There are multiple possible carbon capture technologies for large stationary point sources.
The maturities of most of the technologies are low and it is possible that development occurs during the next 30 years. For example, the cost of chemical scrubbing could be reduced with solvent development.
Innovator Energy has reported that their post-combustion system with novel solvent can utilize low temperature waste heat and the sizing of the equipment is only 20% compared to a conventional process. Solvent degradation is also claimed to be eliminated, which would lead to minimal variable operational costs (Innovator Energy, 2019). Reported regeneration energy requirement for the solvent is 386 kWh/tCO2, which is only 35% of current benchmark solvent energy consumption (1100 kWh/tCO2) (Novek et al., 2016,294). A rough estimate by six-tenths rule shows that 80% reduction in equipment sizing would lead to reduced capital cost from 200 €/t/a to 76 €/t/a. If 0% variable opex, free waste heat and an electricity cost of 40€/MWh is assumed, this would yield a capture cost of 15.8 €/tCO2. In addition to decreased capture cost, utilizing low grade heat would be revolutionary as the energy adequacy would not be a problem in industrial sites such as pulp or cement mills.
On the other hand, Carbon Clean Solutions presents that with their developed solvent, the regeneration energy and solvent flow rates are both 40% smaller compared to MEA (Carbon Clean Solutions, 2019). 40% reduction in energy consumption means 660 kWh/tCO2 and 40% reduction in equipment size yields a capital cost of 147 €/t/a. Again, if 0% variable opex, free waste heat and an electricity price of 40 €/MWh is assumed, the capture cost is 24.9 €/tCO2. This is in accordance with the prediction of the company, which as estimated that the capture cost would be as low as 18 €/tCO2 between 2020-2025 (Carbon Clean Solutions, 2019). Compared to current estimations, a carbon capture cost of 16-25 €/t CO2
seems revolutionary. In such a situation, the major part of the cost would be associated to the final compression of CO2. It is thus unlikely, that the cost of carbon capture will ever decrease close to the cost of compression, which is roughly 10 €/tCO2.
Solvent development is an example of radical development step taken in the area of carbon capture. Another radical step could be the performance development of membranes, as the reported cost estimates in literature are very low. Implementation of adsorption-based post-combustion technology could also be a very promising option. Water electrolysis produces oxygen as a side stream, and if it is implemented in large scale, massive cheap oxygen sources could be available for oxy-combustion, chemical looping and calcium looping technologies. As the energy system is currently on transition and it seems that the share of conventional thermal power plants is decreasing, one could question the need for development of alternative combustion technologies, such as oxy-fuel, chemical looping or pre-combustion. However, these technologies could be used in industrial processes where high-grade heat is needed. Waste incineration is probably one key tool in waste management in future and in addition to post-combustion technologies, alternative combustion technologies could be used there. Leeson et al (2019) estimated that the avoided cost for calcium looping technology could be 16.7 €/tCO2 and 45.8 €/tCO2 for post-combustion amine absorption in 2050. If a general conversion from avoided cost to captured cost is assumed to be 0.75 (Rolfe et al., 2017), the corresponding costs would be 12.5 €/tCO2 and 34.3 €/tCO2. Compared to the costs resulted in this work, 51.4 €/tCO2 and 60.5 €/tCO2, the cost reduction of calcium looping technology seems quite large, whereas the cost reduction of amine absorption could be easily achieved with the values presented by Innovator Energy and Carbon Clean Solutions. In general, most of the carbon capture technologies are still in development phase, so the number of estimations of the cost development is very limited.
Large-scale implementation of direct air capture technologies for CCU purposes seems unreasonable. The separation of CO2 from atmospheric air is certainly costlier compared to utilization of point sources. However, if the carbon capture demand for climate mitigation is taken into account, also direct air capture should be used. In addition, the emissions from steel and cement industry are fossil-origin and utilizing them for synthetic fuel production could lead to increased costs (Fasihi et al. 2019). The benefit of direct air capture is the fact,
that it is carbon neutral, if the overall chain from capturing to synthetic fuel production is done with renewable energy. Calculated cost for direct air capture technologies is currently between 180-238 €/tCO2. A detailed cost estimation from Fasihi et al. (2019) concluded that if large-scale implementation of DAC technologies starts immediately and reaches annual capacity of 15 Gt/a by 2050, the capture cost could be even less than 20 €/tCO2. However, with current DAC cost estimations, the utilization of point sources is undoubtedly more attractive, and the development of DAC technologies will most likely be delayed.
