{"title":"开发一个框架,比较碳捕获和储存技术作为脱碳水泥生产的一种手段","authors":"G. Clark, M. Davis, A. Kumar","doi":"10.1016/j.rser.2025.115556","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Cement production is hard to abate given that energy-efficiency measures and fuel switching have no impact on process emissions and a limited impact on total greenhouse gas emissions. Alternative cements and decarbonized raw materials can reduce process emissions; however, complete decarbonization requires carbon capture. Yet, most decarbonization roadmaps and studies generalize carbon capture without acknowledging differences between the technologies or regions in which they are implemented. To address this gap, we developed a bottom-up technology-explicit model of the cement sector to compare six technologies: chemical absorption, physical adsorption, membrane absorption, calcium looping, partial oxyfuel technology, and full oxyfuel technology. We explored energy and greenhouse gas impacts, capital costs, non-energy operating costs, energy costs, and carbon costs. A case study for Canada demonstrated that carbon capture technologies can be implemented at emissions abatement costs of −22 to 1 CAD/t CO<sub>2</sub>e, accounting for carbon price credits. Our findings show that energy can account for up to 81 % of the total costs, eroding the benefit of avoided carbon costs and increasing sensitivity to energy prices. However, carbon pricing still strongly influences the economics of carbon capture technologies and a minimum carbon price of 90 CAD/t CO<sub>2</sub>e by 2030 ensures carbon capture remains economical across Canada. The developed framework can used globally to help develop policy formulation and inform investment.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":418,"journal":{"name":"Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews","volume":"214 ","pages":"Article 115556"},"PeriodicalIF":16.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The development of a framework to compare carbon capture and storage technologies as a means of decarbonizing cement production\",\"authors\":\"G. Clark, M. Davis, A. Kumar\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.rser.2025.115556\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Cement production is hard to abate given that energy-efficiency measures and fuel switching have no impact on process emissions and a limited impact on total greenhouse gas emissions. Alternative cements and decarbonized raw materials can reduce process emissions; however, complete decarbonization requires carbon capture. Yet, most decarbonization roadmaps and studies generalize carbon capture without acknowledging differences between the technologies or regions in which they are implemented. To address this gap, we developed a bottom-up technology-explicit model of the cement sector to compare six technologies: chemical absorption, physical adsorption, membrane absorption, calcium looping, partial oxyfuel technology, and full oxyfuel technology. We explored energy and greenhouse gas impacts, capital costs, non-energy operating costs, energy costs, and carbon costs. A case study for Canada demonstrated that carbon capture technologies can be implemented at emissions abatement costs of −22 to 1 CAD/t CO<sub>2</sub>e, accounting for carbon price credits. Our findings show that energy can account for up to 81 % of the total costs, eroding the benefit of avoided carbon costs and increasing sensitivity to energy prices. However, carbon pricing still strongly influences the economics of carbon capture technologies and a minimum carbon price of 90 CAD/t CO<sub>2</sub>e by 2030 ensures carbon capture remains economical across Canada. The developed framework can used globally to help develop policy formulation and inform investment.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":418,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews\",\"volume\":\"214 \",\"pages\":\"Article 115556\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032125002291\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENERGY & FUELS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032125002291","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENERGY & FUELS","Score":null,"Total":0}
The development of a framework to compare carbon capture and storage technologies as a means of decarbonizing cement production
Cement production is hard to abate given that energy-efficiency measures and fuel switching have no impact on process emissions and a limited impact on total greenhouse gas emissions. Alternative cements and decarbonized raw materials can reduce process emissions; however, complete decarbonization requires carbon capture. Yet, most decarbonization roadmaps and studies generalize carbon capture without acknowledging differences between the technologies or regions in which they are implemented. To address this gap, we developed a bottom-up technology-explicit model of the cement sector to compare six technologies: chemical absorption, physical adsorption, membrane absorption, calcium looping, partial oxyfuel technology, and full oxyfuel technology. We explored energy and greenhouse gas impacts, capital costs, non-energy operating costs, energy costs, and carbon costs. A case study for Canada demonstrated that carbon capture technologies can be implemented at emissions abatement costs of −22 to 1 CAD/t CO2e, accounting for carbon price credits. Our findings show that energy can account for up to 81 % of the total costs, eroding the benefit of avoided carbon costs and increasing sensitivity to energy prices. However, carbon pricing still strongly influences the economics of carbon capture technologies and a minimum carbon price of 90 CAD/t CO2e by 2030 ensures carbon capture remains economical across Canada. The developed framework can used globally to help develop policy formulation and inform investment.
期刊介绍:
The mission of Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews is to disseminate the most compelling and pertinent critical insights in renewable and sustainable energy, fostering collaboration among the research community, private sector, and policy and decision makers. The journal aims to exchange challenges, solutions, innovative concepts, and technologies, contributing to sustainable development, the transition to a low-carbon future, and the attainment of emissions targets outlined by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews publishes a diverse range of content, including review papers, original research, case studies, and analyses of new technologies, all featuring a substantial review component such as critique, comparison, or analysis. Introducing a distinctive paper type, Expert Insights, the journal presents commissioned mini-reviews authored by field leaders, addressing topics of significant interest. Case studies undergo consideration only if they showcase the work's applicability to other regions or contribute valuable insights to the broader field of renewable and sustainable energy. Notably, a bibliographic or literature review lacking critical analysis is deemed unsuitable for publication.