See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/251704370

Techno-economic evaluation of cryogenic CO 2 capture—A comparison with

absorption and membrane technology

Article in International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control · November 2011

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2011.08.013

CITATIONS READS

139 1,447

3 authors, including:

M. Van Sint Annaland

Eindhoven University of Technology
403 PUBLICATIONS 15,612 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by M. Van Sint Annaland on 02 March 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 5 (2011) 1559–1565

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control

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

Techno-economic evaluation of cryogenic CO2 capture—A comparison with

absorption and membrane technology
M.J. Tuinier, H.P. Hamers, M. van Sint Annaland ∗
Multiphase Reactors Group, Chemical Process Intensification, Department of Chemical Engineering and Chemistry, Eindhoven University of Technology, P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB
Eindhoven, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A techno-economic evaluation of a novel cryogenic post-combustion CO2 capture technology is presented
Received 8 November 2010 in this work. The process concept is based on the periodic operation of cryogenically cooled packed beds.
Received in revised form 27 August 2011 A process cycle consists of three consecutive steps: a cooling, capture and recovery step. The bed is first
Accepted 29 August 2011
cooled down to temperatures below −120 ◦ C during the cooling step, possibly using cold energy released
Available online 29 September 2011
during the evaporation of LNG. Flue gas is fed to the refrigerated packed bed during the capture step. The
flue gas will be cooled down and components as H2 O and CO2 will condense and desublimate respectively
Keywords:
at the packing surface, while permanent gases such as N2 will pass through the bed without undergoing
Post-combustion CO2
Capture
any phase change. In a final recovery step the stored components will be recovered from the bed by
Cryogenic recycling CO2 for CO2 recovery and air for H2 O recovery. A basic process design focusing on the CO2 /N2
Techno-economic evaluation separation for a 600 MW coal fired power plant is given in this work and the CO2 avoidance costs are
calculated. The influence of several process parameters is investigated, lower initial bed temperatures
and higher CO2 concentrations in the feed result in more efficient use of the bed volume. The pressure
drop over the system plays an important role in the process economics, due to the high flow rates required
in the process. The cryogenic concept is compared to two competing technologies: amine absorption and
membrane separation. The results show that the preferred technology highly depends on assumptions
related to the availability of utilities.
© 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In the transition from fossil fuels to sustainable energy, CO2 cap-
ture and storage (CCS) could be necessary in order to reach CO2
emission reduction targets. From the available methods of CO2 cap-
ture, post-combustion is the only method that can be retrofitted
to existing plants. Amine scrubbing is the most studied technol-
ogy; other technologies of particular interest are membranes and
adsorption. Several economic studies of CO2 capture methods have
been published in literature. Resulting costs vary strongly, as they
are highly influenced by the system boundaries such as the CO2
source and therefore inlet concentration, whether or not transport
and storage is included, the level of maturity and cost measures
and assumptions. For example, the optimized costs in a study by
Abu-Zahra et al. (2007) to CO2 capture by 30% MEA absorption
from a 600 MW bituminous coal-fired power plant have been esti-
mated at 33 D/ton CO2 avoided. On the other hand, in a study
by van Straelen et al. (2010) to CO2 capture from a refinery also
using 30% MEA, costs of 90–120 D/ton CO2 avoided were reported,
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 40 247 2241; fax: +31 40 247 5833.
E-mail address: m.v.sintannaland@tue.nl (M. van Sint Annaland).
dependent on the scale and the CO2 concentration in the flue gas.
Merkel et al. (2010) evaluated a process based on CO2 capture using
membranes and calculated CO2 capture costs of $39/ton CO2 . In a
report by McKinsey & Company (2008) the development of costs
for CCS (including storage costs) is analyzed over the next twenty
years. They expect that early demonstration projects will operate
at 60–90 D/ton, but that costs could come down to 30–45 D/ton in
2030, a price level, which is expected to make CCS economically
self-sustaining.
More research is required to bring down the costs. Although
many studies focus on reducing operational costs, e.g. by finding
novel more efficient solvents for amine scrubbing, it is at least
as important to reduce the capital costs in order to reduce CO2
avoidance costs (Schach et al., 2010).
Cryogenic CO2 capture is not included in most (economical)
comparison studies, as it has been considered as an unrealistic can-
didate for post-combustion CO2 capture. In the first place due to
expected high cooling costs, but also because it has been consid-
ered as a gas–liquid separation (Ebner and Ritter, 2009). In order to
be able to carry out the CO2 removal from flue gases as a gas–liquid
separation, it is necessary to compress the gas to pressures above
the triple point of CO2 , which is at 5.2 bar and −56.6 ◦ C for pure CO2 .
Compressing flue gases to these pressures is too energy intensive.