The implementation of large-scale carbon capture projects will be strongly dependent on their economic feasibility. In addition to possible development related to high capital cost and energy consumption of different technologies, the regulatory framework and policies will surely be significant drivers in the implementation rate of carbon capture projects. To reach the emission reduction goals, large-scale CCS and CCU projects are most likely needed and to promote the development, both CCS and CCU should be actively subsidized.
7 CONCLUSIONS
During the coming years, the demand for carbon capture is expected to increase, whereas the availability of CO2 streams is expected to decrease. Relatively pure carbon dioxide is available as a side stream from different processes such as ammonia production, ethanol fermentation, natural gas sweetening and biogas upgrading. However, the availability of these sources is limited, and the utilization of large point sources from industrial processes and waste incineration is required to ensure the CO2 adequacy for synthetic fuel production, which is needed for grid stabilization and non-road transport sector.
Techno-economic evaluation made in this work confirmed that there are multiple different carbon capture technologies, all of them with their specific opportunities and restrictions.
Carbon dioxide separation by solvent scrubbing and regenerative absorption-desorption cycle is currently the main method. Physical solvents are used for CO2 streams with higher initial concentration, whereas chemical solvents are used for lower initial concentrations.
The only commercially available carbon capture technology for large-scale point sources is chemical scrubbing with amine solvents. Emerging technologies include membrane separation, post-combustion adsorption, calcium looping and novel combustion technologies, oxy-combustion and chemical looping combustion. In addition, fuel gasification and CO2 separation from syngas before combustion is a possible method.
The utilization of high-concentration CO2 sources is the cheapest option with an estimated cost of 10 €/tCO2. Carbon capture from large and diluted point sources is significantly more expensive with an estimated cost of 65 €/tCO2 with currently available technology.
Emerging technologies result lower cost estimations, but large-scale demonstration plants are needed to confirm them.
REFERENCES
Abanades, J. C. et al. (2015) ‘Emerging CO2 capture systems’, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 40, pp. 126–166. doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.04.018.
Abdilahi, A. M. et al. (2018) ‘Harnessing flexibility potential of flexible carbon capture power plants for future low carbon power systems: Review’, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. Elsevier Ltd, 81(September 2017), pp. 3101–3110. doi:
10.1016/j.rser.2017.08.085.
Adánez, J. et al. (2018) ‘Chemical looping combustion of solid fuels’, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 65, pp. 6–66. doi: 10.1016/j.pecs.2017.07.005.
Andrew, R. M. (2017) ‘Global CO 2 emissions from cement production’, Earth System Science Data, pp. 1–52.
Angelidaki, I. et al. (2018) ‘Biogas upgrading and utilization: Current status and perspectives’, Biotechnology Advances. Elsevier, 36(2), pp. 452–466. doi:
10.1016/j.biotechadv.2018.01.011.
Ansaloni, L. et al. (2019) ‘CO 2 capture using highly viscous amine blends in non-porous membrane contactors’, Chemical Engineering Journal. Elsevier, 359(September 2018), pp.
1581–1591. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2018.11.014.
Appels, L. et al. (2011) ‘Anaerobic digestion in global bio-energy production: Potential and research challenges’, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. Elsevier Ltd, 15(9), pp.
4295–4301. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.121.
Audi (2015) ‘Fuel of the future: Research facility in Dresden produces first batch of Audi e-diesel’, pp. 3–5.
Bai, H. and Yeh, A. C. (1997) ‘Removal of CO 2 Greenhouse Gas by Ammonia Scrubbing’, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 36(6), pp. 2490–2493. doi:
10.1021/ie960748j.
Ben-Mansour, R. et al. (2016) ‘Carbon capture by physical adsorption: Materials, experimental investigations and numerical modeling and simulations - A review’, Applied Energy. Elsevier Ltd, 161, pp. 225–255. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.10.011.
