flow rates higher than 1.2Lmin. Hence, lower loadings are beneficial in
terms of the packing dimensions and the amount of solvent used.
The liquid temperature profiles and the corresponding CO2 vapor
composition profiles were studied next to determine the effective sol­
vent flow rate (Madeddu et al., 2018). Figs. 2 and 3 shows the temper­
ature and composition profiles for different loading values. The profile
for loading value of 0.28 is not shown. As seen from Figs. 2 and 3, the
temperature profile tends to become slightly flatter and the temperature
bulge becomes less apparent with increase in the solvent flow rate. The
flattening effect above 1.2Lmin, however, is not much pronounced.
Similar to the liquid temperature profile, the CO2 vapor composition
profiles tends to become only slightly flatter towards the very top of the
column with increase in the solvent. The loss of the temperature bulge
and the flattening of the CO2 vapor composition profiles suggests close
to zero temperature and concentration gradient along the column which
is an indication that the absorber is not working correctly (Kvamsdal and
Rochelle, 2008; Madeddu et al., 2018). Based on the liquid temperature
profiles, the solvent flow rate of 1.2 times the minimum value (1.2Lmin)
was chosen for designing the stripper column.
3.2. Stripper design
The objective of stripper section is to regenerate the solvent and
extract CO2 from the rich solution by generating steam. Steam is
generated in the reboiler at the bottom of the column. The CO2 heat of
absorption in MEA is approximately twice the heat of vaporization of
water (Freguia, 2002). As a result, based on the Clausius-Clapeyron
thermodynamic relationship, the vapor pressure of CO2 increases more
rapidly with temperature than the vapor pressure of water i.e. the
amount of CO2 in gas phase increases as the temperature increases
(Freguia, 2002). Since higher temperatures are achieved at higher
pressures, strippers should be operated at higher pressure. However,
there is a limit on the pressure value imposed by the degradation tem­
perature (394.15 K) of MEA (Alie et al., 2005). Thus, the stripper pres­
sure was fixed at 1.8 bar to obtain the highest possible boiling point of
the solvent that is lower than the 394.15 K. The stripper tower was
discretized into 70 segments to save on computation time and was suf­
ficient to get a correct model solution. The condenser temperature at the
top of the stripper column was set at 308.15 K assuming cooling water
Fig. 2. Liquid temperature and CO2 vapor composition profiles for lean solvent CO2 loading values of 0.25 (a and b) and 0.2 (c and d).
4
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 111 (2021) 103484
availability at 298.15 K which ensured CO2 purity of 96.6 mol%. The
CO2 gas obtained will have to be further compressed and cooled before
using for urea manufacture which will remove the water content and
further improve the purity close to 99.5%. Finally, the cross heat
exchanger had two specifications: minimum temperature approach of
10 K and cold solvent outlet vapor faction of 0. The cold solvent outlet
vapor fraction of 0 helped prevent CO2 flashing and thus, two phase flow
and corrosion inside the heat exchanger (DuPart et al., 1993).
Table 4 shows the effect of the stripper packing height on the reboiler
duty and the diameter of the column to strip the same amount of CO2
captured in the absorber. Packing height lower than 4 m is not consid­
ered to maintain packing height to diameter ratio of 1 or higher (Nittaya
et al., 2014). As seen in Table 4, the packing height does not influence
the reboiler duty for loading values of 0.2 and higher which suggests the
duty only depends on the amount of CO2 dissolved in the rich solution to
reverse the absorption reaction. Similarly, the packing height did not
influence the packing diameter (not shown in table) for loading values of
0.2 and higher. However, for lower loading values, the reboiler duty
increased significantly with lower packing height which is due to the
increased amount of steam required to regenerate a low loading solvent
(Li et al., 2016). Moreover, minimum contact area is not reached at low
packing height for low loading values and hence higher regeneration
duty is required to achieve target extraction (Madeddu et al., 2018). This
is also confirmed by the increase in packing diameter for low loading
values. The packing diameter was observed to increase from 3.83 to
4.35 m for loading value of 0.12 and from 3.45 to 3.73 m for loading
value of 0.16 as packing height was decreased from 13 to 4 m.
