ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
Carbon Capture in the Cement Industry: Technologies, Progress, and Retrofitting
More

OR SEARCH CITATIONS

My Activity
Publications

Figure 1Loading Img
Download Hi-Res ImageDownload to MS-PowerPointCite This:Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 1, 368-377
  • Open Access
Article

Carbon Capture in the Cement Industry: Technologies, Progress, and Retrofitting
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

View Author Information
† †Department of Chemical Engineering and ‡Grantham Institute, Climate Change and the Environment, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, U.K.
§ Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology, Sydney, 235 Jones Street, Level 11, Building 10, Ultimo, NSW 2007, Australia
*Tel: +61-2-9514-4797; e-mail: [email protected]
Open PDF

Environmental Science & Technology

Cite this: Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 1, 368–377
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b03508
Published December 2, 2015

Copyright © 2015 American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under CC-BY.

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!
High Resolution Image
Download MS PowerPoint Slide

Several different carbon-capture technologies have been proposed for use in the cement industry. This paper reviews their attributes, the progress that has been made toward their commercialization, and the major challenges facing their retrofitting to existing cement plants. A technology readiness level (TRL) scale for carbon capture in the cement industry is developed. For application at cement plants, partial oxy-fuel combustion, amine scrubbing, and calcium looping are the most developed (TRL 6 being the pilot system demonstrated in relevant environment), followed by direct capture (TRL 4–5 being the component and system validation at lab-scale in a relevant environment) and full oxy-fuel combustion (TRL 4 being the component and system validation at lab-scale in a lab environment). Our review suggests that advancing to TRL 7 (demonstration in plant environment) seems to be a challenge for the industry, representing a major step up from TRL 6. The important attributes that a cement plant must have to be “carbon-capture ready” for each capture technology selection is evaluated. Common requirements are space around the preheater and precalciner section, access to CO2 transport infrastructure, and a retrofittable preheater tower. Evidence from the electricity generation sector suggests that carbon capture readiness is not always cost-effective. The similar durations of cement-plant renovation and capture-plant construction suggests that synchronizing these two actions may save considerable time and money.

Copyright © 2015 American Chemical Society

Subjects

what are subjects

Introduction

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!
Unlike most industrial processes, process chemistry rather than fuel combustion is responsible for almost two-thirds (64%) of the CO2 emissions emanating from the Portland cement industry. (1) As shown in Figure 1, around 880 kg CO2 is generated per tonne of clinker in a typical (1 Mtpa, 3 000 tpd) cement plant, (2) which produces CEM I (95% clinker).

Figure 1

Figure 1. Direct emissions of CO2 from CEM I (95% clinker) cement manufacture (own calculations). CEM I rather than CEM II was chosen for comparisons in this paper because of its smaller range of composition than CEM II (95–100% clinker by weight versus 35–94%).

High Resolution Image
Download MS PowerPoint Slide
The cement industry is likely to play a role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions to combat anthropogenic climate change. Many decarbonization pathways suggest that direct specific emission levels of around 350 – 410 kg CO2/t cement will be required. (1, 3) However, increasing clinker substitution, alternative fuel use, and thermal energy efficiency (1) can only lead to specific emissions per tonne of cement falling from 730 kg CO2/t cement in 2009 to about 540–590 kg CO2/t cement in 2050. Alternative, lower CO2 intensity cements have been suggested, but uptake is not expected to be anywhere near the levels required if the sector is to meet these targets. (4) Many NGO-based analysts, such as the IPCC and IEA, agree that the main technology group able to achieve the remaining required emission reductions is carbon capture and storage (CCS), (1, 5) owing to the relatively high concentration of CO2 in the flue gas from these large, point-source emitters. (6) Estimates suggest that the Spanish cement industry could reduce its specific direct emissions by only 21% between 2010 and 2050 without CCS, (7) and that the U.K. cement sector absolute CO2 emissions could be reduced by 66% in the 1990 to 2050 period if CCS is not available but by 81% if it is. (8)
However, none of the 45 large-scale CCS projects in design, construction, or operation involves the cement industry. (9) Most operating carbon-capture plants are in natural gas processing, (9) but by 2050, seven industrial sectors could account for about half of CO2 emissions avoided by CCS. (10) Commercial-scale application of the technology in the cement industry is seen by most as being five to ten years away at best and that few, if any, carbon capture plants will exist before 2030. (11-17) Little research into the practicalities of installing the capture plant at a cement plant, particularly in the case of retrofitting, has been published. (18-20) A lack of effective policy drivers (such as a substantial carbon price, effective strategies to address carbon leakage, and promotion of access to capital) is limiting progress and impeding commercial-scale demonstration. (11, 19, 21) An estimate that a failure to develop CCS for industrial applications could increase climate policy costs globally by 221 bn €2013/year by 2050 (13) illustrates the importance of the technology to the cement sector and other energy-intensive sectors.
This paper starts by developing a new technology readiness level (TRL) methodology for carbon capture at cement plants. The paper then describes the five following promising carbon capture processes (amine scrubbing, calcium looping, full oxy-fuel combustion, partial oxy-fuel combustion, and direct capture) before assessing them according to several criteria, including the TRL methodology. On the basis of current research and development efforts, we predicted the TRL of each capture technology in 2020 and a date for commercial availability. Finally, some of the changes to a cement plant required to enable construction and operation of each carbon capture technology are identified and compared; the most important issues to take into consideration when designing a cement plant that is likely to require retrofitting with CCS in the future are highlighted. It should be noted that this paper focuses on carbon capture technologies, not the complete chain of capture, transport, and storage.

Evaluation of Carbon-Capture Technologies for Cement Plants

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Technology Readiness Levels

The TRLs are used for determining how close to operational deployment a technology is, and this approach has been extensively used across CCS literature related to electricity generation. (22, 23) In Table 1, we modified electricity-generation-specific methodologies from the U.S. Department of Energy Clean Coal Research Program (23) and the GCCSI (22) to be relevant to cement manufacture. The original U.S. Department of Energy TRL specification included two quantitative measures for many of the levels: the size of the process as a percentage of final size of the power station, and a volumetric flow rate of flue gas. This concept has been retained. The flue gas and production rates at each level are equivalent. “Commercial-scale” is assumed to be a minimum of 1 000 tpd (tonnes of clinker per day), and a demonstration cement plant is assumed to have a capacity at least 250 tpd.
Table 1. Technology Readiness Levels for CCS in the Cement Industry
TRLdefinitiondescription
1basic principles observed and reportedThe lowest level of technology readiness. Scientific research begins to be translated into applied research and development. Examples include desktop studies of a technology’s basic properties.
2technology concept and/or application formulatedInvention begins. Once basic principles are observed, practical applications can be invented. Applications are speculative and there may be no proof or detailed analysis to support the assumptions. Examples are still limited to analytic studies.
3analytical and experimental critical function and characteristic proof of conceptActive research and development is initiated. This includes analytical and laboratory-scale studies to physically validate the analytical predictions of separate elements of the technology (e.g., individual technology components have undergone laboratory-scale testing using bottled gases to simulate major flue gas species at a scale of <0.5 L/s as well as simulated raw materials).
4component and system validation in a laboratory environmentA bench-scale prototype has been developed and validated in the laboratory environment. Prototype is defined as <1 tpd (e.g., complete technology process has undergone bench-scale testing using a synthetic flue gas composition at a scale of <20 L/s as well as simulated raw materials).
5laboratory-scale similar-system validation in a relevant environmentThe basic technological components are integrated so that the system configuration is similar to (matches) the final application in almost all respects. Prototype is defined as <1 tpd clinker scale (e.g., complete technology has undergone testing using actual flue gas composition at a scale of <20 L/s and actual raw materials).
6engineering and pilot-scale prototypical system demonstrated in a relevant environmentEngineering-scale models or prototypes are tested in a relevant environment. Pilot- or process-development-unit-scale is defined as 1–50 tpd (e.g., complete technology has undergone small pilot-scale testing using actual flue gas composition at a scale equivalent to 0.04–1 Nm3/s and actual raw materials).
7system prototype demonstrated in a plant environmentThis represents a major step up from TRL 6, requiring demonstration of an actual system prototype in a relevant environment. Final design is virtually complete. Pilot or process-development-unit demonstration of a 50–250 tpd clinker scale (e.g., complete technology has undergone large pilot-scale testing using actual flue-gas composition at a scale equivalent to approximately 1–4.5 Nm3/s and actual raw materials).
8actual system completed and qualified through test and demonstration in a plant environmentThe technology has been proven to work in its final form and under expected conditions. In almost all cases, this TRL represents the end of true system development. Examples include start-up, testing, and evaluation of the system within a ≥ 250 tpd plant with CCS operation (e.g., complete and fully integrated technology has been initiated at full-scale demonstration including start-up, testing, and evaluation of the system using actual flue-gas composition at a scale equivalent to ≥4.5 Nm3 and actual raw materials).
9actual system operated over the full range of expected conditionsThe technology is in its final form and operated under the full range of operating conditions. The scale of this technology is expected to be ≥1000 tpd plant with CCS operations (e.g., complete and fully integrated technology has undergone full-scale demonstration testing using actual flue gas composition at a scale equivalent to ≥18 Nm3 and actual raw materials).

