DOE OSTI2021
The Cryogenic Carbon Capture™ (CCC) process significantly decreases cost and energy demands for CO 2 separation and pressurization to 150 bar compared to alternatives. The process is a post-combustion technology that cools CO 2 -laden flue gas to desublimation temperatures (-100 to -135 °C), separates solid CO 2 —that forms from the flue gas—from the light gases, uses the cold products to cool incoming gases in a recuperative heat exchanger, compresses the solid/liquid CO 2 to final pressures (100–200 bar), and delivers a compressed CO 2 stream separated from an atmospheric pressure light-gas stream. The overall energy and economic costs are about 30-50% lower than most competing processes that involve air separation units (ASUs), solvents, or similar technologies. In addition, the CCC process enjoys several ancillary benefits, including (a) it is a minimally invasive Bolton technology, (b) it provides highly efficient removal of most pollutants (Hg, SOx, NO 2 , HCl, etc.), and (c) possible energy storage capacity. This report outlines the process details and economic and energy comparisons relative to other well-documented alternatives. This paper presents the results of a detailed techno-economic comparison of CCC with amine-based systems. The comparison uses identical financial and economic assumptions similar process assumptions as the detailed analyses published by US DOE in the greenfield analysis. Specifically, the comparison assumes power plants that produce the same net output, one equipped with and a second without carbon capture. Separately, the paper compares similar analyses for retrofitting existing systems using typical plant characteristics in the US (initial capital costs have been paid, high plant utilization), though there are no DOE estimates available for direct comparison. Financial and technical assumptions for all comparisons are maintained as close to the DOE reference studies as possible. The results demonstrate about 30-50% lower costs and energy demands for capture from greenfield coal plants. Natural gas plants produce substantially lower CO 2 concentrations which makes the cost of capturing a ton of CO 2 at the same capture rate as the coal plant higher for all processes while the cost of CO 2 capture per unit of power generation is lower. However, CCC maintains about the same absolute energy and cost advantages for NG as for coal compared to amine systems. Finally, the costs of retrofitting a station are compared to those of building a new station with and without capture. The retrofit costs are comparable to (slightly lower than) new plant costs without capture. In all cases operating and capital cost comparisons show that the CCC process can be retrofitted to a variety of plants to cost effectively reduce CO 2 emissions. Further process integration into the upstream processes and unique process features like water recovery, and integrated energy storage bring the effective cost of carbon capture using the CCC process down further and increase its advantages over alternatives. This technoeconomic analysis shows that the CCC process has the potential to the be lowest cost carbon capture technology under development today.
20 FOSSIL-FUELED POWER PLANTS↗