In order to determine the stripper height and diameter, we investi­
gated the liquid temperature, liquid temperature gradient and CO2
vapor composition profiles for different stripper packing height as
shown in Fig. 4. Based on the regeneration duty (Table 4), only lean
loading value of 0.2 is considered. The maximum packing height was
chosen that ensured the absence of the isothermal zone (flat temperature
and CO2 composition profiles) and temperature gradient always higher
than 1 K/m. As discussed previously, isothermal zones indicates absence
of mass transfer which needs to be avoided in a column. Based on the
profiles of Fig. 4, the stripper height and diameter of 7 m and 3.52 m
respectively was chosen for the integrated simulation process (shown in
bold in Fig. 4 and Table 4).
S. Devkota et al. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 111 (2021) 103484

Fig. 3. Liquid temperature and CO2 vapor composition profiles for lean solvent CO2 loading values of 0.16 (a and b) and 0.12 (c and d).

cost inflation index as shown in Eqs. (6) and ((7) (Green, 2008; León
Table 4
et al., 2020; Loh et al., 2002). The price estimation is done for 2019 as
Comparison of reboiler duty for different loading and packing height.
the cost inflation index for 2020 is not available yet. Further, the price
Reboiler duty (MW) estimation is done based on prices in United States (index factors for
Loading Height (m) 0.12 0.16 0.2 0.25 0.28
equipment’s are available easily) as cost index factors for Nepal are not
4 74.0 49.0 41.2 42.0 45.7
5 67.0 46.0 40.4 42.0 45.7 available.
6 63.0 44.1 40.1 42.0 45.7 ( )a
7 60.0 42.7 40.1 42.0 45.7
New size
Equipment cost in 1998 = Originial equipment cost (6)
8 58.0 41.7 40.1 42.0 45.7 Orignial size
9 56.4 41.0 40.1 42.0 45.7
10 55.3 40.4 40.1 42.0 45.7 2019 Cost index
11 54.7 40.0 40.1 42.0 45.7 Equiment cost in 2019 = Equipment cost in 1998 (7)
1998 Cost index
12 54.0 39.7 40.1 42.0 45.7
13 53.0 39.2 40.1 42.0 45.7 The value of exponential factor (a) in Eq. (6) was taken as 0.67. The
total delivered cost in 1998 was calculated by Eq. (6), and the total
delivered cost in 2019 was calculated using Eq. (7). The cost index for
3.3. Integrated process
1998 and 2019 are 389.5 and 607.5 respectively. Table 5 lists the total
depreciable costs for the major equipment’s of the plant. The material of
The results from the standalone absorber and stripper were used to
construction for the equipment’s was considered to be 304 stainless steel
initialize the integrated process (Fig. 1). Makeup MEA and water were
to account for corrosive nature of CO2 in water. The total equipment
added to the integrated process to converge the simulation. The absorber
depreciable cost for the whole plant was found to be $10,236,263. The
dimensions and the stripper reboiler duty changed slightly in the inte­
reboiler occupied 51% of the total depreciable cost while the columns
grated process compared to the values for standalone cases. The
and heat exchangers occupied 27% and 18% of the total depreciable
absorber dimension in the integrated process decreased to 10 m height
cost. Packing material and pump occupied only 5% of the total depre­
and 5.98 m diameter from the standalone values of 11.9 m height and
ciable cost. The vertical vessels (Table 5) comprise of absorber and
6.03 m diameter. Likewise, the stripper diameter and reboiler duty
stripper and were found to cost $447,819 and $207,071 respectively.
increased slightly to 3.54 m and 41.7 MW compared to the standalone
The equipment delivered cost of all heat exchangers E-101, E-102, E-103
cases. Similar changes for the integrated process were also observed by
and condenser were calculated to be $201,820, $147,491, $112,762 and
Alie et al. (2005)
$93,764 respectively. The total value for all heat exchangers are listed in
Table 5.
4. Economic analysis
Table 6 lists the total production cost for the CO2 capture plant. All
the direct cost, indirect cost, and general cost are estimated with stan­
4.1. Cost estimation
dard basic process design factors. The production costs mainly consist of
the cost for raw materials, energy consumption, and the property taxes.