Promising Technologies for Carbon Capture at Cement Plants

A total of five promising carbon capture technologies for use at cement plants are described and discussed below. A summary, including costs, is presented in Table 2. For comparison, global average thermal energy consumption in 2012 was 3 530 MJ/t clinker, down from 3 750 MJ/t clinker in 2000. (2) Average electrical consumption was 74 kWhe/t clinker and 99 kWhe/t cement in 2012. (2) Typical investment costs for a cement plant in Europe are 250 €2013/(tpa). (20) A 3 000 tpd (1 Mtpa) cement plant produces approximately as much CO2 as a 125 MWe coal-fired power station.
Table 2. CO2 Capture from the Cement Industry: Technology Comparisons

a

attributeamine scrubbingbcalcium loopingfull oxy-fuelpartial oxy-fueldirect capture
capital cost (€2013)213 M for 2 Mtpa RF (China) (18)269 M NB (including cement plant cost) for 1 Mtpa (35)291 M for 1 Mtpa NB (32)97 – 107 M for 1 Mtpa RF (35)unknown
 440–540 for 1 Mtpa NB (32)125 M NB (capture plant only) for 1 Mtpa (35)104 M for 1 Mtpa RF (32)85 M for 1 Mtpa RF (32) 
 245–350 for 1 Mtpa RF (32)  275 M for 1 Mtpa NB (32) 
      
Overall cost, avoided (€2013/t CO2)46–57 NB @ DR 6 – 16% (18)75–85 RF @ DR 10% (15)39 NB @ DR 8% (32)49 NB @ DR 8% (32)unknown
 51 NB @ DR 7% (47)18 NB (35)41 RF @ DR 8% (32)54 RF @ DR 8% (32) 
 107 NB @ DR 10% (57)31 NB (58) 12 NB (35) 
 52–104 @ DR 8% (32)  54–69 RF (37) 
 143–187 RF @ DR 10% (15)  58 RF (32) 
 172–333 (short-term)  62 RF (36) 
 86 (long-term) (46)    
 53 RF (18)    
      
typical capture rate >90% >90%>90%65%60%
      
complexityLow: mature end-of-pipe technology, but extensive FG cleanup is required before capture.Medium: integration should be simple but fluidized bed combustor operation is outside cement industry knowledge.High: increased design and maintenance complexity; operation of the plant changes, especially in kiln and cooler. Kiln stop likely if O2 supply fails.Medium: increased design and maintenance complexity (although less than full oxy-fuel); operation of the plant should be relatively similar to unabated cement.Low: operational knowledge of direct capture in cement industry currently nonexistent except for one company but kiln and cooler section identical to before.
      
major changes to cement processnonePrecalciner replaced with dual fluidized beds (or, for HECLOT, one fluidized bed and a rotary kiln), steam cycle, and associated equipment.New preheaters and precalciner necessary. Changes to kiln burner and cooler designs necessary. False air-flow reduction requires altered designs of units.New preheaters and precalciner necessary.Precalciner replaced with direct capture unit tower.
      
capture plant footprintLarge because of installation of SCR and FGD systems as well as capture plant. (26)Possibly slightly larger than partial oxy-fuel but smaller than full oxy-fuel. CO2 processing unit required to remove chlorides and water. A steam cycle will need to be installed.Relatively large–air separation, waste-heat recovery, and CO2 processing units will take up space.Medium (0.5 ha)–air separation, waste-heat recovery, FG recycling, and CO2 processing units will take up space, but lower capture rate and O2 demand means they will be smaller than full oxy-fuel.Small. DCU tower likely to be shorter but wider than a preheater tower; gas-treatment plant will be small due to low capture rate and inherent purity of CO2 (only water removal necessary).
      
cement qualityNo change expected.No change observed at lab scale.No change observed at lab scale.No change observed at lab scale.unknown
      
retrofittabilityEasy because few changes to the cement plant itself are required. Physical connection to cement plant probably possible in annual shutdown period. Space for capture plant may be an issue on many sites.”diversion” and “replacement” designs: possible but prolonged shutdown likely while dual FBCs were installed. Space may be a constraint.Technically possible but doubts about practicality remain. Long shutdown expected for installation of new equipment and alteration of existing units.Relatively easy. Precalciner and preheater replacement will require a lengthy shutdown, but length (and risks) are not as great as for full oxy-fuel.Relatively easy. Probably similar to partial oxy-fuel as both require preheater and precalciner replacement. Modular nature of capture technology should enable some prefabrication and reduce construction times on site.
  ”HECLOT”: replacement of kiln will cause a long shutdown. As with full oxy-fuel, practicality of gastight rotary kilns must be demonstrated.   
Current Technology Readiness Level with respect to cement manufacture66464–5
0.125 Nm3/s real FG scrubbed (28) (ca. 0.2% of full size).3.1 tph FG (0.7 Nm3/s FG) HECLOT PP in operation in Taiwan, (58) but results are not yet published (1.2% of full size).Lab-scale tests undertaken but no PP built yet (20)2–3 tph RM (1.3–2 tph) pilot plant in Denmark operated successfully. (37)Tests (one-tube 10 tph RM, 6.6 tph/160 tpd) undertaken but not at a cement plant with only with high-purity RM. Heat integration not tested. (43)
      
TRL expected in 2020, assuming successful completion of current plans68467
No new amine scrubbing PP projects in cement sector are currently known.ITRI plans to build a 30 MWt (11 Nm3/s, 20% of full size) HECLOT PP in 2017. (58)ECRA plans to build a 2 tph PP seem to be on hold so unlikely to be completed by 2020.Consortium not progressing with FEED because of lack of viable business model. (37)20 tph RM (ca. 13 tph/320 tpd clinker, 10% of full size) PP to be built in 2018–2020.
      
Time until wide availability10–15 years10–15 years15–25 years10–20 years10–15 years
a

RF, retrofit. Includes only the cost of capture plant. NB, new-build. Includes cost of cement plant (usually about 150 M€ in Europe). DR, discount rate. RM, raw meal. FG, flue gas. PP, pilot plant. Full size, 3 000 tpd clinker (1 Mtpa) or 55 Nm3/s flue gas.

b

Includes the cost of CHP for heat provision.

Amine Scrubbing

This is an end-of-pipe technology; it only involves the flue gas and thus does not directly affect the cement manufacture process except, for example, energy management strategies and start-up and shut-down procedures. Capture rates are expected to be ≥90%, (24) but some studies have examined lower rates. (18)
The thermal energy demand of amine scrubbing is very high (at least 2 GJ/t CO2), (24) and it generally has to be provided via CHP or waste-heat recovery. Owing to the paucity of low-grade heat at most cement plants, it may be significantly cheaper to capture only a proportion (up to 50%) of the CO2 from the plants and not invest in extra heat-generation capacity. (25) Furthermore, the flue-gas cleanup required increases the plant footprint and the capital and operating costs. (26) As with all capture technologies, there are knock-on environmental effects from using amine scrubbing. (27)
With respect to electricity generation, the technology is at TRL 8–9. (21) For cement production, the pilot plant in Brevik, Norway is the most developed, and with a flue-gas flow rate of approximately 125 L/s its TRL is 5–6. (28) We are not aware of any plans for larger-scale pilot projects in the short- to medium-term. A preliminary estimate of commercial availability is 2025–2030, significantly later than the IEA’s estimate of 2020. (1)

Full Oxy-Fuel Combustion

Oxy-fuel uses a mixture of oxygen (separated from air) and recycled CO2 as the combustion gas, reducing the CO2 separation plant’s complexity and size. (20) The capture rate is expected to be >90%. (29)
Although energy efficiency (30) and clinker throughput (31) are expected to improve in an oxy-fuel cement plant, an air separation unit (ASU) using up to 60 kWhe/t clinker is required to produce pure oxygen for the process. (29) Alternative processes for oxygen production are being developed that could reduce the energy penalty. (24)
Unlike the other four technologies, full oxy-fuel combustion will affect the whole cement plant. The design of virtually every unit is different from a traditional cement plant to take account of different gas properties and to minimize gas ingress or egress from the units. (20) This is likely to be technically achievable but expensive; on this basis, we agree with others (19) that retrofitting full oxy-fuel capture to an existing cement plant is unlikely to be an attractive proposition. New-build full oxy-fuel cement plants are expected to cost around 220–290 €2013/t annual clinker capacity (€/(tpa)). (8, 32, 33) Applying a 50 year lifetime and a 10% discount rate, we find that this capital cost alone is equivalent to 22.2–29.2 €/t cement. Similar numbers calculated for the other technologies are given in parentheses after their capital costs.
Full oxy-fuel is seen by some (20) as the best technology for new-build low-carbon cement manufacture, but development is difficult because the next stage is the construction of a whole, albeit small, cement plant. Its TRL is 4, and until the ECRA’s €50M, 500 tpd pilot plant is funded, (34) this is not expected to increase; however, such progress could raise full oxy-fuel’s TRL to 8. This step seems to be without the remit of most research organizations (such as universities), and to the authors’ knowledge no company has announced any intention to fund such a pilot plant in the near- or medium-term. An estimate of commercial availability is 2030–2040.

