Carbon Capture Technology

AN INTRODUCTION OF ENERGY SCIENCE
CARBON CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY
BY:
NADYA AMALIA (20213042)
LECTURER:
Dr. Eng. ABDUL WARIS
DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS
MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCE FACULTY
BANDUNG INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
OCTOBER, 2013
Nadya Amalia -20213042
CARBON CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY
I.
INTRODUCTION
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a natural gas that allows sunlight to reach the Earth
but also prevents some of the sun's heat from radiating back into space, thus
warming the planet. Scientists call this warming the greenhouse effect. When this
effect occurs naturally, it warms the Earth enough to sustain life. In fact, if we had no
greenhouse effect, our planet would be in average temperature of minus 22 degrees
Fahrenheit (minus 30 degrees Celsius) [1, 2].
Fig. 1. Illustration of the greenhouse effect [1].
Human inventions like power plants and transportation vehicles, and

industrialisations, which burn fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas), release extra CO2
into the air [3]. Thus more heat is stored on Earth, which causes the temperature of
Carbon Capture Technology
the planet to slowly rise as illustrated in Fig. 1. Consequently this enhances the
greenhouse gas effect leading to climate change.
The vast majority of scientists agree that global climate change is occurring
and that to prevent the most serious effects we must begin immediately to
significantly reduce our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Actually, CO2 is not the only
GHG, others include water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. Scientists estimate that global GHG
emissions due to human activities increased 70 percent between 1970 and 2004, but
CO2 emissions alone grew 80 percent in the same period [2, 4].
At present, fossil fuels are the dominant source of the global primary energy
demand, and will likely remain so for the rest of the century. Fossil fuels supply over
85% of all primary energy; the rest is made up of nuclear- and hydro-electricity, and
renewable energy (commercial biomass, geothermal, wind and solar energy) [3].
Therefore, there is a need to find a technology that allows us to continue the use of
fossil fuels but with minimal or zero CO2 emission, which can prevent large quantities
of CO2 being released into the atmosphere. One such technology is Carbon Capture
and Storage or CCS. Fig. 2 shows the CCS lifecycle. The basic principle of CCS is by
capturing and isolating CO2 produced by emission sources, and then storing it [5].
Fig. 2. Carbon capture and storage lifecycle [6].
Capture is the most costly and energy-intensive step of the CCS process. This
paper tries to give a plain explanation about the carbon capture technology and
another approach to reduce CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. The way in which
CO2 can be captured depends fundamentally on the way that CO2 is produced. In
power generation and some other industrial processes (e.g. cement manufacture and
fluid catalytic cracking in refining), CO2 is the product of combustionburning of
fossil fuel which generates heat that turns into steam and that steam turns the
turbine connected to an electricity generatorand is present in the mixture of
exhaust gases leaving the plant. The separation of this CO 2 requires modification of
the traditional processes, often by adding an extra process step. In some other
industrial processes, CO2 separation is an integral part of the process. In both cases,
additional steps will almost always need to be taken to remove some unwanted
components from the separated CO2 (e.g. water) and to compress it for transport [7].
There are three main groups of technologies employedtheir applicability varies
according to the CO2 source: post-combustion, pre-combustion and oxy-fuel
combustion capture [2].
II.
CAPTURING CO2
1. Post-combustion Capture
The burning of fossil fuels produces exhaust gases which is also called as flue
gases. Flue gases include CO2, water vapor, sulfur dioxides and nitrogen oxides [2].
Post-combustion CO2 capture refers to removal of CO2 from the flue gas produced
from fossil fuel combustion. A simplified process schematic of post-combustion CO2
capture is shown in Fig. 3.
Fig. 3. Process schematic of post-combustion capture [8].
Post-combustion capture is primarily applicable to conventional pulverized

coal (PC)-fired power plants, where the fuel is burned with air in a boiler to produce
steam that drives a turbine/generator to produce electricity [5]. Post-combustion
capture involves removing CO2 from a flue gas stream after a fuel has been
combusted with air. Instead of flowing directly up the flue stack and into the
atmosphere, a slip-stream of the flue gas is cooled and then treated to separate the
CO2 at an adjoining capture plant [9].
The post-combustion technology area includes three key technologies:

solvents, sorbents and membranes.
a. Solvents
Solvent-based CO2 capture involves chemical or physical absorption of CO 2
from flue gas into a liquid carrier. The most commonly used liquid solvent for CO2
absorption is monoethanolamine (MEA). The fundamental reaction for this process is
[3]:
C2H4OHNH2 + H2O + CO2 C2H4OHNH3+ + HCO3-
(1)
The absorption liquid is regenerated by increasing its temperature or reducing

its pressure. Research projects in this key technology focus on the development of
low-cost, non-corrosive solvents that have a high CO2 loading capacity, improved
reaction kinetics, low regeneration energy, and resistance to degradation. In addition,
considerable effort is being applied to development of process design and integration
that leads to decreased capital and operating costs and enhanced performance.
Transformational technologies that may be pursued include both switchable and
non-switchable ionic liquids, catalyzed absorption that accelerates CO2 uptake in
solvents with lower regeneration energies, solvents that change phase in the
presence of CO2, and hybrid systems [10].
b. Sorbents
Solid sorbentsincluding sodium and potassium oxides, zeolites, carbonates,
amine-enriched sorbents, and metal organic frameworksare being explored for
post-combustion CO2 capture. A temperature or pressure swing facilitates sorbent
regeneration following chemical and/or physical adsorption. However, a key
attribute of CO2 sorbents (compared with solvent-based systems) is that no water is
present, thereby reducing sensible heating and stripping energy requirements.
Possible configurations for contacting the flue gas with the sorbents include fixed,
moving, and fluidized beds. Research projects in this key technology focus on
developing sorbents with the following characteristics: low-cost raw materials,
thermal and chemical stability, low attrition rates, low heat capacity, high CO 2
adsorption capacity, and high CO2 selectivity. Another important focus of this
research is to develop cost-effective process equipment designs that are tailored to
the sorbent characteristics. Transformational concepts being considered include

structured solid adsorbents (e.g., metal organic frameworks), enhanced pressure
swing adsorption (PSA) and temperature swing adsorption (TSA) processes, hybrid
systems, and electrochemical technologies [10].
c. Membranes
Membrane-based CO2 capture uses permeable or semi-permeable materials
that allow for the selective transport and separation of CO 2 from flue gas. Generally,
gas separation is accomplished by some physical or chemical interaction between the
membrane and the gas being separated, causing one component in the gas to
permeate through the membrane faster than another. Usually the selectivity of the
membrane is insufficient to achieve the desired purities and recoveries. Therefore
multiple stages and recycle streams may be required in an actual operation, leading
to increased complexity, energy consumption, and capital costs. Also under
development are gas absorption membrane technologies where the separation is
caused by the presence of an absorption liquid on one side of the membrane that
selectively removes CO2 from a gas stream on the other side of the membrane.
Research projects in this key technology address technical challenges to the use of
membrane-based systems, such as large flue gas volume, relatively low CO 2
concentration, low flue gas pressure, flue gas contaminants, and the need for high
membrane surface area [10].
The advantages and challenges associated with post-combustion capture using
solvents, sorbents, and membranes are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Post-Combustion Technology Advantages and Challenges [10].
CO2 Capture Technology
Solvents
Advantages
Challenges
Chemical solvents provide a high

chemical potential (or driving
force) necessary for selective
capture from streams with low
CO2 partial pressure
Wet-scrubbing allows good heat
integration and ease of heat
management
(useful
for
exothermic absorption reactions)
Tradeoff between heat of

reaction and kinetics; current
solvents require a significant
amount of steam to reverse
chemical
reactions
and
regenerate the solvent, which
derates power plant
Energy required to heat, cool,
and pump non-reactive carrier
liquid (usually water) is often
significant
Vacuum stripping can reduce

regeneration
steam
requirements, but is expensive
Solid Sorbents
Membranes
Chemical sites provide large