The column dimensions and the duties obtained from the integrated
The total annual operating time of the plant is assumed to be 330 days.
process simulation were used to make the economic analysis based on
Only the cost for MEA solvent is considered for the material cost as the
Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook Green, 2008) and process
cost of flue gas is zero. The price of industrial grade MEA solvent (99%
equipment cost estimation works by Loh et al. (2002) In general, the
purity) is taken to be $1.31/kg of MEA based on the Indian market,
total delivered cost of the major equipment’s were estimated from the
although we expect the price to go down further when buying in bulk.
power-law relationship between the purchase price, equipment size, and
The price of electricity is estimated to be $0.05/kWh on the basis of

5
S. Devkota et al. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 111 (2021) 103484

Fig. 4. (a) Liquid temperature and temperature gradient profile (at the inset) and (b) CO2 vapor composition profiles for different stripper packing height for loading
value of 0.2.

Table 5 Table 6
Estimation of total depreciable capital cost. Calculation of total capture cost.
Equipment Total delivered Guthrie method Depreciable capital DIRECT EXPENSES
details cost, USD factors cost, USD UNIT Annual USD/ USD/YEAR
quantity UNIT
Vertical vessels 654,890 4.20 2750,538
Pump and 16,448 3.47 57,075 MATERIAL:
driver Flue gas Kg 1835,602,560 0 0
Exchangers 555,837 3.37 1873,171 MEA Kg 1248,060 1.31 1634,959
Furnaces 2319,410 2.24 5195,479 Demineralized water Kg 235,327,784 0.0004 94,131
(reboiler) TOTAL MATERIAL COST 1729,090
Mellapak 360,000 1.00 360,000 TOTAL UTILITIES COST kWh 363,298,320 0.05 18,164,916
(packing) (Electricity):
Total depreciable capital cost, USD 10,236,263 TOTAL LABOR COST 10 126 15,120
Operating supervision 0.2 * Total labor cost 3024
[Note: Normal life of Mellapak = 20 years. Equipment’s come with all auxiliaries Quality control 0.2 * Total labor cost 3024
such as standard motors, pumps, instrumentation and mechanical provisions, Maintenance labor cost 0.027 * Fixed capital cost 276,380
safety equipment’s, refractories lines in furnace, equipment supporters, nozzles, Maintenance material cost 0.018 * Fixed capital cost 184,253
manholes, base ring, lugs, skirt or legs; tray clips, tray supports, distributor Operating supplies 0.0075 * Fixed capital cost 76,772
piping and plates.] TOTAL DIRECT EXPENSES 20,452,579
INDIRECT EXPENSES
FIXED COST
tariffs set by Nepal Electricity Authority. The land cost and land devel­ Depreciation cost 255,907
opment cost is not considered in calculation of total fixed cost as the Property Taxes 0.02 * Fixed capital cost 204,726
capture plant is expected to be retrofitted in the existing cement factory. Insurance 0.01 * Fixed capital cost 102,263
TOTAL FIXED COST 562,891
Similarly, the price of cooling water is not considered as it is already
TOTAL PLANT OVERHEAD 13,064
available on site. The labor costs are estimated for 10 total employees COST (Fringe benefits,
with a monthly salary of $126 per person based on the Nepalese market. overhead cost)
The subsidy of $0.005/kg CO2 captured was considered based on the TOTAL INDIRECT EXPENSES 575,955
Emission Reduction Purchase Agreement (ERPA) between the Govern­ GENERAL COSTS
Working capital 0.2 * Fixed capital cost 2047,253
ment of Nepal and the World Bank in February 2021.
Administrative cost 0.045 * Working capital 92,126
As seen from Table 6, the total production cost per year was found to Marketing cost 0.135 * Working capital 276,380
be $21,489,733. The direct cost ($20,452,579) occupied 95% of the Financing 0.1 * (Fixed capital cost + Working 1228,352
total production cost. Further, the total electricity cost represented the capital)
R&D 0.0575 * Working capital 117,718
majority (89%) of the total direct cost. Finally, the cost per kg capture of
TOTAL GENERAL COST 1714,576
CO2 was found to be $0.086/kg CO2 captured. SUBSIDIES Kg 250,675,260 0.005 1253,377
The CO2 obtained from this plant is an intermediate product which is TOTAL CAPTURE COST 21,489,733
expected to be used for the production of urea. Although the captured
CO2 is an intermediate product, we calculated the return of investment
(ROI) and the payback period as shown in Fig. 5 to analyze the profit­
ability of the plant as a standalone plant. Fig. 5a illustrates that the

6
S. Devkota et al.
Fig. 5. (a) Return of investment (ROI) at different market selling price of CO2. (b) Payback period of the plant at different selling price of CO2.