1750-5836/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2011.08.013
1560 M.J. Tuinier et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 5 (2011) 1559–1565

discussed. Finally, our results will be compared to the results of eco-

Nomenclature nomic studies on CO2 capture via amine scrubbing (Rubin, 2010)
and membrane technology (Merkel et al., 2010).
as specific solid surface area per unit bed volume,
m2 /m3
Cp heat capacity, J/kg/K 2. Process concept
Deff effective diffusion coefficient, m2 /s
dh,c hydraulic diameter of the monolithic channels, m The cryogenic CO2 capture process using dynamically operated
f Fanning friction factor for the monolithic channels, packed beds has been described in detail and demonstrated by
– both experiments and numerical simulations in our previous work
L bed length, mm (Tuinier et al., 2010, 2011), but will be shortly summarized here. A
mi mass deposition of component i per unit bed vol- process cycle consists of three consecutive steps: a cooling, capture
ume, kg/m3 and recovery step. First, a fixed bed is cooled down to temperatures
ṁi mass deposition rate per unit surface area for com- below −120 ◦ C (T0 ). A hot flue gas, which is assumed to be a mixture
of N2 , CO2 and H2 O, is then fed (at Tin ) to the refrigerated packed
ponent i, kg/m2 /s
bed, as illustrated in Fig. 1a and b. As a result, the flue gas will
nc number of components, –
be cooled down, the packing material will be heated up and H2 O
p pressure, Pa   will condense at the packing surface until an equilibrium tempera-
Re Reynolds number g vg dp /g
ture is reached (TH2 O ). When all H2 O is condensed, the gas mixture
t time, s
will be further cooled down until CO2 starts to desublimate at the
T temperature, K, ◦ C
packing surface, extracting the cold from the packing until again
v superficial velocity, m/s
an equilibrium is reached (at TCO2 ). These two fronts of condensing
z axial coordinate, m
H2 O and desublimating CO2 will slowly move through the packed
Greek letters bed (as illustrated in Fig. 1a and b), while N2 will not undergo any
hi enthalpy change related to the phase change of com- phase change due to its much lower dew point and will therefore
ponent i, J/kg be obtained purified at the bed outlet. At the same time the hot
εg bed void fraction, – incoming flue gas will heat up the packing at the inlet and evapo-
 viscosity, kg/m/s rate previously condensed water. Therefore also a moving front of
 thermal conductivity, W/m/K evaporating H2 O and a front of sublimating CO2 will move through
eff effective conductivity, W/m/K the bed. The bed has to be switched to the recovery step, when
 density, kg/m3 CO2 breakthrough is observed at the outlet. In the recovery step, a
ω mass fraction, kg/kg pure CO2 flow is recycled (at Tin,R ) through the bed as illustrated in
Fig. 1c and d. Initially some additional CO2 will desublimate onto
Subscripts the packing surface, due to the relatively higher CO2 pressure com-
0 initial pared to the capture step. The hot zone at the inlet (which is at Tin )
g gas phase will be moved through the bed, causing the zones with condensed
i component i H2 O and desublimated CO2 to continue moving through the bed and
in inlet obtaining pure CO2 at the outlet. Part of the outlet is purged and can
r recovery be compressed for further transport and storage. During the suc-
s solid phase ceeding cooling step, the remaining H2 O is removed in the initial
stage. To achieve continuous operation of the process, it is required
Abbreviations to operate all three steps in parallel in (at least) three beds. The
CCS carbon capture and storage temporal evolution of axial temperature, concentration and mass
LNG liquefied natural gas deposition profiles occurring in the beds can be well described by
MEA monoethanolamine a validated 1-D pseudo homogeneous axially dispersed plug flow
TDI total direct investment model, which is solved using an advanced numerical scheme. The
TPI total process investment basic equations are listed in Table 1. This model will be used in the
process design and parameter study presented in this work.