Partial Oxy-Fuel Combustion

The difficulties with applying full oxy-fuel combustion have led to a “partial oxy-fuel” approach, where the preheaters and precalciner are oxy-fueled and the kiln and cooler are air-fueled (i.e., conventional). It is expected that the capture rate could be as high as 70%. (20, 35) The preheaters and precalciner would have to be redesigned and made gas-tight, but retrofitting is expected to be easier than for full oxy-fuel because the kiln and cooler would not change. Because 75% of the fuel is burned in the precalciner, it is assumed that a partial oxy-fuel ASU would require about 45 kWhe/t clinker. (20) A partial oxy-fuel retrofit is expected to cost around 85 €/(tpa) (32) (8.6 €/t), and new-builds are expected to be in the region of 225–275 €/(tpa) (20, 35) (22.7–27.7 €/t).
A 30–50 tpd pilot plant has been built by a consortium including Air Liquide, FLSmidth, and Lafarge, and a feasibility and cost exercise regarding retrofitting partial oxy-fuel to a cement plant has been undertaken. (36) Its TRL is therefore 6, but without the next step of a full FEED study, it is unlikely to increase soon. (37) A preliminary estimate of commercial availability is 2025–2035, similar to the IEA’s estimate of 2025. (1)

Calcium Looping

Calcium looping (CaL) involves chemical reactions between CO2 and calcium oxide sorbent in a pair of circulating fluidized beds. There are energetic and waste benefits that can be achieved by integrating CaL with cement manufacture from using CaCO3 as a sorbent precursor and operating at > 600 °C. (38) High-grade “waste heat” from the process can be used to generate additional electricity; this should be about the same as the amount required by the cement, capture, and CO2 compression plants combined.
An ASU using about 20 kWhe/t clinker would be required to produce oxygen for the calciner. Fuel consumption would increase by about 50%, but the CO2 avoidance rate is expected to be ≥ 90%. (35) The preheaters would need altering to take into account the diversion of limestone from the usual raw meal entry point at the first preheater to the CaL calciner; Ozcan et al. (39) assume that the waste CaO sorbent would be mixed with the rest of the raw meal between the precalciner and kiln (the “diversion” design). The flue gases would flow into the CaL carbonator between the third and second preheaters. Alternatively, the CaL calciner could replace the precalciner (the “replacement” design). (35) Another rather different design (“HECLOT”, by ITRI) uses a rotary kiln calciner; this could encounter the same issues surrounding gas-tightness as full oxy-fuel combustion. (40, 41)
The largest project so far is HECLOT in Taiwan, which captures 1 tCO2/h from 3.1 t/h flue gas using the rotary kiln calciner. (40) Thus, CaL in the cement industry is at TRL 6. ITRI is planning to build a larger plant in 2017 that, if successful, will raise the TRL to 8. (40) There are no known plans to build a cement-based CaL pilot plant with a fluidized bed calciner. A preliminary estimate of commercial availability is 2025–2030.

Direct Capture

Direct capture only captures emissions coming from the calcination of limestone, which accounts for about 64% of the CO2 generated at a typical cement plant. (1) This process is being developed by Calix, an Australian company. Most of the information in this section comes from the company directly via the website and from discussions with employees. (42)
Direct capture occurs in a vertical shell-and-tube heat exchanger known as a direct-capture unit (DCU). Raw meal and steam pass down the tubes and are heated and calcined by heat transferred from flue gases from a combustion process flowing through the shell. Because no external gases enter the tubes, the gas coming out of them is a virtually pure CO2–steam mix. After steam knockout, the CO2 should be suitable for compression. (42)
The DCU will replace the precalciner and receive hot raw meal from the preheaters. Modeling by Calix suggests that the energy penalty after heat integration will be ± 2% of the thermal energy requirement of the cement plant. (43) Retrofitting should be relatively easy because it requires the replacement of only the preheaters and precalciner.
A pilot plant has operated with an equivalent capacity of 160 tpd clinker. The lack of information about the impurities in the raw meal limits its TRL to 4. Calix is planning to build a 320 tpd pilot plant at a European cement plant before 2020, and successful operation will raise the TRL to 7. A preliminary estimate of commercial availability is 2025–2030.

Prospects for Further Development and Technology Champions

If there were great pressure to commercialize cement CCS as soon as possible, amine scrubbing would likely be the first available, but the lack of such pressure offers other technologies the chance to catch up. Amine scrubbing’s main problem is its cost (see Table 2); a cheaper alternative at a similar level of development would stand a good chance of supplanting it. However, no technology is likely to be widely available before 2025.
Direct capture and calcium looping seem to be progressing fastest and possibly could reach TRL 7 by 2020; no other technology is expected to reach this level soon, although partial oxy-fuel combustion could overtake them if the AL, Lafarge, and FLS consortium decides to progress with trials.
Scaling up can require significant investment; the six-tenths ‘”rule” (44) suggests that increasing the scale of a process by an order of magnitude will quadruple capital investment costs. Building the confidence of potential investors or developers is critical for carbon-capture projects because most of the technologies are developed by a sequence of organizations on the path to commercialization.
In this context, TRL 7 seems to be the major obstacle for capture processes in the cement industry. This may be because it is the point at which traditional university-led research is too small-scale to develop the technology further. Companies or larger research institutions acting as a “champion” for a specific technology are generally more suited to carry on development beyond TRL 6. Such organizations are Calix (direct capture) and ITRI (calcium looping). The ECRA, as a research collaboration of several cement manufacturers, does not necessarily have the independence and resources to develop a pilot-scale oxy-fuel plant. Although the AL, Lafarge, and FLS consortium (partial oxy-fuel) would appear to have massive financial and technological resources, it is likely that limited funds and scope will prevent it from continuing development. Amine scrubbing has many champions, but whether much of their focus is on the cement industry is debatable. The absence of commercial reasons to invest in a decade-long development and demonstration program makes TRL 7 virtually impossible for technologies currently championed by universities and small research institutes.
Of particular interest to plant owners may be technologies that can be installed, if not operated, at a low extra cost. Designing a process to be easily convertible to partial oxy-fuel (e.g., more airtight preheaters) may help to reduce costs in the long run; this is discussed below. Furthermore, direct capture theoretically offers 50–60% capture for very little added cost for new builds. It is possible that such a plant could be built and run competitively until the rest of the CCS chain is available.
Technologies such as amine scrubbing, which are already in use in other industries, have the benefit of learning from operational experience within those industries as well as design and equipment suppliers with relevant experience. Oxy-fuel systems should not suffer too much in this respect; oxygen production is similar across industries, and although changes to all major process units are required, these should be well within the competencies of cement plant manufacturers. Direct capture and CaL are quite process-specific and so are unlikely to benefit in this respect.
Early indications are that retrofitting a cement plant with some form of carbon capture (except amine scrubbing) will have a capital cost in the region of 100 €/(tpa) (10.1 €/t) compared with a reference new-build cement plant cost of approximately 250 €/(tpa) (45) (25.2 €/t). A new-build cement plant with carbon capture is expected to cost in the region of 300 €/(tpa) (30.3 €/t). Costs of CO2 avoided are around 20–80 €/t CO2, again excepting amine scrubbing. It is more difficult to gain a clear picture here because of the different discount rates used across the literature, which range from 6% to 16% but tend to cluster around the 8–10% region. (23, 24, 35, 46)
The range of capital costs for amine scrubbing varies wildly, and this is in part due to assumptions about the source of the extra energy for stripping the CO2 from the solvent. (18, 32) Most studies focus on MEA solvent; (18, 20, 30, 47) it is more likely that more advanced amines would be used, reducing both the capital and operating costs.
Any capture process must allow the cement plant to continue to produce in-spec cement. Amine scrubbing should not have a significant effect beyond affecting the energy management on site unless waste-heat recovery is installed on the kiln. Cycling calcium oxide (or all the raw meal) through a calcium looping system will affect the physical properties of the solids, something that could have an effect on cement quality and is currently being studied batchwise in laboratories. Direct capture’s DCU could also have an effect on the properties of the calcined raw meal, and the pilot plant planned for construction by 2017 should produce relevant data to evaluate possible effects. In-spec cement was created during full oxy-fuel laboratory studies. It can be expected that by 2020, the quality of cement made in a plant with any of these capture process attached will have been tested and hopefully confirmed to be within relevant standards such as EN 197. (48)

Retrofitting Cement Plants with Carbon-Capture Technology

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!
At some point it may be necessary to attach carbon capture facilities to an existing cement plant, a process known as retrofitting. The IEA assumes that the retrofitting of existing point-source emitters with carbon capture is likely to be necessary from 2020 to reach emission targets. (3) Retrofitting is generally seen to be more difficult and expensive than applying CCS to new builds because there may be issues surrounding access, plant footprint, and management of fuels and other resources. The plant must also be shut down for the installation of the new equipment. Only a few sources in the literature have discussed these issues. (32) A contribution to this topic is provided below.