largest ROI can be obtained with the highest market selling price ($/kg
CO2) which is expected. Although a fixed price for the intermediate
product is not available, assumption of 30% ROI value (optimum for
manufacturing plants) will recuperate the investment in only four
project years for selling price of $0.1/kg CO2 (Fig. 5b) which is half the
current market price of industrial-grade CO2: $ 0.2 - $0.27 per kg of CO2.
We would like to make a note that the captured CO2 will need to be
further compressed and cooled before selling as a final product which
would approximately increase the total capture cost by 10% ($0.095/kg
CO2)
4.2. Economic evaluation (20 year project period)
Fig. 6 shows the cumulative discounted cash-flow diagrams (CDCF)
at different discount rates and without external financing to determine
the payback period for the capture plant. The project is assumed to
operate for 20 years. As seen from the figure, the payback period was
after the third year of production for zero discount rate giving a net
present value of $59,272,344. Likewise, the payback period for 10%,
20%, and 25% discount rates were after four years, six years, and eight
years respectively. The net positive values start to decrease gradually
Fig. 6. Cumulative discounted cash-flow (CDCF) diagrams at different discount rates.
7
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 111 (2021) 103484
with the increased discount rate values. Finally, for a discount rate of
30% the investment recovery period was after the twentieth year of
production giving a net present value of zero. The ROI was fixed at 30%
for all the discount rate cases considered.
Fig. 7 illustrates the variation of the net present value (NPV) at
different discount rates. The internal rate of return (IRR) was estimated
at 30%, which is higher than the minimum discount rate (LDR) of 10%.
The LDR value of 10% is generally used for evaluating the profitability of
the chemical plants. The IRR value of 30% compared to the LDR value
and the finance interest rate (10% in the Nepalese market) indicates
profitability of the CO2 capture plant for 20 year investment period.
4.3. Sensitivity analysis (20 year project period)
The effect of the variation of the total equipment delivered cost
including the auxiliary equipment’s cost, the purchase price of solvent,
utilities (electricity) cost and labor and plant maintenance cost were
studied on the NPV of the plant. The analysis was done for ±30%
variation in the cost with LDR and finance interest rate fixed at 10% for
20 year project period. As seen from Fig. 8, utilities cost is the most
sensitive parameter during carbon capture process which is expected as
S. Devkota et al.
Fig. 7. Net present value (NPV) calculation of the plant.
Fig. 8. (a) Effect on NPV for ±30% variation in the cost of equipment, solvent, utilities, and labor and maintenance. (b) Effect on NPV for ±30% variation of the
volume and selling price of the captured CO2.
utilities cost accounted for the majority of the total operating cost
(Table 6). The NPV varied from the base case ($59,272,344) by up to
±184% when the utilities cost varied. The NPV decreased to
$-49,717,156 when the utility cost went up by 30% while the NPV
increased to $168,261,844 when the utility cost went down by 30%.
Positive NPV indicates the profitability of the capture plant. With almost
20, 000 MW hydropower generation projects in the developmental stage
and the cost of electricity generation expected to significantly decrease
(from our base case of $0.05/KWh), the operating cost of the carbon
capture plant could be significantly reduced, thus, increasing the prof­
itability of the plant (Thapa et al., 2021). The MEA solvent price was the
second most sensitive parameter which could vary the NPV by up to
±17.5% for ±30% variation in the solvent price. The plant profitability
can be increased if a lower purchase price of MEA can be negotiated with
the solvent manufacturing company. The delivered equipment cost and
the labor and maintenance cost were not as sensitive as compared to the
utilities and solvent cost which could be due to a long (20 year) plant
life.