An alternative is to cool flue gases to temperatures below the sub-
limation temperature of CO2 at atmospheric pressures, resulting in
CO2 crystal formation, which cannot be easily handled in standard
process equipment.
In our previous work a novel cryogenic capture technology
based on the dynamic operation of packed beds was demonstrated
which is able to capture CO2 at atmospheric pressures (Tuinier
et al., 2010, 2011). The aim of the work described in this paper
is to evaluate this novel process, both on technical aspects and
on economic performance. Furthermore, we will compare the eco-
nomics of our technology to other post-combustion technologies,
viz. amine scrubbing and membrane technology, investigating the
importance of various process assumptions.
The paper is organized as follows: first our cryogenic process
concept is outlined, followed by the description of a base case and
a calculation of the costs per ton of CO2 emissions avoided. Sub-
sequently, a sensitivity analysis of some key process parameters is
3. Process evaluation
In order to be able to compare our technology with other tech-
nologies, a basic design was made for a capture plant treating flue
gas typically generated by a 600 MW coal fired power plant, which
is often used as a base case in literature studies. The capital and
operation costs are then estimated and the costs per ton of CO2
avoided are calculated. This section ends with a parameter study,
in which the influence of several key parameters on the capture
costs is evaluated.
3.1. Base case
To simplify the comparison, only CO2 capture is taken into
account without impurities and H2 O removal. The assumed flue
gas conditions and composition are shown in Table 2. The bed
dimensions and properties for the base case are shown in Table 3.
 M.J. Tuinier et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 5 (2011) 1559–1565 1561

Fig. 1. Schematic illustration of the process concept: (a) and (b) during the capture step, (c) and (d) during the recovery step.

The initial bed temperature was set at −150 ◦ C, which results in
more than 99.9% CO2 recovery. A breakthrough time (duration of
each step) of 600 s was chosen. The required flow rates, pressures
and inlet temperatures are shown in Table 4. The resulting pressure
drops over the beds (also shown in Table 4) are rather small due to
the nature of the selected packing; a structured monolith. However,
gas distribution over the beds, piping and valves will cause an addi-
tional pressure drop, therefore a total pressure drop of 100 mbar
is assumed for the capture step and 200 mbar for the cooling and
recovery step. During the recovery step, the outgoing CO2 flow has
a temperature of −78 ◦ C and will be partly recycled to the inlet. Due
to compression by the recycle blower the inlet temperature during
the recovery step is therefore −66 ◦ C. The flue gas temperature is
estimated at 150 ◦ C, but will increase in temperature to 162 ◦ C, also
because of compression. The resulting axial temperature and mass
deposition profiles are shown in Fig. 2. It can be observed that the
heat stored in the bed during the capture step is being used during
the recovery step to evaporate previously deposited CO2 . Further-
more, it can be observed that during the cooling step not the entire
bed has to be cooled down, as the last part of the bed will be cooled
down during the capture step.
3.2. Costs base case
In order to calculate the CO2 avoidance costs, the capital invest-
ment costs are first calculated using a conceptual cost estimation
method with an accuracy of 40%. In this method, the main equip-
ment costs are estimated. Fig. 3 shows a simplified process scheme
with all main equipment. The costs for blowers, the heat exchanger
and the columns are calculated using correlations reported by
Seider et al. (2004) and Loh and Jennifer Lyons (2002) and were
updated to costs in 2010 using the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost
Index (CEPCI). The packing costs are calculated using a steel price
of $1200/ton steel (market price of $600/ton multiplied with factor

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Fig. 2. Simulated axial temperature (a–c) and mass deposition (d–f) profiles for the capture, recovery and cooling step for the base case. Operating conditions and bed
properties can be found in Tables 2–4.
1562 M.J. Tuinier et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 5 (2011) 1559–1565

Fig. 3. Simplified process scheme.

Table 1 Table 3
Model equations for the 1-D pseudo homogeneous model. Bed dimensions and properties.