capacities and fast kinetics,
enabling capture from streams
with low CO2 partial pressure
Higher capacities on a per mass
or volume basis than similar wetscrubbing chemicals
Lower heating requirements
than wet-scrubbing in many
cases (CO2 and heat capacity
dependent)
Dry
processless
sensible
heating requirement than wetscrubbing process
No steam load
No chemicals
Simple and modular designs
Unit operation versus complex
process
Heat required to reverse

chemical reaction (although
generally less than in wetscrubbing cases)
Heat management in solid
systems is difficult, which can
limit capacity and/or create
operational
issues
when
absorption
reaction
is
exothermic
Pressure drop can be large in
flue gas applications
Sorbent attrition
Membranes tend to be more
suitable
for
high-pressure
processes such as IGCC
Tradeoff between recovery rate
and product purity (difficult to
attain both high recovery rate
and high purity)
Requires high selectivity (due
to CO2 concentration and low
pressure ratio)
Poor economy of scale
Multiple stages and recycle
streams may be required
2. Pre-combustion Capture
In pre-combustion carbon capture, CO2 is captured before the fossil fuel is
burned [2]. Capturing CO2 before combustion offers some advantages. First, CO2 is
not yet diluted by the combustion air. Second, the CO2 containing stream is usually at
elevated pressure. Therefore, more efficient separation methods can be applied, e.g.
using pressure-swing-absorption in physical solvents, such as methanol or
polyethylene glycol (commercial brands are called Rectisol and Selexol) [3].
Pre-combustion capture is usually applied in coal gasification combined cycle
(IGCC) power plants. This process includes gasifying the coal by applying heat under
pressure in the presence of steam and oxygen to produce a synthesis gas (syngas)
composed of CO and H2; reacting the CO with water (water-gas shift reactionWGS)
to produce CO2 and H2; capturing the CO2; and sending the H2 to a turbine to produce
electricity. Since the primary fuel sent to the gas turbine is now hydrogen, some can
be bled off as a fuel for separate use, such as in hydrogen fuel cells to be used in
transportation vehicles [3]. A simplified process schematic for pre-combustion CO2
capture is shown in Fig. 4.
Fig. 4. Process schematic of pre-combustion capture [8].
The pre-combustion technology area also includes three key technologies:

solvents, sorbents and membranes. The advantages and challenges associated with
pre-combustion capture using solvents, sorbents, and membranes are presented in
Table 2.
Table 2. Pre-combustion technology advantages and challenges [10].
CO2 Capture Technology
Physical Solvents
Solid Sorbents
Advantages
Challenges
CO2 recovery does not require

heat to reverse a chemical
reaction
Common for same solvent to
have high
H2S
solubility,
allowing for combined CO2/H2S
removal
System concepts in which CO2 is
recovered with some steam
stripping, rather than flashed,
and delivered at a higher
pressure
may
optimize
processes for power systems
CO2 recovery does not require
heat to reverse a reaction
Common for H2S to also have
high solubility in the same
sorbent, meaning CO2 and H2S
capture can be combined
System concepts in which CO2 is
recovered with some steam
CO2 pressure is lost during flash

recovery
Must cool down syngas for CO2
capture, then heat it back up
again and rehumidify for firing
to turbine
Low solubilities can require
circulating large volumes of
solvent, resulting in large pump
loads
Some H2 may be lost with the
CO2
CO2 pressure is lost during flash
recovery
Must cool syngas for CO2
capture, then heat it back up
again and rehumidify for firing
to turbine
Some H2 may be lost with the
CO2
H2/CO2 Membranes
stripping, rather than flashed,

and delivered at a higher
pressure
may
optimize
processes for power systems
H2 or CO2 Permeable Membrane
No steam load or chemical
attrition
H2 Permeable Membrane Only
Can deliver CO2 at high-pressure,
greatly reducing compression
costs
H2 permeation can drive the
carbon monoxide shift reaction
toward completionpotentially
achieving the shift at lower
cost/higher temperatures
Water-Gas-Shift
Membranes
Promote higher conversion of

carbon monoxide and H2O to
CO2 and H2 than is achieved in a
conventional WGS reactor
Reduce CO2 capture costs
Reduce H2 production costs
Increase net plant efficiency
Membrane separation of H2 and

