Eine Plattform für die Wissenschaft: Bauingenieurwesen, Architektur und Urbanistik
Eine Plattform für die Wissenschaft: Bauingenieurwesen, Architektur und Urbanistik
Comparison of technologies for CO2 capture from cement production—Part 1: Technical evaluation
A technical evaluation of CO 2 capture technologies when retrofitted to a cement plant is performed. The investigated technologies are the oxyfuel process, the chilled ammonia process, membrane-assisted CO 2 liquefaction, and the calcium looping process with tail-end and integrated configurations. For comparison, absorption with monoethanolamine (MEA) is used as reference technology. The focus of the evaluation is on emission abatement, energy performance, and retrofitability. All the investigated technologies perform better than the reference both in terms of emission abatement and energy consumption. The equivalent CO 2 avoided are 73–90%, while it is 64% for MEA, considering the average EU-28 electricity mix. The specific primary energy consumption for CO 2 avoided is 1.63–4.07 MJ/kg CO 2 , compared to 7.08 MJ/kg CO 2 for MEA. The calcium looping technologies have the highest emission abatement potential, while the oxyfuel process has the best energy performance. When it comes to retrofitability, the post-combustion technologies show significant advantages compared to the oxyfuel and to the integrated calcium looping technologies. Furthermore, the performance of the individual technologies shows strong dependencies on site-specific and plant-specific factors. Therefore, rather than identifying one single best technology, it is emphasized that CO 2 capture in the cement industry should be performed with a portfolio of capture technologies, where the preferred choice for each specific plant depends on local factors.
Comparison of technologies for CO2 capture from cement production—Part 1: Technical evaluation
A technical evaluation of CO 2 capture technologies when retrofitted to a cement plant is performed. The investigated technologies are the oxyfuel process, the chilled ammonia process, membrane-assisted CO 2 liquefaction, and the calcium looping process with tail-end and integrated configurations. For comparison, absorption with monoethanolamine (MEA) is used as reference technology. The focus of the evaluation is on emission abatement, energy performance, and retrofitability. All the investigated technologies perform better than the reference both in terms of emission abatement and energy consumption. The equivalent CO 2 avoided are 73–90%, while it is 64% for MEA, considering the average EU-28 electricity mix. The specific primary energy consumption for CO 2 avoided is 1.63–4.07 MJ/kg CO 2 , compared to 7.08 MJ/kg CO 2 for MEA. The calcium looping technologies have the highest emission abatement potential, while the oxyfuel process has the best energy performance. When it comes to retrofitability, the post-combustion technologies show significant advantages compared to the oxyfuel and to the integrated calcium looping technologies. Furthermore, the performance of the individual technologies shows strong dependencies on site-specific and plant-specific factors. Therefore, rather than identifying one single best technology, it is emphasized that CO 2 capture in the cement industry should be performed with a portfolio of capture technologies, where the preferred choice for each specific plant depends on local factors.
Comparison of technologies for CO2 capture from cement production—Part 1: Technical evaluation
Voldsund, Mari (Autor:in) / Gardarsdottir, Stefania Osk (Autor:in) / De Lena, Edoardo (Autor:in) / Pérez-Calvo, José-Francisco (Autor:in) / Jamali, Armin (Autor:in) / Berstad, David (Autor:in) / Fu, Chao (Autor:in) / Romano, Matteo (Autor:in) / Roussanaly, Simon (Autor:in) / Anantharaman, Rahul (Autor:in)
01.01.2019
Aufsatz (Zeitschrift)
Elektronische Ressource
Englisch
Cement production with CO 2 capture , CO 2 capture , Calcium looping , CO 2 capture retrofitability , Energy (miscellaneous) , Oxyfuel , Energy Engineering and Power Technology , Sustainability and the Environment , Chilled ammonia , CO 2 capture in industry , Renewable Energy , Membrane-assisted CO 2 liquefaction , Electrical and Electronic Engineering , Control and Optimization
DDC:
690
Comparison of Technologies for CO2 Capture from Cement Production—Part 1: Technical Evaluation
| BASE | 2019
Comparison of Technologies for CO2 Capture from Cement Production — Part 2: Cost Analysis
| BASE | 2019
Comparison of technologies for CO2 capture from cement production—Part 2: Cost analysis
| BASE | 2019
Cement : production-technical journal
TIBKAT | 1956(1956/58) - 1957(1958) nachgewiesen