Component mass balances for the gas phase: Diameter [m] 8.5
  
nc
Length [m] 4.25
∂ωi,g ∂ωi,g ∂ ∂ωi,g
εg g = −g vg + g Deff − ṁi as + ωi,g ṁi as Number of beds [–] 21 (7 per step)
∂t ∂z ∂z ∂z Packing Steel monolith structure
i=1
Component mass balance for the solid phase: Density solids [kg/m3 ] 7750
∂mi Porosity [–] 0.697
= ṁi as
∂t
Total continuity equation for the gas phase:
∂ (εg g ) ∂ (g vg )

nc

=− − ṁi as Table 4
∂t ∂z Process parameters base case.
i=1
Energy balance (gas and solid phase): Capture Recovery Cooling
  
nc
∂T ∂T ∂ ∂T Tin [◦ C] 162 −66 −150
(εg g Cp,g + s (1 − εg )Cp,s ) = −g vg Cp,g + eff − ṁi as hi
∂t ∂z ∂z ∂z Pin [mbar] 1100 1200 1200
i=1 Flow/bed [kg/s] 91 564 357
Pressure drop over packing:
  P packing [mbar] 8.7 44.2 30.1
∂p f 1 14.9 dh,c Total  P [mbar] 100 200 200
= −4 g v2g with: f = 1 + 0.0445Re
∂z dh,c 2 Re L

Table 5
two for packing construction). The module costs, including piping, Capital investment costs for the base case.
installation, etc. are then calculated by multiplying the equipment
costs with a Hand factor. When all the module costs are summed Equipment Equipment Hand Module
costs [M$] factor costs [M$]
up, 25% is added for contingencies. The total direct investment is
subsequently calculated and an allocated investment (for storage, Columns for packed bed (21) 0.39 4 32.9
Packing (21) 0.67 4 56.5
utilities and environmental provisions), start up investments and
Flue gas compressor 1.12 2.5 2.8
working capital are added. Finally, the total fixed capital is calcu- CO2 recycle blower 10.09 2.5 25.2
lated, results are shown in Table 5. The operational costs consist N2 cooling blower 10.55 2.5 26.4
of the electricity costs required for the blowers. The CO2 emitted CO2 product compressor 15.09 2.5 37.7
LNG heat exchanger 1.03 4.8 4.9
Contingencies 25% 46.6
Table 2
Total direct investment (TDI) 233
Flue gas conditions and composition.
Total allocated investment 40% of TDI 93
Temperature [◦ C] 150 Start up investment 5% of TDI 12
Pressure [bar] 1.013 Total process investment (TPI) 338
vol.% Flow [kg/s] Working capital 2% of TPI 7

N2 86.5 510 Total fixed capital 345

CO2 13.5 125

Total 635
 M.J. Tuinier et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 5 (2011) 1559–1565 1563

Table 6
Cost evaluation parameters.

Operation h/year 7000

Capital charge 0.2
Blower/compressor/pump efficiencies 0.72
Electricity price [$/kWh] 0.06
CO2 emission due to additional power [ton/MWh] 0.8042
CO2 product pressure [bar] 140

Table 7
Operational and total costs for the base case.

CO2 captured [ton/h] 450

CO2 emitted due to additional power [ton/h] 109.2
CO2 avoided [ton/h] 340.8

MW $/h $/ton CO2 avoided

Flue gas blower 8.2 490 1.4

CO2 recycle blower 34.4 2063 6.1
N2 cooling blower 36.4 2181 6.4 Fig. 5. Avoidance costs and LNG evaporation as function of the CO2 inlet concentra-
CO2 product compressor 56.9 3412 10.0 tion.