Fig. 8(b) shows the variation in NPV for ±30% change in the volume
8
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 111 (2021) 103484
of captured CO2 gas and in the sales price of the captured intermediate
CO2 product. The base case for total CO2 capture per year and the sales
price are 250,675,260 kg CO2/year and $0.1/kg of CO2 respectively. As
seen from the figure, the NPV varied by up to ±240% when the capture
volume of the CO2 was varied while the NPV varied by up to ±254%
when the sales price of the intermediate product was varied from the
base case. The high variation in NPV due to variation in the processing
volume (amount of CO2 captured) suggests a different solvent with
similar or lower cost price and with higher CO2 mass transfer rates
(absorption capacity) than MEA could significantly increase the profit­
ability of the capture plant. Moreover, changes in the flue gas load due to
start up, shut down or maintenance of the cement plant will also affect
the operation cost and thus the profitability of the plant. Finally, higher
selling price for CO2 than our base case will clearly increase the profit­
ability of the plant.
5. Recommendations
The technical and economic analysis for carbon capture plant was
S. Devkota et al.
studied assuming (based on the data obtained) the flue gas to be free
from NOx, SO2, and dust particles. In reality, cement flue gasses will
have some NOx, SO2, and dust particles which may cause formation of
corrosive salts, MEA degradation as well as corrosion to the equipment
(Plaza et al., 2020). To overcome these problems, further processing of
flue gas would be needed to remove the impurities. The associated
equipment and utilities will change the total depreciable and the pro­
duction cost of the plant. Similarly, the heat lost in cooling the flue gas
before the absorption process can be recovered and used for heating the
rich solvent in the stripping process which would lower our utility cost
and give better energy performance. Furthermore, the addition of a
water wash section at the top of the absorber section will help recover
MEA solvent exiting from the top of the absorber and lower the amount
of makeup MEA needed. The recovery of MEA will reduce the produc­
tion cost of the plant. The cost analysis for the capture plant was done on
the basis of the process equipment cost estimation works by Perry’s
(Green, 2008) and Loh et al. (2002) which has a 30% error tolerance.
Further, the cost calculations were done on the basis of prices in United
States and for the year 2019, so the actual prices will vary in today’s date
for Nepal. Although the simulation was performed with MEA as solvent,
use of other solvents with higher CO2 mass transfer rates and stability
properties could significantly lower the production cost of the capture
plant (Bui et al., 2018; Plaza et al., 2020).
The CO2 obtained from this plant is an intermediate product and
would need to be further compressed and cooled before using for urea
reaction and thus, additional equipment’s (compressors and condensers)
will be required. The plant we have designed is able to capture 250 Kton
CO2/year which would provide about 200 Kton urea/year based on 60%
CO2 conversion. The total demand for urea in the country is 800 Kton/
year which suggests we would need more carbon dioxide capture plants
at other cement industry sites to meet the total fertilizer demand.
Finally, with newer and improving carbon capture technologies,
increasing investment in cement industries and the availability of cheap
hydropower electricity (lower than $0.01/kWh), we expect CO2 capture
based urea manufacturing unit to be a viable pathway for Nepal.
Further, the process simulation results presented in this study could be a
starting point for pilot plant studies in Nepal.
6. Conclusion
The technical and economic analysis for capturing CO2 from cement
flue gas for use in urea manufacturing in Nepal was studied in this paper.
Aspen Plus simulation was performed to get the optimal tower sizes and
the utlities required for capturing 90% of CO2 from the flue gas. The
packing height of absorber and stripper columns for CO2 capture were
found to be 10 m and 7 m respectively. Likewise, the packing diameter of
the absorber and stripper columns were found to be 6 and 4 m respec­
tively. The economic analysis showed the total depreciable cost and the
production cost of the capture plant to be $10,236,263 and $ 21,489,733
respectively. The CO2 capture cost was calculated to be $0.086/kg CO2
captured. The utility (electricity) cost was found to take 85% of the total
operating cost of the plant. Economic anlaysis based on a 20 year project
period showed profitability of the plant with ROI and IRR value of 30%
significantly higher than the LDR and finance interest rates of 10%. The
sensitivity analysis showed strong sensitivity on the utility cost with up
to 184% variation in NPV value for 30% variation in the utility cost
which presents a strong opportunity for Nepal. A 30% lower electricity
cost ($0.035/KWh) would lower the capture cost to $0.063/kg CO2.