Bogdanov, D. et al. (2019) ‘Radical transformation pathway towards sustainable electricity via evolutionary steps’, Nature Communications. Springer US, 10(1), pp. 1–16. doi:
10.1038/s41467-019-08855-1.
Boyce, J. K. (2018) ‘Carbon Pricing: Effectiveness and Equity’, Ecological Economics, 150(March), pp. 52–61. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.03.030.
BP (2019) ‘Energy Outlook 2019 Edition’, Bp, (February), pp. 1–5.
Bradbury, J., Clement, Z. and Down, A. (2015) ‘Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Use within the Natural Gas Supply Chain – Sankey Diagram Methodology’, pp. 1–22.
Brandani, S. et al. (2008) Adsoption and diffusion. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-73966-1.
Broehm, M., Strefler, J. and Bauer, N. (2015) ‘Techno-Economic Review of Direct Air Capture Systems for Large Scale Mitigation of Atmospheric CO2’, Ssrn, pp. 1–28. doi:
10.2139/ssrn.2665702.
Bruhn, T., Naims, H. and Olfe-Kräutlein, B. (2016) ‘Separating the debate on CO 2 utilisation from carbon capture and storage’, Environmental Science and Policy. Elsevier Ltd, 60, pp. 38–43. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.03.001.
Buhre, B. J. P. et al. (2005) ‘Oxy-fuel combustion technology for coal-fired power generation’, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 31(4), pp. 283–307. doi:
10.1016/j.pecs.2005.07.001.
Bui, M. et al. (2018) ‘Carbon capture and storage (CCS): The way forward’, Energy and Environmental Science, 11(5), pp. 1062–1176. doi: 10.1039/c7ee02342a.
Carbon Clean Solutions (2019) Cost-Cutting Technology for CO2 capture & Reuse - CDRMax Flue Gas Process. Available at: https://carboncleansolutions.com/file/5/CDR-Max-Brochure.pdf.
Carbon Engineering (2019) ‘History and Trajectory’.
Carrasco-Maldonado, F. et al. (2016) ‘Oxy-fuel combustion technology for cement production - State of the art research and technology development’, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control. Elsevier Ltd, 45, pp. 189–199. doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.12.014.
CCS Norway (2019) Full scale: capture, transport and storage of CO2. Available at:
https://ccsnorway.com/the-project/tech-specs (Accessed: 24 July 2019).
Chichilnisky, G. (2018) Carbon negative power plants and their impact on environment.
Available at: https://chichilnisky.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Carbon-Negative-Power-Plants-And-Their-Impact-On-Environment-1.pdf.
Climeworks (2017) Climeworks starts plant in Iceland and thereby creates the world’s first carbon removal solution through direct air capture. Available at:
http://www.climeworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/PR-Climeworks-CarbFix-Carbon-Removal-1.pdf.
Climeworks (2018) Climeworks launches DAC-3 plant in Italy. Available at:
https://www.climeworks.com/climeworks-launches-dac-3-plant-in-italy/.
Cormos, C. C. (2011) ‘Evaluation of power generation schemes based on hydrogen-fuelled combined cycle with carbon capture and storage (CCS)’, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. Elsevier Ltd, 36(5), pp. 3726–3738. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.12.042.
Cozma, P. et al. (2013) ‘Environmental impact assessment of high pressure water scrubbing biogas upgrading technology’, Clean - Soil, Air, Water, 41(9), pp. 917–927. doi:
10.1002/clen.201200303.
Darde, V. et al. (2009) ‘Chilled ammonia process for CO2 capture’, Energy Procedia.
Elsevier Ltd, 1(1), pp. 1035–1042. doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2009.01.137.
EU (2019) Market stability reserve. Available at:
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/reform_en (Accessed: 28 August 2019).
Eurofer (2013) ‘A steel roadmap for a low carbon europe 2050’.
ExxonMobil (2019) ‘ExxonMobil and Global Thermostat to advance breakthrough atmospheric carbon capture technology’.
FAO (2011) ‘FAO Outlook Study on Sustainable Forest Industries: Opening Pathways to Low-Carbon Economy’.
Farfan, J., Fasihi, M. and Breyer, C. (2019) ‘Trends in the global cement industry and opportunities for long-term sustainable CCU potential for Power-to-X’, Journal of Cleaner Production. Elsevier Ltd, 217, pp. 821–835. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.226.