Shutdown Time

Fixed costs represent approximately 40% of total costs of operation (49) so closing down a plant for an extended period leads to significant financial repercussions. Any overruns in construction and commissioning would add yet more costs, with fixed costs alone being in the order of €3M per month for a typical 1 Mtpa clinker plant. (50)
The first significant retrofit of a power station with CCS was of Boundary Dam Unit 3 with amine scrubbing, which started operation in October of 2014. Putting aside the testing and commissioning time, the construction took thirteen months, although it should be noted that the power station unit was refurbished at the same time. (51)
Cement plants undergo various shutdowns for repairs, maintenance, and improvement. These range from short annual shutdowns of around a month to longer shutdowns performed maybe once in a generation; the modernization of complete plants can take more than a year. This can be compared with the construction of a new cement plant, which takes around 18–24 months. (These durations come from promotional material, so it cannot be assumed to be representative of the industry as a whole. (52))
Thus, the time periods for the refurbishment of cement plants and the installation of carbon capture at power stations are similar. This suggests that applying carbon capture during a cement plant refurbishment may be the most convenient strategy in a manner similar to Boundary Dam Unit 3. Changes to virtually all process units will mean the shutdown period for full oxy-fuel combustion is likely to be long. In contrast, connecting a preconstructed amine scrubbing plant to the preheater exhaust may be possible within the period of an annual shutdown (about a month). The other technologies will likely fall somewhere in between.

Carbon-Capture Readiness

The length (and cost) of shutdown periods for installation of the different technologies may ultimately become a major determinant of which of them, if any, are competitive. A way to reduce this time and expense could be by designing the cement plant to be “carbon-capture ready” from the outset. Although CCS is not currently viable in the cement sector, plant owners may wish to ensure that they can install it with minimal disturbance once it is. Alterations to the original design of the site and the cement plant itself to make them carbon-capture ready could reduce time and cost during retrofitting for a small up-front investment.
Published work on carbon-capture readiness (CCR) in the cement sector has focused on amine scrubbing. Liang and Li (18) provide a list of 21 criteria split into six categories for assessing the potential to retrofit cement plants with amine scrubbing: extra space on site, access to storage capacity, water supply, sufficient electricity and steam, cement-production technology, and flue-gas properties. The IEA GHG (30) states that the four main requirements for amine scrubbing retrofitting are land, electricity import, steam production, and the removal of certain gases from the flue gas. The first is simple to understand (the new units require space), but this may not be so easy in practice because cement plants are often surrounded by land that is unsuitable or that belongs to another entity. Electricity can either be imported from the grid or produced on site, but again, this will require space and money. Amine scrubbing requires low concentrations of NO2, SO2, and O2 in the flue gas so a pretreatment stage will be necessary; this is not an insurmountable challenge.
To better understand the requirements of each technology for CCR, we compare the changes to each relevant unit in the cement manufacturing process in Table 3. Some sitewide considerations, and those concerning new units, have also been identified. The preheaters usually need to be replaced because they will have to handle a gas mix with different properties (full oxy-fuel) or a different mass flow rate (CaL, direct capture and partial oxy-fuel). Oxy-fuel systems also require more airtight units. Attaching amine scrubbing could change the operating conditions of the preheaters because a large enough pressure gradient will be required to ensure the gases flow from the preheaters to the capture plant. Preheaters at a “diversion” design CaL plant will require tie-in locations where the gases can be diverted to the capture plant and back again.
Table 3. Technology-Specific Considerations for Designing Capture-Ready Cement Plants
    oxy-fuel
aspect of plantamine scrubbingcalcium loopingdirect capturepartialfull
raw materials and fuel handling; utility connectionsIf a CHP plant is to be built, the fuel supply should be considered. This may include a natural gas pipeline connection.More fuel (ca. 50%) will be required on site so storage and handling facilities could be designed to accommodate this from the start. Combustion of alternative fuels in a CFB may be difficult so coal facilities may be the most important to oversize.If necessary, a source of purer (i.e., low-Cl) raw materials should be identifiedA larger electricity grid connection should be installed so that enough electricity can be imported to run the ASU and other capture equipment 
 Cooling and process water connections will be necessary.   
preheatersThe ability to connect the flue gas exhaust to the gas cleanup system should be included.
 The exhaust from the preheaters will go to the FGD plant. Enough pressure will have to be present to let it flow; this may affect plant design or require the installation of an extra fanThe tower should be built to a specification whereby it can accommodate the new design of preheaters required in the capture plant.
 Tie-in locations for connection to the CaL calciner should be designed and included (“diversion” design)The preheaters should be at a height to allow good connection between them, the DC calciner, and the kiln. 
precalcinerNo action necessary.The connections between the calciner and the kiln and preheaters should be appropriate for reconnection to the CaL calciner (“replacement” and “HECLOT” designs)Sufficient space for the larger direct capture calciner is necessary.The calciner housing design must be able to accommodate the postretrofit calciner.
kilnNo action necessary.The kiln should be as airtight as possible. The region around the burner, including the air supply, should be suitable for retrofitting with the new burner and gas supply. The kiln must be compatible with the refractory required for oxy-fuel combustion
coolerNo action necessary.The cooler, or at least the site of the cooler, should be adaptable for oxy-fuel operation. This may include building a two-stage cooler, which is likely to be larger than a standard cooler.
plant footprintA very large amount of land will be required to build the capture facilities. This should be close to the preheater exhaust. The CHP plant should be built close by to reduce the distance that the steam has to be transportedThe cement plant may require a different layout to ensure that a CaL system can be fitted between the preheaters and kiln or within the preheater train. Space for the ASU and steam cycle should be provided relatively close to the CaL plant location, and gas cleanup and compression should not be too far away from the calciner.A small amount of land will be required to accommodate the DCU and flash condenser.A significant amount of land will be required for an ASU and the recirculation loop. Land for the gas cleanup plant should be made available close to the preheater tower.
OtherGypsum will be produced on-site from the FGD plant; disposal or sale of this should be considered  Purification and compression plant for partial oxy-fuel plant (1 Mtpa) would require 0.5 ha. 
The precalciner will require changes in all cases except amine scrubbing and “diversion” calcium looping; in a “replacement” design it will be replaced by the CaL calciner. In direct capture, the precalciner will be replaced with the direct capture unit (DCU), which will require a larger area and a new raw-meal conveyance system between the preheaters, and DCU may be required. In oxy-fuel combustion, the design of the precalciner will need to change slightly to take into account the altered gas and flame properties, but it should be possible to fit it in roughly the same area as an air-fuel precalciner.
The kiln and coolers will only require alterations in full oxy-fuel, and in this case, full replacement is likely to be the most practical option, with new, airtight designs being installed. A two-stage cooler will be required, in which the first stage uses recycled CO2 and the second stage air to cool the clinker. (20)
Because none of the carbon capture technologies is yet available, cement plant owners may not wish to invest in CCR on the basis of one technology. However, there are several common requirements across all or most of the technologies. By identifying these and considering whether they merit investment up front, the plant owner can reduce retrofitting costs without locking himself in to one technology. Some major considerations for each technology are shown in Table 3, and the ones in common are discussed below.

Critical Issues for CCR

The availability of land for expansion is already a concern at many sites and may be the factor that prevents or delays the roll-out of CCS at some of them. Plant layout is related to this issue; all capture technologies require space at specific locations around the cement plant, so ensuring that existing units do not have to be moved a few meters to make room for others could greatly reduce shut-down time. Setting aside space solely to facilitate easier construction and access on-site during retrofitting could also reduce shut-down costs. In all cases, a CO2 compression and temporary storage facility will require space. In general, relatively large zones should be reserved for the capture plant close to the preheater tower and precalciner–kiln connection.
Cement plants tend to be located on limestone deposits; although some researchers have suggested that plants are built within the region of a CCS cluster, (19) it is unlikely that this will happen except where the cluster is located upon a suitable geological formation. Limestone is not suitable for CO2 storage, so there is likely to be a need for significant and reliable CO2 transport between plant and storage site. Purchasing, or having an option to purchase, the storage capacity is also extremely important. (32) Discussions with local authorities on planning applications for capture plants and CO2 pipelines at the time of cement plant construction could increase the chance that the plant and pipeline can be built when required. These issues are not unique to the cement sector and so are not discussed in more detail here.

