CO2 Capture Storage Research Articles

Energy and economic analysis feasibility of CO2capture on a natural gas internal combustion engine

AbstractCO2capture by amine scrubbing is a widely developed technology in its most advanced stage of evolution. However, it has never been used to capture CO2from mobile sources. The present study performs an energy and economic analysis of an amine scrubbing CO2capture storage (CCS) system, which takes for the amine regeneration process the waste heat from the exhaust gases of a turbocharged natural gas internal combustion engine (mobile source). The selected engine for the study is an M936G, widely used in freight and passenger transport. A primary and a tertiary amine were chosen for the simulations. In order to reduce volume and increase autonomy, captured CO2is stored as a liquid, therefore, a specific installation is planned. The system is hybridised with an organic rankine cycle (ORC) to reduce the energy penalty on the CCS system. Results show that a CCS system operating with Monoethanolamine (MEA) at 30 wt% achieved a maximum CO2capture rate of 66%, with a penalty over the power engine of only 10%. On the other hand, the economic analysis showed that the CCS system with MEA and without ORC is 31.8% cheaper than a hydrogen fuel cells bus and 26% cheaper than a battery‐electric bus. © 2022 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Evaluation of life cycle energy, economy and CO2 emissions for biomass chemical looping gasification to power generation

A life cycle energy use, CO2 emissions and cost input evaluation of a 650 MW Biomass Chemical Looping Gasification Combined Cycle (BCLGCC) and a Biomass/Coal Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (BIGCC/CIGCC) power generation plants with and without (w/o) CO2 capture & storage (CCS) are analysed. These were then compared to coal/biomass combustion technologies. The life cycle evaluation covers the whole power generation process including biomass/coal supply chain, electricity generation at the power plant and the CCS process. Gasification power plants showed lower energy input and CO2 emissions, yet higher costs compared to combustion power plants. Coal power plants illustrated lower energy and cost input; however higher CO2 emissions compared to biomass power plants. Coal CCS plants can reduce CO2 emissions to near zero, while BCLGCC and BIGCC plants with CCS resulted in negative 680 kg-CO2/MWh and 769 kg-CO2/MWh, respectively, which is due to the higher biomass utilization efficiency for BCLGCC compared to BIGCC hence less CO2 captured and stored. Regarding the total life cycle costs input (TLCCI), BCLGCC with and without CCS equal to 149.3 £/MWh and 199.6 £/MWh, and the total life cycle energy input (TLCEI) for both with and without CCS is equal to 2162 MJ/MWh and 1765 MJ/MWh, respectively.

Perspective of CO2 capture & storage (CCS) development in Vietnam: Results from expert interviews

This paper summarizes expert opinions regarding crucial factors that may influence Vietnam’s future use of carbon capture and storage (CCS) based on face-to-face interviews in December 2013 with 16 CCS-related experts from the Vietnamese government, research institutes, universities and the energy industrial sector. This study finds that financial incentives and climate policy are the most important factors for the development of CCS technologies in Vietnam in the next two decades. Financial incentives involve direct subsidies from the government, such as tax exemptions for land use and the importation of CCS-related equipment. In addition, all the experts agree that international financial support is important to initiate a large deployment of CCS technologies in Vietnam by implementing demonstrative/pilot projects to prove CCS’s working efficiency.

Communication Strategy for a public information campaign on CO2 geological storage and on CCS as a whole: the case history in Italy from 2003 to 2008

Abstract In the frame of the INGV activities of the Group 5 of the European Platform on Zero Emissions Fossil Fuels Power Plants (Eu ZEP) INGV resumes 8 years of experience in public communication on CCS aimed to the public acceptance of this strategic group of technologies. This paper follows from the beginning (2000–2008) the history of the communication and public acceptance campaign in Italy, discriminating in details the bad/sound messages appeared on newspaper, TV, video and conference, mostly as regard the possible natural risks associated to a newly exploited technology: CO2 Capture & Storage (CCS), namely degassing/leakage to surface and triggering of micro-seismicity typically associated to industrial fluids injection. The most important messages, the mediatic errors and the obstacles encountered during this long communication campaign, mostly exploited by INGV in Italy, are described critically, tentatively avoiding that the involved stakeholders make the same mistakes in future and do not adopt the herewith suggested protocols of communication. This is strategic mostly in densely populated countries, like the European ones, often affected by the NIMBY syndrome (Not In My Back Yard) for new plants which could foreseen the CO2 storage sites in the vicinity. In the frame of the European Directivity on CCS, the above mentioned risks are mainly supported and charged on the “storage operator”: and this load is not soundly taken in considerations in the directivity itself: these risks must be spread on the “capture” community and on the “Competent Authority”, otherwise the “storage operators” are not encouraged to enter in the CCS market. INGV describes its experience in creating good communication in public populated events like the “Science Festival” held in Lecce (May 2008) and the “Science Festival” held on Genova (October 2008), also by facilities as plastic interactive CCS scaled box reproducing the CO2 storage techniques, for a complete and simple communication with general public and stakeholders. The most important messages to be highlighted on CCS are mentioned and critically reviewed in the newspaper articles since the USA-Italia bilateral agreements on the climate change, including CCS at that time.