Capturing or offsetting carbon emissions: techno-economic evaluation of decarbonising industries with CO2-lean flue gas

IF 5.9 3区 工程技术 Q2 ENERGY & FUELS
Sina Hoseinpoori, David Pallarès, Filip Johnsson
{"title":"Capturing or offsetting carbon emissions: techno-economic evaluation of decarbonising industries with CO2-lean flue gas","authors":"Sina Hoseinpoori,&nbsp;David Pallarès,&nbsp;Filip Johnsson","doi":"10.1016/j.ijggc.2026.104803","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This work investigates the technical feasibility and costs of carbon capture from industrial emission sources with CO₂ concentrations of 0.5–4.0%. Three post-combustion capture schemes are considered: monoethanolamine absorption (MEA-ABS); alkali absorption combined with calcium looping (ALK-ABS); and temperature vacuum swing adsorption (TVSA), the latter two commonly investigated for direct air capture. Capture and avoidance costs are compared across industrial sectors, varying the flow rate and CO₂ concentration of the flue gas, and contrasted with the price of offsetting the emissions through purchases of carbon dioxide removal credits at current voluntary-market prices.</div><div>The results show that MEA-ABS has the lowest levelized cost of capture (LCOC) for flue gas streams with larger flow rates (&gt;200 t/h) and CO₂ concentrations ≥1%. TVSA presents the lowest LCOC at lower flow rates (especially &lt;100 t/h), while ALK-ABS has the lowest LCOC only within a small window of low CO₂ concentration (0.5–1%) and 100–200 t/h. Accounting for the carbon footprints of the input energy changes this picture: the carbon avoidance costs (assuming a transport and storage cost of 105 $/tCO₂) reach their lowest values with ALK-ABS, unless heat with a low carbon intensity is available for MEA-ABS. Comparing the cost of carbon avoidance with carbon dioxide removal credits on the voluntary market, it can be more economical for industries with flue gases with CO₂ concentrations &lt;2.6% to offset their emissions through the purchase of such credits than to install any of the post-combustion capture technologies considered here.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":334,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control","volume":"156 ","pages":"Article 104803"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1750583626002355","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENERGY & FUELS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This work investigates the technical feasibility and costs of carbon capture from industrial emission sources with CO₂ concentrations of 0.5–4.0%. Three post-combustion capture schemes are considered: monoethanolamine absorption (MEA-ABS); alkali absorption combined with calcium looping (ALK-ABS); and temperature vacuum swing adsorption (TVSA), the latter two commonly investigated for direct air capture. Capture and avoidance costs are compared across industrial sectors, varying the flow rate and CO₂ concentration of the flue gas, and contrasted with the price of offsetting the emissions through purchases of carbon dioxide removal credits at current voluntary-market prices.
The results show that MEA-ABS has the lowest levelized cost of capture (LCOC) for flue gas streams with larger flow rates (>200 t/h) and CO₂ concentrations ≥1%. TVSA presents the lowest LCOC at lower flow rates (especially <100 t/h), while ALK-ABS has the lowest LCOC only within a small window of low CO₂ concentration (0.5–1%) and 100–200 t/h. Accounting for the carbon footprints of the input energy changes this picture: the carbon avoidance costs (assuming a transport and storage cost of 105 $/tCO₂) reach their lowest values with ALK-ABS, unless heat with a low carbon intensity is available for MEA-ABS. Comparing the cost of carbon avoidance with carbon dioxide removal credits on the voluntary market, it can be more economical for industries with flue gases with CO₂ concentrations <2.6% to offset their emissions through the purchase of such credits than to install any of the post-combustion capture technologies considered here.
捕获或抵消碳排放:利用低二氧化碳烟气脱碳工业的技术经济评价
本文研究了二氧化碳浓度为0.5-4.0%的工业排放源碳捕获的技术可行性和成本。考虑了三种燃烧后捕获方案:单乙醇胺吸收(MEA-ABS);碱吸收结合钙环(ALK-ABS);和温度真空摆动吸附(TVSA),后两者通常用于直接空气捕获。通过改变烟道气体的流速和CO 2浓度,对各个工业部门的捕集和避免成本进行了比较,并与以当前自愿市场价格通过购买二氧化碳去除信用额度来抵消排放的价格进行了对比。结果表明,对于大流量(200 t/h)、CO₂浓度≥1%的烟气流,MEA-ABS具有最低的平准化捕集成本(LCOC)。TVSA在低流量下(特别是100 t/h) LCOC最低,而ALK-ABS仅在低CO₂浓度(0.5-1%)和100 - 200 t/h的小窗口内LCOC最低。考虑到输入能量的碳足迹,这一情况发生了变化:碳避免成本(假设运输和储存成本为105美元/tCO₂)在ALK-ABS中达到最低值,除非MEA-ABS可以获得低碳强度的热量。将避免碳排放的成本与自愿市场上的二氧化碳去除信用额进行比较,对于CO₂浓度为2.6%的烟气行业来说,通过购买这种信用额来抵消其排放,可能比安装本文所考虑的任何燃烧后捕获技术更为经济。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
10.30%
发文量
199
审稿时长
4.8 months
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control is a peer reviewed journal focusing on scientific and engineering developments in greenhouse gas control through capture and storage at large stationary emitters in the power sector and in other major resource, manufacturing and production industries. The Journal covers all greenhouse gas emissions within the power and industrial sectors, and comprises both technical and non-technical related literature in one volume. Original research, review and comments papers are included.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书