Other Important Issues for CCR

Some items may be relatively cheap to construct when used to build the original cement plant but difficult or expensive to alter later on. For example, if some or all of the major pipe-runs for the capture plant are installed at the same time as those for the cement plant itself, fewer changes are likely to be required later, and perhaps a shorter shut-down will be possible. Several of the technologies would benefit from the preheater tower being adaptable to house the new preheaters or precalciner. However, care should be taken in choosing to apply CCR without assessment of the benefits. For example, Bohm et al (53) determined that CCR costing 4% of the total cost of the plant made little difference to the economics of IGCC power stations. Lucquiaud et al. suggest that making a pulverized-coal power-station CCR could cost less than 1% of capital costs, (54) and Liang et al. determined that such power stations in China are up to 10% less likely to close early. (55) Rohlfs and Madlener calculated that it was usually more cost-effective to close a modern, unabated power station and replace it with a completely new abated power station. (56) Discounted cash-flow analysis can identify whether the extra capital expenditure for particular items is financially attractive or if more extensive rebuilding or replacement at a later date is more suitable. This is not applicable for some particular items such as land; if the plant does not have room to build the capture facilities on existing land or expand into adjacent areas, the capture plant may never be built regardless of the profitability.
In conclusion, carbon capture in the cement is several years away, but the timely consideration of the challenges that lie ahead, such as retrofitting and ensuring cement plant and capture plant compatibility, will reduce their complexity in the long run. The lack of large-scale (>50 tpd) pilot plants in the cement industry is currently the biggest impediment to further capture-technology development and commercialization.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!
  • Corresponding Author
    • Nicholas Florin - Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology, Sydney, 235 Jones Street, Level 11, Building 10, Ultimo, NSW 2007, Australia;  Email: [email protected]
  • Authors
    • Thomas Hills - †Department of Chemical Engineering and ‡Grantham Institute, Climate Change and the Environment, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, U.K.;  Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology, Sydney, 235 Jones Street, Level 11, Building 10, Ultimo, NSW 2007, Australia
    • Duncan Leeson - †Department of Chemical Engineering and ‡Grantham Institute, Climate Change and the Environment, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, U.K.;  Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology, Sydney, 235 Jones Street, Level 11, Building 10, Ultimo, NSW 2007, Australia
    • Paul Fennell - †Department of Chemical Engineering and ‡Grantham Institute, Climate Change and the Environment, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, U.K.;  Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology, Sydney, 235 Jones Street, Level 11, Building 10, Ultimo, NSW 2007, Australia
  • Notes
    The authors declare the following competing financial interest(s): N.F. works for Calix Ltd. as a Research and Design Engineer.

Acknowledgment

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

T.H. is grateful to Climate-KIC, Grantham Research Institute – Climate Change and the Environment, and Cemex Research Group AG for his Ph.D. funding. T.H. is also grateful to Climate-KIC and the U.K. CCS Research Centre (EP/K000446/1) for funding a study tour and to UTS for hosting.

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 58 other publications.