Fasihi, M., Bogdanov, D. and Breyer, C. (2017) ‘Long-term hydrocarbon trade options for the Maghreb region and Europe-renewable energy based synthetic fuels for a net zero emissions world’, Sustainability (Switzerland), 9(2). doi: 10.3390/su9020306.
Fasihi, M., Efimova, O. and Breyer, C. (2019) ‘Techno-economic assessment of CO 2 direct air capture plants’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 224, pp. 957–980. doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.086.
Franz, J. et al. (2013) ‘Investigating the influence of sweep gas on CO2/N2 membranes for post-combustion capture’, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control. Elsevier Ltd, 13, pp. 180–190. doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2012.12.008.
Friedrich, M. and Pahle, M. (2019) ‘Allowance prices in the EU ETS -- fundamental price
drivers and the recent upward trend’, pp. 1–39.
Geerolf, L. (2018) ‘The biogas sector development: Current and future trends in Western and Northern Europe’, p. 62.
Hanak, D. P., Anthony, E. J. and Manovic, V. (2015) ‘A review of developments in pilot-plant testing and modelling of calcium looping process for CO<inf>2</inf> capture from power generation systems’, Energy and Environmental Science. Royal Society of Chemistry, 8(8), pp. 2199–2249. doi: 10.1039/c5ee01228g.
Hilz, J. et al. (2019) ‘Scale-up of the carbonate looping process to a 20 MWth pilot plant based on long-term pilot tests’, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control. Elsevier, 88(April), pp. 332–341. doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.04.026.
Ibikunle, G. and Gregoriou, A. (2018) Carbon Markets - microstructure, pricing & policy.
Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature, Springer International Publishing AG.
ICAP (2018) ‘Emissions Trading Worldwide: Status Report 2018 (Executive Summary)’, p.
14.
IEA (2017) ‘Energy Technology Perspectives 2017’. doi: 10.1787/energy_tech-2017-en.
IEA (2018a) ‘CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion 2018 Highlights’, International energy agency, 1(1), p. 164. doi: 10.1787/co2_fuel-2014-en.
IEA (2018b) Renewables 2018 - Market analysis and forecast from 2018 to 2023. Available at: https://www.iea.org/renewables2018/transport/ (Accessed: 14 August 2019).
IEA (2018c) ‘World energy balances: overview’, Word Energy Balances 2018, (c), p. 24.
doi: 10.15713/ins.mmj.3.
IEA (2019a) ‘Transforming industry through CCUS’.
IEA (2019b) ‘World Energy Investment 2019 Message from the Executive Director’, p. 176.
InnovatorEnergy (2019) Technology Overview. Available at:
https://innovatorenergy.com/co2evolution/.
IOGP (2019) ‘The potential for CCS and CCU in Europe - Report to the thirty second meeting of the European gas regulatory forum 5-6 June 2019’, (May).
IPCC (2005) IPCC Special Report on Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage, Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. doi: 10.1021/es200619j.
IPCC (2006) ‘Special Report on Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage - Annex I’, IPCC Special Report on Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage, pp. 383–400.
IPCC (2018) ‘IPCC special report: Global Warming of 1.5 C - Summary for policymakers’,
pp. 1–21.
IRENA (2018) Renewable capacity statistics 2018 Statistiques de capacité renouvelable 2018 Estadísticas de capacidad renovable 2018. doi: 10.1016/S2255-4971(15)30126-9.
Irlam, L. (2017) ‘GLOBAL COSTS OF CARBON CAPTURE AND 2017 Update Tables and Figures’, (June).
Jackson, S. and Brodal, E. (2018) ‘A comparison of the energy consumption for CO2 compression process alternatives’, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 167(1). doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/167/1/012031.
Jansen, D. et al. (2015) ‘Pre-combustion CO2 capture’, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control. Elsevier Ltd, 40, pp. 167–187. doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.05.028.
Jin, H., Liu, P. and Li, Z. (2018) ‘Energy-efficient process intensification for post-combustion CO2 capture: A modeling approach’, Energy, 158, pp. 471–483. doi:
10.1016/j.energy.2018.06.045.