Thus, the CO2 capture plant looks to be economically feasible and could
provide one of the required raw material for manufacturing urea in
Nepal. We hope this study will serve as the reference for the policy­
makers to consider a carbon dioxide capture and electrolysis based urea
manufacuring unit in Nepal.
9
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 111 (2021) 103484
Funding
This research received no external funding.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Sijan Devkota: Software, Writing – original draft. Ramesh Pokhrel:
Writing – original draft. Bhawana Rayamajhi: Writing – original draft.
Bibek Uprety: Conceptualization, Software, Writing – review & editing,
Supervision.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgment
The authors gratefully acknowledge the Department of Chemical
Science & Engineering, Kathmandu University for providing the licensed
Aspen Plus software for the study. We would also like to acknowledge
Prof. Dr. Kyun Young Park (Kongju National University, Korea) for his
valuable insights and guidance during this work. We also thank Sar­
bottam Cement Private Limited for providing the flue gas composition
and flow rate data.
References
Adhikari, J., Timsina, J., Khadka, S.R., Ghale, Y., Ojha, H., 2021. COVID-19 impacts on
agriculture and food systems in Nepal: implications for SDGs. Agric. Syst. 186,
102990 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102990.
Alie, C., Backham, L., Croiset, E., Douglas, P.L., 2005. Simulation of CO2 capture using
MEA scrubbing: a flowsheet decomposition method. Energy Convers. Manage. 46,
475–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2004.03.003.
Arachchige, U.S.P.R., Mohsin, M., Melaaen, M.C., 2013. Optimized CO2-flue gas
separation model for a coal fired power plant. Int. J. Energy Environ. 4, 39–48.
Journal homepage: www.IJEE.IEEFoundation.org ISSN. Online.
Bista, D.R., Dhungel, S., Adhikari, S., 2018. Status of fertilizer and seed subsidy in Nepal:
review and recommendation. J. Agric. Environ. 17, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3126/
aej.v17i0.19854.
Bosoaga, A., Masek, O., Oakey, J.E., 2009. CO2 capture technologies for cement industry.
Energy Procedia. Elsevier, pp. 133–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
egypro.2009.01.020.
BRAVO, L.J., 1985. Mass transfer in gauze packings. Hydrocarbon Process. 64, 91–95.
Bui, M., Adjiman, C.S., Bardow, A., Anthony, E.J., Boston, A., Brown, S., Fennell, P.S.,
Fuss, S., Galindo, A., Hackett, L.A., Hallett, J.P., Herzog, H.J., Jackson, G.,
Kemper, J., Krevor, S., Maitland, G.C., Matuszew ,ski, M., Metcalfe, I.S., Petit, C.,
Puxty, G., Reimer, J., Reiner, D.M., Rubin, E.S., Scott, S.A., Shah, N., Smit, B.,
Trusler, J.P.M., Webley, P., Wilcox, J., mac Dowell, N., 2018. Carbon capture and
storage (CCS): the way forward. Energy Environ. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1039/
c7ee02342a.
Deshar, B.D., 2013. An overview of agricultural degradation in Nepal and its impact on
economy and environment. Glob. J. Econ. Soc. Dev. 3, 1–20.
DuPart, M.S., Bacon, T.R., Edwards, D.J., 1993. Understanding corrosion in
alkanolamine gas treating plants: part 1. Hydrocarbon Process. 72, 75–80.
Errico, M., Madeddu, C., Pinna, D., Baratti, R., 2016. Model calibration for the carbon
dioxide-amine absorption system. Appl. Energy 183, 958–968. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.09.036.
Freguia, S., 2002. Modeling of CO2 removal from flue gases with monoethanolamine.
Green, D.W., 2008. Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook. McGraw-Hill Education.
Hikita, H., Asai, S., Ishikawa, H., Honda, M., 1977. The kinetics of reactions of carbon
dioxide with monoethanolamine, diethanolamine and triethanolamine by a rapid
mixing method. Chem. Eng. J. 13, 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-9467(77)
80002-6.
Kucka, L., Müller, I., Kenig, E.Y., Górak, A., 2003. On the modelling and simulation of
sour gas absorption by aqueous amine solutions. Chem. Eng. Sci. 58, 3571–3578.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-2509(03)00255-0.