  1. 1
    Elzinga, D., Bennett, S., Best, D., Burnard, K., Cazzola, P., D’Ambrosio, D., Dulac, J., Fernandez Pales, A., Hood, C., LaFrance, M., McCoy, S., Mueller, S., Munuera, L., Poponi, D., Remme, U., Tam, C., West, K., Chiavari, J., Jun, F., and Qin, Y. Energy Technology Perspectives 2015: Mobilising Innovation to Accelerate Climate Action; International Energy Agency: Paris, 2015.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  2. 2
    WBCSD Cement Sustainability Initiative. “Gettingthe Numbers Right” (GNR). http://www.wbcsdcement.org/index.php/key-issues/climate-protection/gnr-database (accessed Nov. 23, 2015).
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  3. 3
    Diczfalusy, B., Wråke, M., Breen, K., Burnard, K., Cheung, K., Chiavari, J., Cuenot, F., D’Ambrosio, D., Dulac, J., Elzinga, D., Fulton, L., Gawel, A., Heinen, S., Ito, O., Kaneko, H., Koerner, A., McCoy, S., Munuera, L., Remme, U., Tam, C., Trigg, T., Trudeau, N., and Yamada, H. Energy Technology Perspectives 2012: Pathways to a Clean Energy System (ETP 2012); International Energy Agency: Paris, 2012.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  4. 4
    Heidrich, C., Sanjayan, J., Berndt, M. L., Foster, S., and Sagoe-Crentsil, K. Pathways and Barriers for Acceptance and Usage of Geopolymer Concrete in Mainstream Construction; World of Coal Ash Conference: Nashville, May 5–7, 2015.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  5. 5
    Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona, Y., Farahani, E., Kadner, S., Seyboth, K., Adler, A., Baum, I., Brunner, S., and Eickemeier, P.; . Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change: Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England, 2014.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  6. 6
    Napp, T., Gambhir, A., Florin, N., and Fennell, P. S.Reducing CO2 Emissions from Heavy Industry: A Review of Technologies and Considerations for Policy Makers; Grantham Briefing Paper 7 for Grantham Institute for Climate Change, Imperial College London: London, 2012.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  7. 7
    García-Gusano, D.; Herrera, I.; Garraín, D.; Lechón, Y.; Cabal, H. Life Cycle Assessment of the Spanish Cement Industry: Implementation of Environmental-Friendly Solutions Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2015, 17 (1) 59– 73 DOI: 10.1007/s10098-014-0757-0
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  8. 8
    Industrial Decarbonisation and Energy Efficiency Roadmaps to 2050. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/industrial-decarbonisation-and-energy-efficiency-roadmaps-to-2050 (accessed Jun 5, 2015) .
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  9. 9
    Global CCS Institute. Large-Scale CCS Projects Database. http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/projects/large-scale-ccs-projects#map (accessed Nov 19, 2015) .
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  10. 10
    International Energy Agency. Technology Roadmap: Carbon Capture and Storage, 2013 Ed.; Energy Technology Perspectives: Paris, 2013.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  11. 11
    International Energy Agency. Global Action to Advance Carbon Capture and Storage: A Focus on Industrial Applications - Annex to Tracking Clean Energy Progress 2013; International Energy Agency: Paris, 2013.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  12. 12
    Barker, D. Global Technology Roadmap for CCS in Industry: Sectoral Assessment: Cement; UNIDO: Vienna, Austria, 2010.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  13. 13
    Kober, T.; de Coninck, H.; Mikunda, T.; Bazilian, M.CCS in Industry: The Case for an Undervalued Mitigation Option; Report CATO2-WP2.3-D09; CATO-2: Utrecht, the Netherlands, 2012.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  14. 14
    Leese, R. MPA Cement GHG Reduction Strategy: Technical Document; Mineral Products Association: London, 2013.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  15. 15
    Department of Energy and Climate Change, U.K. Government, Element Energy Limited. Appendix to Demonstrating CO2 Capture in the UK Cement, Chemicals, Iron and Steel and Oil Refining Sectors by 2025: A Techno-Economic Study; UK Departments of Energy and Climate Change and Business, Innovation and Skills: London, 2014.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  16. 16
    Harland, K.; Pershad, H.; Slater, S.; Cook, G.; Watt, J. Potential for the Application of CCS to UK Industry and Natural Gas Power Generation for the Committee on Climate Change; U.K. Committee on Climate Change, 2010, https://www.theccc.org.uk/archive/aws2/0610/pr_supporting_research_element_Energy_CCS_on_gas_and_industry.pdf (accessed March 17, 2015.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  17. 17
    World Business Council for Sustainable Development; International Energy Agency. Cement Technology Roadmap 2009: Carbon Emissions Reductions up to 2050report for WBCSD and IEA; IEA Publications: Paris, 2009.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  18. 18
    Liang, X.; Li, J. Assessing the Value of Retrofitting Cement Plants for Carbon Capture: A Case Study of a Cement Plant in Guangdong, China Energy Convers. Manage. 2012, 64, 454– 465 DOI: 10.1016/j.enconman.2012.04.012
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  19. 19
    Li, J.; Tharakan, P.; Macdonald, D.; Liang, X. Technological, Economic and Financial Prospects of Carbon Dioxide Capture in the Cement Industry Energy Policy 2013, 61, 1377– 1387 DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.082
    Google Scholar
    19
    Technological, economic and financial prospects of carbon dioxide capture in the cement industry
    Li, Jia; Tharakan, Pradeep; MacDonald, Douglas; Liang, Xi
    Energy Policy (2013), 61 (), 1377-1387CODEN: ENPYAC; ISSN:0301-4215. (Elsevier Ltd.)
    Cement is the second largest anthropogenic emission source, contributing approx. 7% of global CO2 emissions. Carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) technol. is considered by the International Energy Agency (IEA) as an essential technol. capable of reducing CO2 emissions in the cement sector by 56% by 2050. The study compares CO2 capture technologies for the cement manufg. process and analyses the economic and financial issues in deploying CO2 capture in the cement industry. Post-combustion capture with chem. absorption is regarded as a proven technol. to capture CO2 from the calcination process. Oxyfuel is less mature but Oxyfuel partial capture-which only recycles O2/CO2 gas in the precalciner-is estd. to be more economic than post-combustion capture. Carbonate looping technologies are not yet com., but they have theor. advantages in terms of energy consumption. In contrast with coal-fired power plants, CO2 capture in the cement industry benefits from a higher concn. of CO2 in the flue gas, but the benefit is offset by higher SOx and NOx levels and the smaller scale of emissions from each plant. Concerning the prospects for financing cement plant CO2 capture, large cement manufacturers on av. have a higher ROE (return on equity) and lower debt ratio, thus a higher discount rate should be considered for the cost anal. than in power plants. IEA ests. that the incremental cost for deploying CCS to decarbonise the global cement sector is in the range US$350-840 billion. The cost ests. for deploying state-of-the art post-combustion CO2 capture technologies in cement plants are above $60 to avoid each tonne of CO2 emissions. However, the expectation is that the current market can only provide a minority of financial support for CO2 capture in cement plants. Public financial support and/or CO2 utilization will be essential to trigger large-scale CCS demonstration projects in the cement industry.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC3sXhtVGqtrbI&md5=83c3b20297c1c3442ad896790cc77785
  20. 20
    Hoenig, V.; Hoppe, H.; Koring, K.; Lemka, J. ECRA CCS Project – Report on Phase III; TR-ECRA-119/2012; European Cement Research Academy: Duesseldorf, Germany, 2012.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  21. 21
    Global CCS Institute. The Global Status of CCS: 2014; Global CCS Institute: Melbourne, Australia, 2014.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  22. 22
    Global CCS Institute; Electric Power Research Institute; WorleyParsons. Strategic Analysis of the Global Status of Carbon Capture and Storage. Report 4: Existing Carbon Capture and Storage Research and Development Networks around the World; Strategic Analysis Series 4; GCCSI: Melbourne, Australia, 2009.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  23. 23
    Office of Fossil Energy. 2012 Technology Readiness Assessment - Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage (CCUS); United States Department of Energy: Washington, D.C., 2012.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  24. 24
    Boot-Handford, M. E.; Abanades, J. C.; Anthony, E. J.; Blunt, M. J.; Brandani, S.; Mac Dowell, N.; Fernández, J. R.; Ferrari, M.-C.; Gross, R.; Hallett, J. P.; Haszeldine, R. S.; Heptonstall, P.; Lyngfelt, A.; Makuch, Z.; Mangano, E.; Porter, R. T. J.; Pourkashanian, M.; Rochelle, G. T.; Shah, N.; Yao, J. G.; Fennell, P. S. Carbon Capture and Storage Update Energy Environ. Sci. 2013, 7 (1) 130– 189 DOI: 10.1039/C3EE42350F
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  25. 25
    Graff, O.CCS in Aker Solutions with a Focus on Cement Industry. Norcem International CCS Conference; Langesund, Norway, May 20–21, 2015.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  26. 26
    Florin, N.; Fennell, P. S. Assessment of the Validity of “Approximate Minimum Land Footprint for Some Types of CO2 Capture Plant”; United Kingdom Department of Energy and Climate Change: London, 2010.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  27. 27
    Volkart, K.; Bauer, C.; Boulet, C. Life Cycle Assessment of Carbon Capture and Storage in Power Generation and Industry in Europe Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 2013, 16, 91– 106 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.03.003
    Google Scholar
    27
    Life cycle assessment of carbon capture and storage in power generation and industry in Europe
    Volkart, Kathrin; Bauer, Christian; Boulet, Celine
    International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control (2013), 16 (), 91-106CODEN: IJGGBW; ISSN:1750-5836. (Elsevier B. V.)
    To prevent serious neg. effects of climate change, greenhouse gas (GHG) emission redns. are required on global level and at large scale. One option is Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) which aims to capture carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power generation and industry and store it permanently in geol. structures. For a comprehensive comparative assessment of the environmental performance of CCS technologies life cycle assessment (LCA) is required. This study provides a systematic comparison of LCA-based environmental performances of fossil and wood power plants as well as cement prodn. in Europe for 2025 and 2050 with and without CCS. The implementation of CCS leads to life cycle GHG emission redns. of 68-92% for fossil power generation and 39-78% for cement prodn. while to neg. ones for wood power generation. There are trade-offs with respect to environmental and human health impacts due to direct (e.g. air emissions) and indirect (e.g. coal mining) impacts of the increase in fuel use and addnl. processes and materials necessary for CCS. Cement plants are suitable point sources for the implementation of CCS. Here the energy supply for the CO2 capture and compression is decisive for the environmental impacts, what indicates benefits of system integration.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC3sXosFWrt7k%253D&md5=3c5d12631c683d9c16b742e4207a937d
  28. 28
    Bjerge, L.-M.; Brevik, P. CO2 Capture in the Cement Industry, Norcem CO2 Capture Project (Norway) Energy Procedia 2014, 63, 6455– 6463 DOI: 10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.680
    Google Scholar
    28
    CO2 Capture in the Cement Industry, Norcem CO2 Capture Project (Norway)
    Bjerge, Liv-Margrethe; Brevik, Per
    Energy Procedia (2014), 63 (12th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, GHGT-12), 6455-6463CODEN: EPNRCV; ISSN:1876-6102. (Elsevier Ltd.)
