CO2 Capture (Including Direct Air Capture) and Natural Gas Desulfurization of Amine-grafted Hierarchical Bimodal Silica

2021 ◽  
pp. 131561
Author(s):  
John-Timothy Anyanwu ◽  
Yiren Wang ◽  
Ralph T. Yang
2021 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noah McQueen ◽  
Michael J. Desmond ◽  
Robert H. Socolow ◽  
Peter Psarras ◽  
Jennifer Wilcox

Removing CO2 from the air with chemicals (Direct Air Capture, DAC) requires a significant amount of energy. Here, we evaluate the cost of co-constructing a solvent DAC process with its energy system. We compare eight energy systems paired with two alternative designs for a liquid-solvent DAC system capturing 1 MtCO2/year, which requires roughly 240 to 300 megawatts of steady power equivalent, 80% thermal and 20% electric. Two energy systems burn natural gas onsite for heat and electricity, capturing nearly all the CO2 released during combustion, and six are all-electric non-fossil systems. The cost of the DAC facility alone contributes $310/tCO2 for a conventional process-based design and $150/tCO2 for a more novel design. When the decomposition of calcium carbonate occurs within a natural-gas-heated calciner, the energy system adds only $80/tCO2 to these costs, assuming $3.25/GJ ($3.43/MMBtu) gas. However, leakage in the natural gas supply chain increases the cost of net capture dramatically: with 2.3% leakage (U.S. national average) and a 20-year Global Warming Potential of 86, costs are about 50% higher. For the all-electric systems, the total capture cost depends on the electricity cost: for each $/MWh of levelized cost of electricity, the total capture cost increases by roughly $2/tCO2. Continuous power is required, because the high-temperature calciner cannot be cycled on and off, so solar and wind power must be supplemented with storage. Our representative capture costs are $250–$440/tCO2 for geothermal energy, $370–$620/tCO2 for nuclear energy (two variants–a light water reactor and small modular nuclear), $360–$570/tCO2 for wind, $430–$690/tCO2 for solar photovoltaics (two variants assuming different daily solar capacities), and $300–$490/tCO2 for a hybrid system with a natural-gas-powered electric calciner.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Habib Azarabadi ◽  
Klaus S. Lackner

<p>This analysis investigates the cost of carbon capture from the US natural gas-fired electricity generating fleet comparing two technologies: Post-Combustion Capture and Direct Air Capture (DAC). Many Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) units are suitable for post-combustion capture. We estimated the cost of post-combustion retrofits and investigated the most important unit characteristics contributing to this cost. Units larger than 350 MW, younger than 15 years, more efficient than 42% and with a utilization (capacity factor) higher than 0.5 are economically retrofittable. Counterintuitively, DAC (which is usually not considered for point-source capture) may be cheaper in addressing emissions from non-retrofittable NGCCs. DAC can also address the residual emissions from retrofitted plants. Moreover, economic challenges of post-combustion capture for small natural gas-fired units with low utilization, such as gas turbines, make DAC look favorable for these units. Considering the cost of post-combustion capture for the entire natural gas-related emissions after incorporating the impact of learning-by-doing for both carbon capture technologies, DAC is the cheaper capture solution for at least 1/3 of all emissions. </p>


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Habib Azarabadi ◽  
Klaus S. Lackner

<p>This analysis investigates the cost of carbon capture from the US natural gas-fired electricity generating fleet comparing two technologies: Post-Combustion Capture and Direct Air Capture (DAC). Many Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) units are suitable for post-combustion capture. We estimated the cost of post-combustion retrofits and investigated the most important unit characteristics contributing to this cost. Units larger than 350 MW, younger than 15 years, more efficient than 42% and with a utilization (capacity factor) higher than 0.5 are economically retrofittable. Counterintuitively, DAC (which is usually not considered for point-source capture) may be cheaper in addressing emissions from non-retrofittable NGCCs. DAC can also address the residual emissions from retrofitted plants. Moreover, economic challenges of post-combustion capture for small natural gas-fired units with low utilization, such as gas turbines, make DAC look favorable for these units. Considering the cost of post-combustion capture for the entire natural gas-related emissions after incorporating the impact of learning-by-doing for both carbon capture technologies, DAC is the cheaper capture solution for at least 1/3 of all emissions. </p>


2019 ◽  
Vol 59 (15) ◽  
pp. 7072-7079 ◽  
Author(s):  
John-Timothy Anyanwu ◽  
Yiren Wang ◽  
Ralph T. Yang

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Habib Azarabadi ◽  
Klaus S. Lackner

<p>This analysis investigates the cost of carbon capture from the US natural gas-fired electricity generating fleet comparing two technologies: Post-Combustion Capture and Direct Air Capture (DAC). Many Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) units are suitable for post-combustion capture. We estimated the cost of post-combustion retrofits and investigated the most important unit characteristics contributing to this cost. Units larger than 350 MW, younger than 15 years, more efficient than 42% and with a utilization (capacity factor) higher than 0.5 are economically retrofittable. Counterintuitively, DAC (which is usually not considered for point-source capture) may be cheaper in addressing emissions from non-retrofittable NGCCs. DAC can also address the residual emissions from retrofitted plants. Moreover, economic challenges of post-combustion capture for small natural gas-fired units with low utilization, such as gas turbines, make DAC look favorable for these units. Considering the cost of post-combustion capture for the entire natural gas-related emissions after incorporating the impact of learning-by-doing for both carbon capture technologies, DAC is the cheaper capture solution for at least 1/3 of all emissions. </p>


2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (7) ◽  
pp. 3409-3417
Author(s):  
J. Carlos Abanades ◽  
Yolanda A. Criado ◽  
José Ramón Fernández

Passive direct air capture by the carbonation of large scale Ca(OH)2 porous structures that can be regenerated by means of well-tried technologies, while producing a pure CO2 stream ready for storage.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryohei Numaguchi ◽  
Takeshi Okumura ◽  
Shohei Nishibe ◽  
Katsuhiro Yoshizawa ◽  
Yasushi Furushima ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document