Kärki, J. et al. (2018) ‘Uutta kestävää liiketoimintaa bioperäisestä hiilidioksidista - Kooste projektin päätuloksista’, pp. 1–40.
Kaza, S. et al. (no date) What a waste 2.0 - A global snapshot of solid waste management to 2050, Urban development Series. Washington, DC: World Bank. doi: :10.1596/978-1-4648 -1329-0.
Keith, D. W. et al. (2018) ‘A Process for Capturing CO2 from the Atmosphere’, Joule.
Elsevier Inc., 2(8), pp. 1573–1594. doi: 10.1016/j.joule.2018.05.006.
Khalilpour, R. et al. (2015) ‘Membrane-based carbon capture from flue gas: A review’, Journal of Cleaner Production. Elsevier Ltd, 103, pp. 286–300. doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.050.
Khurana, M. and Farooq, S. (2019) ‘Integrated Adsorbent Process Optimization for Minimum Cost of Electricity Including Carbon Capture by a VSA Process’, AIChE Journal, 65(1), pp. 184–195. doi: 10.1002/aic.16362.
Kim, I., Hoff, K. A. and Mejdell, T. (2014) ‘Heat of absorption of CO2 with aqueous solutions of mea: New experimental data’, Energy Procedia. Elsevier B.V., 63(1876), pp.
1446–1455. doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.154.
Krutka, H. et al. (2013) ‘Post-combustion CO2 capture using solid sorbents: 1 MW e pilot evaluation’, Energy Procedia. Elsevier B.V., 37, pp. 73–88. doi:
10.1016/j.egypro.2013.05.087.
Kummamuru, B. (2018) ‘WBA Global Bioenergy Statistics 2018’, World Bioenergy Association, p. 80. doi: 10.1016/0165-232X(80)90063-4.
Kuparinen, K., Vakkilainen, E. and Tynjälä, T. (2019) ‘Biomass-based carbon capture and utilization in kraft pulp mills’, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change.
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. doi: 10.1007/s11027-018-9833-9.
Larsen, A. W. and Astrup, T. (2011) ‘CO2 emission factors for waste incineration: Influence from source separation of recyclable materials’, Waste Management. Elsevier Ltd, 31(7), pp.
1597–1605. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2011.03.001.
Lee, S. Y. and Park, S. J. (2015) ‘A review on solid adsorbents for carbon dioxide capture’, Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry. The Korean Society of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 23, pp. 1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.jiec.2014.09.001.
Leeson, D. et al. (2017) ‘A Techno-economic analysis and systematic review of carbon capture and storage (CCS) applied to the iron and steel, cement, oil refining and pulp and paper industries, as well as other high purity sources’, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control. Elsevier Ltd, 61, pp. 71–84. doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2017.03.020.
De Lena, E. et al. (2019) ‘Techno-economic analysis of calcium looping processes for low CO 2 emission cement plants’, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control. Elsevier, 82(October 2018), pp. 244–260. doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.01.005.
Leung, D. Y. C., Caramanna, G. and Maroto-Valer, M. M. (2014) ‘An overview of current status of carbon dioxide capture and storage technologies’, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. Elsevier, 39, pp. 426–443. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.093.
Li, J. et al. (2013) ‘Technological, economic and financial prospects of carbon dioxide capture in the cement industry’, Energy Policy. Elsevier, 61, pp. 1377–1387. doi:
10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.082.
Li, K. et al. (2016) ‘Systematic study of aqueous monoethanolamine (MEA)-based CO 2 capture process: Techno-economic assessment of the MEA process and its improvements’, Applied Energy. Elsevier Ltd, 165, pp. 648–659. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.12.109.
Liu, Y. et al. (2011) ‘Solubility of CO2 in aqueous solutions of NaCl, KCl, CaCl 2 and their mixed salts at different temperatures and pressures’, Journal of Supercritical Fluids. Elsevier B.V., 56(2), pp. 125–129. doi: 10.1016/j.supflu.2010.12.003.
Lyngfelt, A. et al. (2019) ‘11,000 h of chemical-looping combustion operation—Where are we and where do we want to go?’, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control.
Elsevier, 88(February), pp. 38–56. doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.05.023.