    The cement industry is a major emitter of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and contributes to around 5% of the global CO2 emissions. In Norway, Norcem is the only cement manufacturer and account for 2.5% of the national emissions, due to different industrial structure compared to other countries. Until recently, CO2 capture in Norway has focused primarily on emissions from offshore installations and gas power plants. There has been little focus on CCS in connections with land-based industrial emissions, although the no. of sources is relatively large, with annual CO2 emission totalling approx. 6 million tonnes. The demand for cement and concrete is expected to increase in the coming years. Therefore, the cement industry needs to be proactive in finding solns. which reduce its climate impact. Norcem AS (Norcem) and its parent company HeidelbergCement Group (HeidelbergCement) have joint forces with the European Cement Research Academy (ECRA) to establish a small-scale test center for studying and comparing various post-combustion CO2 capture technologies, and detg. their suitability for implementation in modern cement kiln systems. The small-scale test center has been established at Norcem's cement plant in Brevik (Norway). The project has received funding from Gassnova through the CLIMIT program. The project was launched in May 2013 and is scheduled to conclude in spring 2017 (Test Step 1). The project is being carried out on behalf of the European cement industry and managed by Norcem. The project mandate involves testing of more mature post-combustion capture technologies initially developed for power generation applications, as well as small scale technologies at an early stage of development. The project does not encompass CO2 transport and storage.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC2MXoslOlsQ%253D%253D&md5=de0e5d43e9a76d48168823693d98b264
  29. 29
    Zeman, F. Oxygen Combustion in Cement Production Energy Procedia 2009, 1 (1) 187– 194 DOI: 10.1016/j.egypro.2009.01.027
    Google Scholar
    29
    Oxygen combustion in cement production
    Zeman, Frank
    Energy Procedia (2009), 1 (1), 187-194CODEN: EPNRCV; ISSN:1876-6102. (Elsevier)
    A review. The cement industry faces a unique challenge in reducing greenhouse gas emissions owing to the large amt., 5% of global total, of process emissions originating from the calcination of limestone. Oxygen combustion is considered the most promising technol. option as the energy penalty for capturing the CO2 is only assocd. with the fuel, as opposed to post combustion capture where sorbent regeneration is required for both fuel and process CO2. While more attractive, the implementation of oxygen combustion and the necessary flue gas recycling, will alter process conditions. As a result, significant research is required to produce a viable design for the complete conversion to oxygen combustion. The conversion will require modifications to every component of the plant with the exception of the quarry and finish grinding sections. The plant boundary will also expand to include an oxygen prodn. facility and a CO2 compression station. While the cost of the addns. can be quantified, the final cost will be a balance between the modifications and revenues from increased prodn.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD1MXht1ygsrnP&md5=8a9bd6a6074d828a2a3bbd120d7cbb16
  30. 30
    Barker, D. J.; Holmes, D.; Hunt, J.; Napier-Moore, P.; Turner, S.; Clark, M. CO2 Capture in the Cement Industry; IEAGHG: Cheltenham, UK, 2008.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  31. 31
    Bhatty, J. I.; Miller, F. M.; Kosmatka, S. H.; Bohan, R. P. Innovations in Portland Cement Manufacturing; Portland Cement Association: Skokie, IL, 2011.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  32. 32
    Koring, K.; Hoenig, V.; Hoppe, H.; Horsch, J.; Suchak, C.; Klevenz, V.; Emberger, B. Deployment of CCS in the Cement Industry; 2013/10; IEAGHG: Cheltenham, UK, 2013.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  33. 33
    Moya, J. A.; Pardo, N.; Mercier, A. The Potential for Improvements in Energy Efficiency and CO2 Emissions in the EU27 Cement Industry and the Relationship with the Capital Budgeting Decision Criteria J. Cleaner Prod. 2011, 19 (11) 1207– 1215 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.03.003
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  34. 34
    Schneider, M.ECRA’s Oxyfuel Project. Norcem International CCS Conference: Langesund, Norway, May 20–21, 2015.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  35. 35
    Rodríguez, N.; Murillo, R.; Abanades, J. C. CO2 Capture from Cement Plants Using Oxyfired Precalcination And/or Calcium Looping Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46 (4) 2460– 2466 DOI: 10.1021/es2030593
    Google Scholar
    35
    CO2 Capture from Cement Plants Using Oxyfired Precalcination and/or Calcium Looping
    Rodriguez, Nuria; Murillo, Ramon; Abanades, J. Carlos
    Environmental Science & Technology (2012), 46 (4), 2460-2466CODEN: ESTHAG; ISSN:0013-936X. (American Chemical Society)
    This paper compares two alternatives to capture CO2 from cement plants: the first is designed to exploit the material and energy synergies with calcium looping technologies, CaL, and the second implements an oxyfired circulating fluidized bed precalcination (CFBP) step. The necessary mass and heat integration balances for these two options are solved and compared with a common ref. cement plant and a cost anal. exercise is carried out. The CaL process applied to the flue gases of a clinker kiln oven is substantially identical to those proposed for similar applications to power plant flue gases. It translates into avoided cost of $23/ton CO2 capturing up to 99% of the total CO2 emitted from the plant. The avoided cost of an equiv. system with an oxyfired CFBC precalcination only, goes down to $16/t CO2 but only captures 89% of the CO2 emitted. Both cases reveal that the application of CaL or oxyfired CFBC for precalcination of CaCO3 in a cement plant, at scales in the order of 50 MWth (referred to the oxyfired CFB calciner) is an important early opportunity for the development of CaL processes in large scale industrial applications as well as for the development of zero emissions cement plants.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC38Xks1ahug%253D%253D&md5=2b83da5c043a5353688ea62bafd726ac
  36. 36
    Gale, J.A Global Perspective on CO2 Capture Developments; CO2 Capture Technology Meeting; IEAGHG: Pittsburgh, PA, 2014
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  37. 37
    Davison, J. Pilot Plant Trial of Oxy-Combustion at a Cement Plant; Information Paper 2014-IP7; IEAGHG: Cheltenham, UK, 2014.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  38. 38
    Dean, C. C.; Blamey, J.; Florin, N. H.; Al-Jeboori, M. J.; Fennell, P. S. The Calcium Looping Cycle for CO2 Capture from Power Generation, Cement Manufacture and Hydrogen Production Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2011, 89 (6) 836– 855 DOI: 10.1016/j.cherd.2010.10.013
    Google Scholar
    38
    The calcium looping cycle for CO2 capture from power generation, cement manufacture and hydrogen production
    Dean, C. C.; Blamey, J.; Florin, N. H.; Al-Jeboori, M. J.; Fennell, P. S.
    Chemical Engineering Research and Design (2011), 89 (6), 836-855CODEN: CERDEE; ISSN:0263-8762. (Elsevier B.V.)
    A review. Calcium looping is a CO2 capture scheme using solid CaO-based sorbents to remove CO2 from flue gases, e.g., from a power plant, producing a concd. stream of CO2 (∼95%) suitable for storage. The scheme exploits the reversible gas-solid reaction between CO2 and CaO(s) to form CaCO3(s). Calcium looping has a no. of advantages compared to closer-to-market capture schemes, including: the use of circulating fluidized bed reactors-a mature technol. at large scale; sorbent derived from cheap, abundant and environmentally benign limestone and dolomite precursors; and the relatively small efficiency penalty that it imposes on the power/industrial process (i.e., estd. at 6-8 percentage points, compared to 9.5-12.5 from amine-based post-combustion capture). A further advantage is the synergy with cement manuf., which potentially allows for decarbonisation of both cement manuf. and power prodn. In addn., a no. of advanced applications offer the potential for significant cost redns. in the prodn. of hydrogen from fossil fuels coupled with CO2 capture. The range of applications of calcium looping are discussed here, including the progress made towards demonstrating this technol. as a viable post-combustion capture technol. using small-pilot scale rigs, and the early progress towards a 2MW scale demonstrator.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC3MXotV2rurc%253D&md5=778d0617eda21671d575307cf27dca7f
  39. 39
    Ozcan, D. C.; Ahn, H.; Brandani, S. Process Integration of a Ca-Looping Carbon Capture Process in a Cement Plant Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 2013, 19, 530– 540 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.10.009
    Google Scholar
    39
    Process integration of a Ca-looping carbon capture process in a cement plant
    Ozcan, Dursun Can; Ahn, Hyungwoong; Brandani, Stefano
    International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control (2013), 19 (), 530-540CODEN: IJGGBW; ISSN:1750-5836. (Elsevier B. V.)
    An anal. of the integration of a Ca-looping process into a cement plant is presented. The capture process, based on selective absorption of CO2 by calcium oxide, has two interconnected reactors where the carbonator captures CO2 from the preheater flue gases and the calciner regenerates the CaCO3 into CaO by oxy-combustion. The study also considers the purge rate of part of the circulating CaO, given the tendency of the material to sinter and reduce its capture capacity. Fresh CaCO3 is added to maintain reactivity in the carbonator, while the purged sorbents are utilized as a cement kiln feed. The detailed carbonator model has been implemented using Matlab and incorporated into Unisim to provide a full flowsheet simulation for an exemplary dry-feed cement plant as a user-defined operation. The effect of molar flowrate ratio of lime make-up to feed CO2 (\\F0/FCO2\\) between two operational limits has been investigated. This process configuration is capable of achieving over 90% CO2 capture with addnl. fuel consumption of 2.5-3.0 GJth/ton CO2 avoided which depends on the \\F0/FCO2\\ ratio. It is found that a proper heat recovery system supplementary to the Ca-looping process makes the Ca-looping process more competitive than the traditional low temp. absorption process based on amine solvents.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC3sXitVWhs7jO&md5=6f40a710fe85ba228c1046e43952c360
  40. 40
    Industrial Technology Research Institute. R & D Achievementson Carbon Capture and Storage in ITRI, Taiwan. http://ccs.tw/sites/default/files/datashare/pdf/2014-10-06-0923-gong_yan_yuan_ccsyan_fa_cheng_guo_ying_wen_.pdf (accessed Nov 22, 2015) .
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  41. 41
    Chang, M.-H.; Huang, C.-M.; Liu, W.-H.; Chen, W.-C.; Cheng, J.-Y.; Chen, W.; Wen, T.-W.; Ouyang, S.; Shen, C.-H.; Hsu, H.-W. Design and Experimental Investigation of Calcium Looping Process for 3-kWth and 1.9-MWth Facilities Chem. Eng. Technol. 2013, 36 (9) 1525– 1532 DOI: 10.1002/ceat.201300081
    Google Scholar
    41
    Design and Experimental Investigation of Calcium Looping Process for 3 kWth and 1.9 MWth Facilities
    Chang, M.-H.; Huang, C.-M.; Liu, W.-H.; Chen, W.-C.; Cheng, J.-Y.; Chen, W.; Wen, T.-W.; Ouyang, S.; Shen, C.-H.; Hsu, H.-W.
    Chemical Engineering & Technology (2013), 36 (9), 1525-1532CODEN: CETEER; ISSN:0930-7516. (Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA)
    The Ca looping CO2 capture process using CaO as a regenerable solid sorbent has been under development at the Industrial Technol. Research Institute (ITRI) of Taiwan for several years. The ITRI 3-KWh test facility is mainly comprised of a fluidized-bed carbonator and a rotary kiln calciner. Calcination and CO2 capture efficiency and operating stability were assessed. A cold model test facility was constructed and an ITRI-designed 1.9 MWh pilot plant is currently being erected. The combination of Ca looping and cement manufg. reduces the adsorbent and calcination energy consumption costs.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC3sXht1Skur3L&md5=09e62448f60a7c25998e37b32ca211a1