CO2 is more challenging than the
difference in molecular weights
implies
Due to decreasing partial
pressure differentials, some H2
will be lost with the CO2
In H2 selective membranes, H2
compression is required and
offsets the gains of delivering
CO2 at pressure; in CO2 selective
membranes, CO2 is generated at
low
pressure,
requiring
compression
Single-stage
WGS
with
membrane integration
Improved selectivity of H2 or
CO2
Optimize membranes for WGS
reactor conditions
3. Oxy-fuel Combustion
When a fossil fuel is combusted in air, the fraction of CO 2 in the exhaust gas
ranges from 3-15%, depending on the carbon content of the fuel and the amount of
excess air necessary for the combustion process. The separation of CO 2 from the rest
of the flue gases (mostly N2) by chemical or physical means is capital and energy
intensive. An alternative is to burn the fossil fuel in pure or enriched oxygen. In such
a fashion the flue gas will contain mainly CO2 and H2O. A part of the flue gas needs to
be recycled into the combustion chamber in order to control the flame temperature.
From the non-recycled flue gas, water vapor can be readily condensed, and the CO2
can be compressed and piped directly to the storage site [3]. A simplified process
schematic for oxy-fuel CO2 capture is shown in Fig. 5.
Fig. 5. Process schematic of Oxy-fuel combustion capture [8].
Of course, the separation process has now shifted from the flue gas to the
intake air: one has to separate oxygen from nitrogen of the air. The air separation
unit (ASU) alone may consume about 15% of a power plants electric output,
requiring a commensurate increase of fossil fuel to be consumed for achieving the
rated electric output of the plant. In the ASU, air is separated into liquid oxygen,
gaseous nitrogen, argon and other minor ingredients of air. The latter are saleable
byproducts of the oxy-fuel plant. Pilot scale studies indicate that the oxy-fuel method
of capturing CO2 can be retrofitted to existing pulverized coal (PC) plants [3].
III.
Environmental Impact of CO2 Capture

Typically, an assessment of the environmental impact of the use of a
technology such as CO2 capture and compression would cover [11]:
emissions to atmosphere
releases to water courses
disposal of solid residues on land
noise and vibration
visual impact
water usage
raw material inputs
consequence of accidents
traffic to/from site

Compared with a similar plant without capture, emissions to atmosphere will
be substantially reduced (in terms of CO2) and other fuel-derived emissions may be
reduced slightly. There will be some release of chemical solvents, if used for capture,
10
due to slippage in the separation process but this release will be up the stack so
should have no local impact and will be dispersed along with the stack gases.
Releases to water may occur if water is used in the process, for example to
remove traces of solvent and products of degradation from the gas stream. The
increase in traffic to/from the site should be marginal (once construction has been
completed). Noise from plant may be increased slightly because of the extra rotating
equipment in use for capture and, especially, for compression of CO 2 but this can be
handled by suitable design of the enclosures. There may be some increase in visual
impact, mainly because of the height of the absorber and regenerator of the capture
unit, but this should not make a substantial difference in view of the visual impact of
the power plant itself.
Raw material usage will be increased substantially: there is likely to be a 10 30% increase in fuel use as well as the use of solvents. The main environmental
impact seems likely to be from the disposal of solid residues arising from use of
chemical solvents, especially MEA, depending on whether they are classified as
hazardous or not. Thus, chemical solvent absorption seems likely to have more
environmental impact than other capture schemes, although none will have large
impact [11].
IV.
Alternate Approaches
The carbon capture technologies which have been explained above can reduce
the CO2 emissions into the atmosphere significantly. However, there are conflicting
viewpoints on CCS. Greenpeace Internationalan environmental non-profit
organizationbased on peer-reviewed independent scientific research on 2008
reported that [12]:
CCS cannot deliver in time to avoid dangerous climate change. The earliest
possibility for deployment of CCS at utility scale is not expected before 2030.
To avoid the worst impacts of climate change, global greenhouse gas emissions
have to start falling after 2015, just seven years away.
CCS wastes energy. The technology uses between 10 and 40% of the energy
produced by a power station. Wide scale adoption of CCS is expected to erase
11
the efficiency gains of the last 50 years, and increase resource consumption by
one third.
Storing carbon underground is risky. Safe and permanent storage of CO2 cannot
be guaranteed. Even very low leakage rates could undermine any climate
mitigation efforts.
CCS is expensive. It could lead to a doubling of plant costs, and an electricity