Lyngfelt, A. and Leckner, B. (2015) ‘A 1000 MWth boiler for chemical-looping combustion of solid fuels – Discussion of design and costs’, Applied Energy. Elsevier Ltd, 157, pp. 475–
487. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.04.057.
Lyngfelt, A. and Linderholm, C. (2017) ‘Chemical-Looping Combustion of Solid Fuels - Status and Recent Progress’, Energy Procedia. The Author(s), 114(November 2016), pp.
371–386. doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1179.
Makarichi, L., Jutidamrongphan, W. and Techato, K. anan (2018) ‘The evolution of waste-to-energy incineration: A review’, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 91(April), pp. 812–821. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.088.
Mancuso, L. et al. (2015) ‘Oxy-combustion turbine power plants. Report: 2015/05’, Ieaghg, (August).
Mansouri Majoumerd, M. and Assadi, M. (2014) ‘Techno-economic assessment of fossil fuel power plants with CO2 capture - Results of EU H2-IGCC project’, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. Elsevier Ltd, 39(30), pp. 16771–16784. doi:
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.08.020.
Mantripragada, H. C. and Rubin, E. S. (2014) ‘Calcium looping cycle for CO2 capture:
Performance, cost and feasibility analysis’, Energy Procedia. Elsevier B.V., 63, pp. 2199–
2206. doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.239.
Martínez, I. et al. (2011) ‘Conceptual design of a three fluidised beds combustion system capturing CO2 with CaO’, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 5(3), pp. 498–
504. doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2010.04.017.
Novek, E. J. et al. (2016) ‘Low-Temperature Carbon Capture Using Aqueous Ammonia and Organic Solvents’, Environmental Science and Technology Letters, 3(8), pp. 291–296. doi:
10.1021/acs.estlett.6b00253.
OECD and IEA (2018) ‘Global Energy & CO2 Status Report 2017’, (March).
Øi, L. E. and Kvam, S. H. P. (2014) ‘Comparison of energy consumption for different
CO2absorption configurations using different simulation tools’, Energy Procedia. Elsevier B.V., 63(1876), pp. 1186–1195. doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.128.
Olajire, A. A. (2010) ‘CO2 capture and separation technologies for end-of-pipe applications - A review’, Energy. Elsevier, 35(6), pp. 2610–2628. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2010.02.030.
Pattabathula Venkat, R. J. (2016) ‘Introduction to Ammonia Production | AIChE’, CEP Magazine, (2), pp. 69–75.
Patterson, T. et al. (2011) ‘An evaluation of the policy and techno-economic factors affecting the potential for biogas upgrading for transport fuel use in the UK’, Energy Policy. Elsevier, 39(3), pp. 1806–1816. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.01.017.
Petersson, A. and Wellinger, A. (2011) ‘Biogas upgrading technologies-developments and innovations Task 37-Energy from biogas and landfill gas’.
Philibert, C. (2017) ‘Producing ammonia and fertilizers : new opportunities from renewables one half being used for producing ammonia . Ammonia ( NH 3 ) is an essential precursor of fertilizers , bringing nitrogen from the air to the soils and plants . methane reforming ( SMR’, IEA Report, pp. 1–6.
Porter, R. T. J. et al. (2017) ‘International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control Cost and performance of some carbon capture technology options for producing different quality CO 2 product streams’, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 57(0), pp. 185–195.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.11.020.
Ramezan, M. et al. (2007) ‘Carbon Dioxide Capture from Existing Coal-Fired Power Plants Final Report (Original Issue Date’, (November), p. 229. doi: DOE/NETL-401/110907.
Riboldi, L. and Bolland, O. (2017a) ‘Flexible Operation of an IGCC Plant Coproducing Power and H2 with CO2 Capture through Novel PSA-based Process Configurations’, Energy Procedia. The Author(s), 114(1876), pp. 2156–2165. doi:
10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1351.
Riboldi, L. and Bolland, O. (2017b) ‘Overview on Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA) as CO2 Capture Technology: State-of-the-Art, Limits and Potentials’, Energy Procedia. The
Riboldi, L. and Bolland, O. (2017b) ‘Overview on Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA) as CO2 Capture Technology: State-of-the-Art, Limits and Potentials’, Energy Procedia. The