Kvamsdal, H.M., Rochelle, G.T., 2008. Effects of the temperature bulge in CO2 absorption
from flue gas by aqueous monoethanolamine. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 47, 867–875.
https://doi.org/10.1021/ie061651s.
Bravo, J.L., Rocha, J.A., Fair, J.R., 1992. A comprehensive model for the performance of
columns containing structured packings. Inst. Chem. Eng. Symp. Ser. 1, 489–507.
León, M., Silva, J., Carrasco, S., Barrientos, N., 2020. Design, cost estimation and
sensitivity analysis for a production process of activated carbon fromwaste nutshells
by physical activation. Processes 8, 945. https://doi.org/10.3390/PR8080945.
S. Devkota et al.
Li, K., Cousins, A., Yu, H., Feron, P., Tade, M., Luo, W., Chen, J., 2016. Systematic study
of aqueous monoethanolamine-based CO2 capture process: model development and
process improvement. Energy Sci. Eng. 4, 23–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/ese3.101.
Loh, H.P., Lyons, J., White, C.W., 2002. Process Equipment Cost Estimation. https://doi.
org/10.2172/797810. Final ReportPittsburgh, PA, and Morgantown, WV (United
States).
Madeddu, C., Errico, M., Baratti, R., 2018. Process analysis for the carbon dioxide
chemical absorption–regeneration system. Appl. Energy 215, 532–542. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.02.033.
Nepal Foreign Trade Statistics, 2020.
Nittaya, T., Douglas, P.L., Croiset, E., Ricardez-Sandoval, L.A., 2014. Dynamic modeling
and evaluation of an industrial-scale CO2 capture plant using monoethanolamine
absorption processes. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 53, 11411–11426. https://doi.org/
10.1021/ie500190p.
Oexmann, J., Kather, A., 2009. Post-combustion CO2 capture in coal-fired power plants:
comparison of integrated chemical absorption processes with piperazine promoted
potassium carbonate and MEA. Energy Procedia. Elsevier, pp. 799–806. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.egypro.2009.01.106.
Panta, H.K., 2018. Supply chain of subsidized chemical fertilizers in Nepal. J. Inst. Agric.
Anim. Sci. 35, 9–20. https://doi.org/10.3126/jiaas.v35i1.22509.
Paudel, M., 2016. Prospects and Limitations of Agriculture Industrialization in Nepal.
Agron. J. Nepal 4. https://doi.org/10.3126/ajn.v4i0.15515.
10
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 111 (2021) 103484
Pinsent, B.R.W., Pearson, L., Roughton, F.J.W., 1956. The kinetics of combination of
carbon dioxide with hydroxide ions. Trans. Faraday Soc. 52, 1512–1520. https://doi.
org/10.1039/tf9565201512.
Plaza, M.G., Martínez, S., Rubiera, F., 2020. CO2 Capture, use, and storage in the cement
industry: state of the art and expectations. Energies 13, 5692. https://doi.org/
10.3390/en13215692.
Singh, P., 2016. Policy intervention to reduce energy consumption and mitigate
environmental emission in cement industries of Nepal. Int. J. Environ. Prot. Policy 4,
34. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijepp.20160402.12.
Suraj, B.C., Aryal, M.R., Tiwari, U., Subedi, S., 2019. Development of chemical fertilizer
policy in Nepal. Int. J. Graduate Res. Rev. 5, 231–237.
Thapa, B.S., Neupane, B., Yang, H., Lee, Y.-H., 2021. Green hydrogen potentials from
surplus hydro energy in Nepal. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2021.04.096.
Vega, F., Cano, M., Camino, S., Fernández, L.M.G., Portillo, E., Navarrete, B., 2018.
Solvents for carbon dioxide capture. Carbon Dioxide Chemistry, Capture and Oil
Recovery. InTech. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.71443.
Wang, M., Lawal, A., Stephenson, P., Sidders, J., Ramshaw, C., 2011. Post-combustion
CO2 capture with chemical absorption: a state-of-the-art review. Chem. Eng. Res.
Des. 89, 1609–1624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2010.11.005.
Zhang, Y., Chen, H., Chen, C.C., Plaza, J.M., Dugas, R., Rochelle, G.T., 2009. Rate-based
process modeling study of CO2 Capture with aqueous monoethanolamine solution.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 48, 9233–9246. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie900068k.