price increase of 21-91%.4 Money spent on CCS will divert investments away
from sustainable solutions to climate change.
CCS carries significant liability risks. It poses a threat to health, ecosystems and
the climate. It is unclear how severe these risks will be.
Thus some alternative approaches that have been proposed for CO 2 capture
and/or storage are briefly identified. They are ones that have received significant
publicity and/or funding. Their inclusion is in no way an endorsement, just as the
exclusion of any approach is not a rejection.
1. Capture by Microalgae
The concept is to grow algae in artificial ponds, add the necessary nutrients
and fertilize the ponds with CO 2 from flue gas. Under these conditions it is possible to
enhance the growth of microalgae, harvest the algae biomass and convert it to food,
feed or fuel. At present, about 5000 tonnes of food and feed-grade microalgae
biomass are produced annually in large open pond systems. As such, this approach
cannot be considered as a sequestration method because the CO2 will be returned to
the atmosphere upon digestion and respiration of the food or feed. What is even
worse, when used as a feed to ruminating animals, some of the ingested carbon may
be converted to methane, which is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. But if the
biomass is converted to bio-fuel and subsequently combusted, then it replaces fossil
fuel, and thus the commensurate emission of fossil fuel generated CO 2 is avoided [3].
2. Capture by Ocean
CCS may seem to be a new technology to us but in fact it has been occurring
naturally throughout history. The ocean has the natural ability to absorb atmospheric
CO2. Actually it is the marine microorganism. According to a report by RSC (Royal
Society of Chemistry), about 90 gigatonnes of carbon are exchanged between the
12
ocean and the atmosphere each year with a net uptake by the ocean of 2.2 gigatonnes.
It is because of this ability and also with the increase in CO 2 emission that is causing
ocean acidification.
It has been hypothesized that by fertilizing the ocean with limiting nutrients
such as iron, the growth of marine phytoplankton will be stimulated, thus increasing
the uptake of atmospheric CO2 by the ocean. The presumption is that a portion of the
phytoplankton will eventually sink to the deep ocean. Researchers have targeted
high-nutrient-low-chlorophyll (HNLC) ocean regions, specifically the eastern
Equatorial Pacific, the northeastern Subarctic Pacific, and the Southern Oceans [3].
3. Mineral Storage
Several minerals found on the surface of the earth uptake CO2 from the
atmosphere with the formation of carbonates, and thus permanently storing the CO 2.
Such minerals are calcium and magnesium silicates. For example, the following
reaction occurs with serpentine, a magnesium silicate:
Mg3Si2O5(OH)4 + 3CO2(g) 3MgCO3 +2SiO2 + 2H2O(l)
(2)
While the reaction is thermodynamically favored, it is extremely slow in

