Comprehensive evaluation of various CO2 capture technologies through rigorous simulation: Economic, equipment footprint, and environmental analysis

The comprehensive evaluation of various CO 2 capture technologies from multiple perspectives remains limited, yet it is crucial for the successful implementation and deployment of carbon capture solutions to achieve carbon neutrality. This study presents a framework for assessing representative CO 2 capture processes from key point sources through rigorous simulation. Eight scenarios were developed and compared, comprising four standalone processes ( i.e. , physical absorption (PHYABS), chemical absorption (CHEABS), dual-reflux pressure swing adsorption (DRPSA) and pressure-temperature swing adsorption (PTSA)) and four hybrid processes that integrate different adsorption and absorption processes. To evaluate each scenario, an integrated indicator, the Economics, Equipment footprint, and Environmental Score (EEES), was introduced. Our results indicate that the standalone CHEABS exhibits the lowest EEES of 0.120, highlighting its technological readiness and superiority over other processes. In contrast, the standalone PHYABS (EEES=0.168) and the hybrid PHYABS/PTSA process (EEES=0.242) emerge as viable alternatives, balancing environmental performance with economic and spatial considerations. Standalone PTSA (EEES=0.465) and DRPSA (EEES=0.706) are less favorable because of their higher utility demands and larger equipment footprints. Similarly, hybrid processes, namely, DRPSA/CHEABS (EEES=0.891), CHEABS/PTSA (EEES=0.837), and DRPSA/PHYABS (EEES=0.784), are less advantageous across all three metrics. Furthermore, sensitivity analyses indicated that carbon permit prices exert a negligible effect on the process economics. Additionally, it appears that government subsidies may play a crucial role in facilitating the development of CO 2 capture technologies within the industrial sector. Overall, this study provides a robust framework for evaluating CO 2 capture processes and offers practical recommendations for technology deployment.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Carbon Capture Science & Technology
Published
2024-11-19
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccst.2024.100342
Citations
12
Primary Topic
Carbon Dioxide Capture Technologies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.55
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comprehensive evaluation of various CO2 capture technologies through rigorous simulation: Economic, equipment footprint, and environmental analysis

Hsuan-Han Chiu, Shufang Chang, Jin Shang, Bor‐Yih Yu et al.
12 citations
Carbon Capture Science & Technology
Carbon Dioxide Capture Technologies
2.55
article

Comprehensive evaluation of various CO2 capture technologies through rigorous simulation: Economic, equipment footprint, and environmental analysis

Hsuan-Han Chiu, Shufang Chang, Jin Shang, Bor‐Yih Yu, Yu-Jeng Lin, Han-Shu Jao
article en
12 citations

Abstract

The comprehensive evaluation of various CO 2 capture technologies from multiple perspectives remains limited, yet it is crucial for the successful implementation and deployment of carbon capture solutions to achieve carbon neutrality. This study presents a framework for assessing representative CO 2 capture processes from key point sources through rigorous simulation. Eight scenarios were developed and compared, comprising four standalone processes ( i.e. , physical absorption (PHYABS), chemical absorption (CHEABS), dual-reflux pressure swing adsorption (DRPSA) and pressure-temperature swing adsorption (PTSA)) and four hybrid processes that integrate different adsorption and absorption processes. To evaluate each scenario, an integrated indicator, the Economics, Equipment footprint, and Environmental Score (EEES), was introduced. Our results indicate that the standalone CHEABS exhibits the lowest EEES of 0.120, highlighting its technological readiness and superiority over other processes. In contrast, the standalone PHYABS (EEES=0.168) and the hybrid PHYABS/PTSA process (EEES=0.242) emerge as viable alternatives, balancing environmental performance with economic and spatial considerations. Standalone PTSA (EEES=0.465) and DRPSA (EEES=0.706) are less favorable because of their higher utility demands and larger equipment footprints. Similarly, hybrid processes, namely, DRPSA/CHEABS (EEES=0.891), CHEABS/PTSA (EEES=0.837), and DRPSA/PHYABS (EEES=0.784), are less advantageous across all three metrics. Furthermore, sensitivity analyses indicated that carbon permit prices exert a negligible effect on the process economics. Additionally, it appears that government subsidies may play a crucial role in facilitating the development of CO 2 capture technologies within the industrial sector. Overall, this study provides a robust framework for evaluating CO 2 capture processes and offers practical recommendations for technology deployment.

Carbon Capture Science & TechnologyVol. 14
National Taiwan University (TW), City University of Hong Kong (HK), Purdue University West Lafayette (US), National Tsing Hua University (TW)
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Carbon Dioxide Capture Technologies
2.55
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.