Total blowers 135.8 8145 23.9

Capital/maintenance/labor charge 9850 28.9
Total costs 52.8
due to the additional power required by the blowers could be cap-
tured as well, but is assumed to be emitted into atmosphere in this
study. For this base case the cooling is provided by the evaporation
of LNG and no additional costs are assumed. Depreciation, interest,
labor and maintenance are calculated using 20% of the total capital
charge per year. The used cost parameters can be found in Table 6.
The operational and final CO2 avoidance costs are summarized in
Table 7.
3.3. Parameter study
3.3.1. Initial bed temperature
The process has been evaluated for different initial bed tempera-
tures. Both the CO2 avoidance costs and LNG evaporation are shown
in Fig. 4. At a higher initial bed temperature, less CO2 is deposited
per unit of bed volume. Therefore, more bed volume is required to
maintain similar breakthrough times, resulting in increasing cap-
ital costs. Larger flow rates during the recovery and cooling step
are required as well, in order to finish in 600 s. A larger flow rate
during the cooling cycle results in a higher LNG evaporation. An
initial bed temperature of −160 ◦ C results in even more efficient
use of the beds and therefore slightly lower costs and LNG evapora-
tion. However, the temperature difference between LNG (−162 ◦ C)
and the refrigerated N2 becomes too small. It can be concluded that
a lower bed temperature results in more efficient CO2 capture. It
should be noted that this conclusion cannot be drawn when (part)
of cooling is generated by refrigeration. The efficiency of a refriger-
ator decreases with decreasing temperature and results in higher
cooling costs.
3.3.2. CO2 concentration in flue gas
The CO2 concentration in flue gases depend on the used feed-
stock and process. A concentration of about 5 vol.% is for example
encountered in natural gas fired combined cycle power plants. The
effect of the CO2 concentration on the performance of the cryogenic
packed bed concept is summarized in Fig. 5. The amount of flue gas
(635 kg/s) is kept constant for all cases. The front of desublimat-
ing CO2 will move slower through the bed at decreasing inlet CO2
concentrations. Therefore smaller equipment can be used (when
maintaining an equal breakthrough time) and consequently lower
flow rates are required for the recovery and cooling steps. How-
ever, at the same time the amount of CO2 captured will decrease,
due to the lower CO2 content in the gas. The reduction in equip-
ment size and required flows is canceled out by this decrease. An
inlet concentration of 5 vol.% results in avoidance costs of $95.7/ton,
which are substantially higher than for the base case. The increase
in costs is especially strong when going to lower concentrations,
which is related to the CO2 emissions caused by the extra power
required. The ratio of the additional required power to the amount
of CO2 captured becomes high at low concentrations. Fig. 5 also
shows that a CO2 inlet concentration of 15% results in lower avoid-
ance costs. At even higher CO2 concentrations, recovery of the beds
becomes more difficult, as the heat stored in the first zone of the
bed during the capture step becomes insufficient. Additional heat
has to be supplied to the process to recover CO2 in those cases.

3.3.3. Pressure drop

A pressure drop of 100 mbar for the capture step and 200 mbar
for the recovery and cooling step were assumed. The actual pres-
sure drop depends on packing type, tubing diameters but possibly
also to a large extent on the gas distribution over the shallow
packed beds. For a better distribution a larger pressure drop is
required. A non-uniform distributed feed might result in different
freezing/evaporating front velocities at different radial positions
and therefore in a non-optimal use of the bed volume. Earlier or
Fig. 4. Avoidance costs and LNG evaporation as function of the initial bed temper-
less sharp breakthrough might be observed, resulting in a lower
ature. capture rate of CO2 or higher LNG evaporation. The amount of
1564 M.J. Tuinier et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 5 (2011) 1559–1565

Table 8
Capital investment costs for amine scrubbing and membrane technology.

Amine scrubbing

Equipment Module costs [M$]

Flue gas blower 5.7
CO2 absorber 81.3
Heat exchangers 6.2
Circulation pumps 12.7
Sorbent regenerator 46.7
Reboiler 22.3
Sorbent reclaimer/processing 15.4
Drying/compression unit 49.1
Contingencies 59.9

Total direct investment 299.3

Total allocated investment 119.7
Start up investment 15.0

Total process investment 434

Working capital 8.7
Fig. 6. Avoidance costs and LNG evaporation as function of the pressure drops during
the capture step (left value) and recovery and cooling step (right value). Total fixed capital 443

Membranes
maldistribution which is still acceptable is unknown and requires
Equipment Module costs [M$]
more study. To indicate the significance of the pressure drop on Membranes 150
the process performance and economics, two cases with 50% higher Compressors/expanders 100
and lower pressure drops were evaluated. Fig. 6 shows a significant Installation factor (60%) 150
effect on the operational costs, which is explained by higher com- Contingencies 100

pression costs. Also the amount of required LNG changes slightly, Total direct investment 500
which is related to the heat generated by compression. It should Total allocated investment 200
Start up investment 25
be noted that some CO2 bypass might be tolerated, since often 90%
capture is deemed sufficient. Total process investment 725
Working capital 15