nature (characteristic time on the order of a hundred thousand years). The challenge
is to speed up the reaction in order to be able to design an economically viable
process. Many reaction pathways have been explored to varying degrees. While some
have shown progress, none has yet resolved all the issues necessary to make a
commercial process [3].
4. Non-biological Capture from Air
The terrestrial biosphere routinely removes CO2 from air, primarily through
photosynthesis. It has been suggested that CO2 can also be removed from air via nonbiological means. While some concept papers have been published, no viable
methods to accomplish this goal have been proposed. The problem is that the partial
pressure of CO2 in the air is less than 0.0004 atm, compared to about 0.1 atm in flue
gas and up to 20 atm in synthesis gas. The difficulty in capture increases as the partial
pressure of CO2 decreases. Therefore, one can question whether CO2 can be captured
13
from air with acceptable energy penalties and costs. If so, it almost surely will take
development of a capture process very different from those that exist today [3].
5. Utilization
CO2 from fossil fuel could be utilized as a raw material in the chemical industry
for producing commercial products that are inert and long-lived, such as vulcanized
rubber, polyurethane foam and polycarbonates. Only a limited amount of CO2 can be
stored in such a fashion. Estimates of the worlds commercial sales for CO2 is less
than 0.1 GtC equivalent, compared to annual emissions of close to 7 GtC equivalent. It
has been suggested that CO2 could be recycled into a fuel. This would create a market
on the same scale as the CO2 emissions. However, to recycle CO2 to a fuel would
require a carbon-free energy source. If such a source existed, experience suggests
that it would be more efficient and cost-effective to use that source directly to
displace fossil fuels rather than to recycle CO2 [3].
V.
CLOSING
For all applications where CO2 separation is an inherent part of production,
CO2 capture processes are commercially available and in common use. In other
applications, such as coal-fired electricity generation, CO2 separation processes are
less advanced or require considerable redesign of traditional processes. This
roadmap makes a distinction between industrial processes with mature CO 2 capture
processes (first-phase) and industrial processes that require further technical
development and demonstration (second-phase) (Table 3). In general, first-phase
industrial applications are more mature than those in the power sector and are ready
for deployment, while second-phase applications are lagging behind the power sector
[7].
Carbon capture has been clearly demonstrated at pilot scale. The vital next
step is the successful demonstration of fully-integrated, large-scale CCS systems at
commercial scale. The technology already works, but more research is required to
reduce the cost and energy penalties for the next generations of technologies to be
made commercially available [5].
14
Table 3. Routes to CO2 capture in power generation (by fuel) and industrial applications (by
sector) [7]
15
Fig. 6. CCS research and development funnel [10].
Fig. 6 presents a research and development (R&D) funnel that portrays the
down-selection and corresponding scale up process. In this funnel example, a
successful outcome for the carbon capture R&D program is the development of two
commercially available CO2 capture technologies after a four-step down-selection
process that progresses from a large portfolio of laboratory/bench-scale projects
with high risk/low probability of success to a small portfolio of full-scale
demonstration projects with low risk/high probability of success. The progressive
down-selection process accompanying the technology scale up is necessary because
there is no practical means to predict eventual commercial success based on
laboratory/bench-scale test results [10].
16
REFERENCES
[1]
United Nations Environment Programme. Vital Climate

http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate/. (October 9, 2013)
[2]
Debra
Ronca.
How
Carbon
Capture
Works.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/carboncapture.htm. (October 9, 2013)
[3]
H. Herzog and D. Golomb. Carbon Capture and Storage from Fossil Fuel Use 1.
Contribution to Encyclopedia of Energy, Laboratory for Energy and the
Environment, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2004.
[4]
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Carbon Dioxide Capture and

Storage. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/srccs.htm. (October 9, 2013)
[5]
Global CCS Institute. Capturing CO2 Factsheet.
[6]
RPS Group. Carbon Capture and Storage.
[7]
International Energy Agency. Technology Roadmap Carbon Capture and

Storage, 2013 Edition.
[8]
National
Energy
Technology
Laboratory.
Carbon
Storage.
http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/FAQs/carboncapture1.ht
ml. (October 9, 2013)
[9]
Alberta Government. Carbon Capture and Storage. Summary Report of the

Regulatory Framework Assesment. Electricity and Alternative Energy and
Carbon Capture and Storage Division, Alberta Energy, 2013.
[10]
National Energy Technical Laboratory. Carbon Capture Technology Program

Plan. Clean Coal Research Program, US Department of Energy, Office of fossil
Energy, 2013.
[11]
Indonesia CCS Study Working Group. Understanding Carbon Capture and

Storage Potential in Indonesia (Final Draft), Strategic Programme FundTechnical Implementation on Understanding Carbon and Capture Potential in
Indonesia, 2009.
[12]
Greenpeace. False Hope: Why carbon capture and storage wont save the
climate.
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/media-center/reports/falsehope-why-carbon-capture/. (October 9, 2013)
Graphics.
17

Carbon Capture Technology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Carbon Capture Technology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Carbon Capture Technology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AN INTRODUCTION OF ENERGY SCIENCE