4. Comparison with absorption and membrane technology Total fixed capital 740

The economics of the cryogenic packed bed concept is compared

to absorption and membrane technology in this section. In order difficult to retrofit to existing facilities. The calculated equipment
to present a comparison as fair as possible, costs are calculated costs only consist of the membrane costs and compres-
based on the same cost parameters as used in the evaluation of sors/expanders, but are multiplied with an installation factor. The
the cryogenic concept (as shown in Table 5). capital and operational costs adjusted with the parameters used in
this study are also shown in Table 8 and 9.
4.1. Absorption technology
4.3. Comparison
The required input for the evaluation of CO2 capture costs via
absorption technology is obtained from the Integrated Environ- The CO2 avoidance costs for all three technologies are com-
mental Control Model developed by Rubin (2010). A 600 MW power pared in Fig. 7. Amine scrubbing and the cryogenic concept have
plant with monoethanolamine (MEA) absorption was simulated, comparable costs, while membranes are significantly more expen-
resulting in a flue gas of 666 kg/s containing 14 vol.% CO2 (on a sive in this evaluation. The results are highly dependent on the
dry basis), which is similar to the flue gas composition as used in assumptions, especially on the availability of utilities. In the amine
the evaluation of the cryogenic concept. The costs for all purifica- case it was assumed that steam is available at no costs, which is
tion steps upstream the capture process (NOx , SO2 and particulates
removal) are not taken into account. The equipment costs and the Table 9
electricity, steam, MEA and corrosion inhibitor consumption are Operational and total costs for amine scrubbing and membrane technology.
taken from the model. Steam required for stripping is generated
Amine scrubbing Membranes
with an auxiliary boiler in the simulation, but capital and oper- CO2 captured [ton/h] 439 369
ational costs are not taken into account. The resulting values are CO2 emitted due to additional power [ton/h] 58 120
presented in Tables 8 and 9. CO2 avoided [ton/h] 381 249
$/ton CO2 avoided

4.2. Membrane technology Sorbent 7.0

Inhibitor 1.4
Reclaimer waste disposal 1.4
Merkel et al. (2010) carried out a basic study to the economics
of CO2 capture with membrane technology, treating flue gas of Total chemicals 9.9 –
602 kg/s containing 12.9 vol.% CO2 . In their evaluation two process Flue gas blower 2.1
alternatives were evaluated. In the first option the driving force for CO2 product compressor 9.1
permeation is generated by a vacuum on the permeate side. In the Solvent pump 0.2

second option an air sweep is used, which is then fed to the boiler of Total power costs 11.3 36.0
the power plant. Although the second alternative is more efficient Capital charge (20% total fixed capital/year) 33.2 84.9
and looks promising, it will not be taken into account in this study,
Total costs 54.5 120.9
as it will influence the combustion process and might be more
 M.J. Tuinier et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 5 (2011) 1559–1565
Fig. 7. Avoidance costs for different technologies.
unrealistic. When no steam is available at all and the operational
and capital costs and the additional CO2 emissions related to steam
generation in an auxiliary boiler are taken into account, the avoid-
ance costs for scrubbing become high ($133.4/ton). This is related
to the large amount of heat required during the stripping of MEA
(4.5 MJ/kg CO2 ). The model developed by Rubin also offers the
possibility to select an advanced amine, which is used in Fluor’s
Econamine® FG+ process. The resulting avoidance costs are sub-
stantially lower ($84.2/ton), related to less steam required for
regeneration and lower degradation rates.
The cryogenic concept is attractive when the cold exposed dur-
ing the regasification of LNG could be used for free. If no LNG is
available and the entire required cooling capacity should be gen-
erated using cryogenic refrigerators, the electricity consumption
of the refrigerators would be in the same order of magnitude as
the electricity production of the power plant, and can therefore
be considered as unrealistic. Furthermore, the evaporation of LNG
could be integrated with other processes, therefore LNG might be
only available at certain costs. When comparing to the avoidance
costs of the advanced amine, a maximum price of $8.7/ton LNG can
be allowed. The required cooling power is 248 MW, which corre-
sponds to an LNG evaporation of 2.7 kg LNG/kg CO2 avoided. An
average sized LNG terminal evaporates about 5 million ton/year.
Based on an operation of 7000 h/year, a total amount of 8.6 million
ton of LNG would be required for cooling, which corresponds to
more than one terminal. When only one terminal is available and
the remaining cooling duty has to be generated by refrigeration,
the avoidance costs will be $314.4/ton avoided, which is still exces-
sively high. In the situation that the pressure drops can be reduced
as shown in Fig. 6, less cooling is required and the total avoidance
costs when taking refrigeration into account results in $126.5/ton,
which makes it competitive with the other technologies.
CO2 removal using membrane technology is more costly than
cryogenics and scrubbing, due to its high capital costs. When the
costs of the membrane modules could be reduced in the future, this
option may become competitive, especially when cold or steam
utilities are not available/expensive.
The cryogenic concept shows the advantage that deep CO2
removal can be obtained, generating both a very pure cleaned flue
gas and CO2 product. When cooling to −150 ◦ C, the vapor pres-
sure of CO2 is only 8 Pa, resulting in more than 99.9% CO2 removal,
compared to 90% for the other technologies. To quantify the exact
advantage of this ‘deep’ CO2 removal, the costs for CO2 emissions
should be known. The removal of impurities is not incorporated
in this study. The cryogenic concept has the potential to remove
View publication stats
1565
water and for example sulfur containing impurities simultaneously,
as vapor pressures are low at the used temperatures. In that case
it could be necessary to install a small separate bed, which allows
separate regeneration. Future work will focus on these aspects.
5. Conclusions
The costs of cryogenic CO2 capture using dynamically operated
packed beds depend strongly on initial bed temperatures and CO2
concentrations in the feed gas. At lower initial temperatures the
cold stored in the bed can be used more efficiently, resulting in more
CO2 deposited per unit of bed volume. At low CO2 inlet concentra-
tions, the relative costs for the amount of CO2 avoided increase
strongly. Due to high flow rates required during the process, the
pressure drops over the system substantially influence the CO2
avoidance costs. It is expected that required gas distribution plays
an important role in the resulting pressure drop. Future research
will focus on the effects of gas (mal)distribution (and hence the
required pressure drop over the gas distributor) on the process
performance.
In the comparison with other technologies it was found that
the preferred technology depends heavily on the availability of
utilities. The cryogenic concept requires a cold source, such as
the evaporation of LNG at a regasification terminal, while amine
scrubbing requires low pressure steam in order to strip the sol-
vent. When both LNG and steam are not available at low costs,
membrane technology shows advantages. When steam is available
at low costs, especially when using an advanced amine, scrub-
bing is the preferred technology. The cryogenic concept could be
the preferred option, when LNG is available at low costs. Espe-
cially when pressure drops can be decreased and the simultaneous
removal of impurities can be incorporated in one process, the con-
cept could become a serious candidate for capturing CO2 from flue
gases.
Acknowledgement
Shell Global Solutions International is kindly acknowledged for
their financial support.
References
Abu-Zahra, M.R.M., et al., 2007. CO2 capture from power plants: part II. A para-
metric study of the economical performance based on mono-ethanolamine.
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 1 (2), 135–142.
Ebner, A.D., Ritter, J.A., 2009. State-of-the-art adsorption and membrane separation
processes for carbon dioxide production from carbon dioxide emitting indus-
tries. Separation Science and Technology 44 (6), 1273–1421.
Loh, H.P., Jennifer Lyons, J., 2002. Process Equipment Cost Estimation. DOE, Pitts-
burgh.
McKinsey & Company, 2008. Carbon Capture & Storage: Assessing the Economics.
McKinsey Climate Change Initiative.
Merkel, T.C., Lin, H., Wei, X., Baker, R., 2010. Power plant post-combustion carbon
dioxide capture: an opportunity for membranes. Journal of Membrane Science
359 (1–2), 126–139.
Rubin, E.S., 2010. Integrated Environmental Control Model. Center for Energy and
Environmental Studies, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh.
Schach, M., Schneider, R., Schramm, H., Repke, J., 2010. Techno-economic analysis of
postcombustion processes for the capture of carbon dioxide from power plant
flue gas. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research 49 (5), 2363–2370.
Seider, W.D., Seader, J.D., Lewin, D.R., 2004. , second ed. John Wiley & Sons, New
York.
Tuinier, M.J., van Sint Annaland, M., Kramer, G.J., Kuipers, J.A.M., 2010. Cryogenic CO2
capture using dynamically operated packed beds. Chemical Engineering Science
65, 114–119.
Tuinier, M.J., van Sint Annaland, M., Kuipers, J.A.M., 2011. A novel process for cryo-
genic CO2 capture using dynamically operated packed beds—an experimental
and numerical study. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 5 (4),
694–701.
van Straelen, J., Geuzebroek, F., Goodchild, N., Protopapas, G., Mahony, L., 2010. CO2
capture for refineries, a practical approach. International Journal of Greenhouse
Gas Control 4 (2), 316–320.