  42. 42
    Calix Ltd. Direct Separation Technology for Low Emissions Intensity Lime and Cement. http://www.calix.com.au/cement-and-lime.html (accessed Mar 10, 2015) .
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  43. 43
    Sceats, M. Calix Ltd. Direct Capture for the Cement Industry. Private communcation, February 2015.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  44. 44
    Green, D. W.; Perry, R. H. Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook, 8th edition.; McGraw-Hill Professional: New York, 2007.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  45. 45
    Schneider, M.; Hoenig, V. Development of State of the Art Techniques in Cement Manufacturing: Trying to Look Ahead (CSI/ECRA Technology Papers); Cement Sustainability Initiative: Geneva, Switzerland, 2009.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  46. 46
    Kuramochi, T.; Ramírez, A.; Turkenburg, W.; Faaij, A. Comparative Assessment of CO2 Capture Technologies for Carbon-Intensive Industrial Processes Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2012, 38 (1) 87– 112 DOI: 10.1016/j.pecs.2011.05.001
    Google Scholar
    46
    Comparative assessment of CO2 capture technologies for carbon-intensive industrial processes
    Kuramochi, Takeshi; Ramirez, Andrea; Turkenburg, Wim; Faaij, Andre
    Progress in Energy and Combustion Science (2012), 38 (1), 87-112CODEN: PECSDO; ISSN:0360-1285. (Elsevier Ltd.)
    A review. This article presents a consistent techno-economic assessment and comparison of CO2 capture technologies for key industrial sectors (iron and steel, cement, petroleum refineries and petrochems.). The assessment is based on an extensive literature review, covering studies from both industries and academia. Key parameters, e.g., capacity factor (91-97%), energy prices (natural gas: 8 euro2007/GJ, coal: 2.5 euro2007/GJ, grid electricity: 55 euro/MWh), interest rate (10%), economic plant lifetime (20 years), CO2 compression pressure (110 bar), and grid electricity CO2 intensity (400 g/kWh), were standardized to enable a fair comparison of technologies. The anal. focuses on the changes in energy, CO2 emissions and material flows, due to the deployment of CO2 capture technologies. CO2 capture technologies are categorized into short- to mid-term (ST/MT) and long-term (LT) technologies. The findings of this study identified a large no. of technologies under development, but it is too soon to identify which technologies would become dominant in the future. Moreover, a good integration of industrial plants and power plants is essential for cost-effective CO2 capture because CO2 capture may increase the industrial onsite electricity prodn. significantly. For the iron and steel sector, 40-65 euro/tCO2 avoided may be achieved in the ST/MT, depending on the ironmaking process and the CO2 capture technique. Advanced LT CO2 capture technologies for the blast furnace based process may not offer significant advantages over conventional ones (30-55 euro/tCO2 avoided). Rather than the performance of CO2 capture technique itself, low-cost CO2 emissions redn. comes from good integration of CO2 capture to the ironmaking process. Advanced smelting redn. with integrated CO2 capture may enable lower steel prodn. cost and lower CO2 emissions than the blast furnace based process, i.e., neg. CO2 mitigation cost. For the cement sector, post-combustion capture appears to be the only com. technol. in the ST/MT and the costs are above 65 euro/tCO2 avoided. In the LT, a no. of technologies may enable 25-55 euro/tCO2 avoided. The findings also indicate that, in some cases, partial CO2 capture may have comparative advantages. For the refining and petrochem. sectors, oxyfuel capture was found to be more economical than others at 50-60 euro/tCO2 avoided in ST/MT and about 30 euro/tCO2 avoided in the LT. However, oxyfuel retrofit of furnaces and heaters may be more complicated than that of boilers. Crude ests. of tech. potentials for global CO2 emissions redn. for 2030 were made for the industrial processes investigated with the ST/MT technologies. They amt. up to about 4 Gt/yr: 1 Gt/yr for the iron and steel sector, about 2 Gt/yr for the cement sector, and 1 Gt/yr for petroleum refineries. The actual deployment level would be much lower due to various constraints, about 0.8 Gt/yr, in a stringent emissions redn. scenario.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC3MXhsV2mtLbJ&md5=166fa448fee8dbfbe0c09dc25e2da9e1
  47. 47
    Ho, M. T.; Allinson, G. W.; Wiley, D. E. Comparison of MEA Capture Cost for Low CO2 Emissions Sources in Australia Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 2011, 5 (1) 49– 60 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2010.06.004
    Google Scholar
    47
    Comparison of MEA capture cost for low CO2 emissions sources in Australia
    Ho, Minh T.; Allinson, Guy W.; Wiley, Dianne E.
    International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control (2011), 5 (1), 49-60CODEN: IJGGBW; ISSN:1750-5836. (Elsevier Ltd.)
    This paper ests. the cost of CO2 capture for three Australian industrial emission sources: iron and steel prodn., oil refineries and cement manufg. It also compares the estd. capture costs with those of post-combustion capture from a pulverized black coal power plant. The cost of capture in 2008 using MEA solvent absorption technol. ranges from less than A$60 per ton CO2 avoided for the iron and steel prodn. to over A$70 per ton CO2 avoided for cement manuf. and over A$100 per ton CO2 avoided for oil refineries. The costs of capture for the iron and steel and cement industries are comparable to or less than that for post-combustion capture from a pulverized black coal power plant. This paper also studies costs for converting low partial pressure CO2 streams from iron and steel prodn. to a more concd. stream using pressurization and the water-gas shift reaction. In those cases, the costs are similar to or less than the cost ests. without conversion. The analyses in this paper also show that estd. costs are highly dependent on the characteristics of the industrial emission source, the assumptions related to the type and price of energy used by the capture facilities and the economic parameters of the project such as the discount rate and capital costs.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC3MXjtFWlsA%253D%253D&md5=ce214b48a73f00c80ecf1a69be02da8f
  48. 48
    British Standards Institute. Cement. Composition, Specifications and Conformity Criteria for Common Cements; Report BS EN 197–1:2011; 2011.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  49. 49
    Lafarge, S. A.Lafarge Annual Report 2007; Paris.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  50. 50
    Cochez, E.; Nijs, W. ETSAP: Cement Production; Technology Brief I03; IEA-ETSAP: Cork, Ireland, 2010.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  51. 51
    Carbon Capture Storage project in Estevan Takes Another Step Forward. http://www.estevanmercury.ca/news/city/carbon-capture-storage-project-in-estevan-takes-another-step-forward-1.1450820 (accessed Jun 4, 2015) .
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  52. 52
    FLSmidth Highlights Archive. http://www.flsmidth.com/en-US/eHighlights/Highlights+archive (accessed Jun 5, 2015) .
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  53. 53
    Bohm, M. C.; Herzog, H. J.; Parsons, J. E.; Sekar, R. C. Capture-Ready Coal plants—Options, Technologies and Economics Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 2007, 1 (1) 113– 120 DOI: 10.1016/S1750-5836(07)00033-3
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  54. 54
    Lucquiaud, M.; Chalmers, H.; Gibbins, J. Capture-Ready Supercritical Coal-Fired Power Plants and Flexible Post-Combustion CO2 Capture Energy Procedia 2009, 1 (1) 1411– 1418 DOI: 10.1016/j.egypro.2009.01.185
    Google Scholar
    54
    Capture-ready supercritical coal-fired power plants and flexible post-combustion CO2 capture
    Lucquiaud, Mathieu; Chalmers, Hannah; Gibbins, Jon
    Energy Procedia (2009), 1 (1), 1411-1418CODEN: EPNRCV; ISSN:1876-6102. (Elsevier)
    Delivering a rapid redn. in global CO2 emissions through CCS requires a two -track approach: CCS needs to be developed at scale as quickly as possible and other plants, if built without CCS, need to be built CO2 capture ready (CCR). CCR plants can be upgraded as CCS technol. develops so that their cost of electricity prodn. can be minimized. Retrofitted CCR plants could also be very suitable for providing flexible electricity output. The options available for making steam turbines at pulverized coal plants suitable for adding post-combustion CO2 capture units are discussed, together with their potential for upgrading and enhanced flexibility.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD1MXht1yru73F&md5=b9116d588d2eabdf61c06a413900e5cf
  55. 55
    Liang, X.; Reiner, D.; Gibbins, J.; Li, J. Assessing the Value of CO2 Capture Ready in New-Build Pulverised Coal-Fired Power Plants in China Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 2009, 3 (6) 787– 792 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2009.09.008
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  56. 56
    Rohlfs, W.; Madlener, R. Assessment of Clean-Coal Strategies: The Questionable Merits of Carbon Capture-Readiness Energy 2013, 52, 27– 36 DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2013.01.008
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  57. 57
    Barker, D. J.; Turner, S. A.; Napier-Moore, P. A.; Clark, M.; Davison, J. E. CO2 Capture in the Cement Industry Energy Procedia 2009, 1 (1) 87– 94 DOI: 10.1016/j.egypro.2009.01.014
    Google Scholar
    57
    CO2 capture in the cement industry
    Barker, D. J.; Turner, S. A.; Napier-Moore, P. A.; Clark, M.; Davison, J. E.
    Energy Procedia (2009), 1 (1), 87-94CODEN: EPNRCV; ISSN:1876-6102. (Elsevier)
    A review. Modern cement plants have high energy efficiencies and the scope to reduce CO2 emissions by further efficiency improvements is small. One of the few ways of greatly reducing CO2 prodn. from cement prodn. is CO2 capture and storage (CCS). This paper summarizes a study which assessed the technologies that could be used for CO2 capture in cement plants, their costs, and barriers to their use. The work covered new-build cement plants with post-combustion and oxy-combustion CO2 capture. The basis of the study was a 5-stage preheater with precalciner dry process cement plant with a cement output of 1 Mt/y located in NE Scotland, UK. Process Flow Diagrams (PFDs) and heat and mass balance calcns. for both options were developed. The plant costs were estd. and the costs per ton of CO2 emissions avoided and per ton of cement product detd.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD1MXht1ygsrjM&md5=74db74d0f445f7288ebe0cbec931183d
  58. 58
    ITRI Today 80. Alliance Formedto Foster Carbon Capture Technology https://www.itri.org.tw/eng/DM/PublicationsPeriods/653176317250210672/content/snapshot.html (accessed Dec. 9, 2015) .
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article is cited by 130 publications.

  1. Ammar Mahmood, Frank Dehn, Peter Thissen. Carbonation under Varying Humidity Conditions: A 3D Micro-Scale Kinetic Monte Carlo Approach. Langmuir 2025, Article ASAP.
  2. Debabrata Sengupta, Saptasree Bose, Xiaoliang Wang, Neil M. Schweitzer, Christos D. Malliakas, Haomiao Xie, Joshua Duncan, Kent O. Kirlikovali, Taner Yildirim, Omar K. Farha. Integrated CO2 Capture and Conversion by a Robust Cu(I)-Based Metal–Organic Framework. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2024, 146 (39) , 27006-27013. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.4c08757
  3. Saeed Talei, Agnes Szanyi, Peter Mizsey. Comparison of Water- and Amine-Based Carbon Capture Processes for Air and Oxyfuel Combustion Technologies. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2024, 63 (38) , 16486-16496. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.4c02216
  4. Bo Zhang, Hirofumi Kanoh. Sodium Carbonate–Carbon Hybrid Material for Low-Energy-Consuming CO2 Capture. Energy & Fuels 2024, 38 (13) , 11927-11935. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.4c01232
  5. Bijan Hejazi, Fabio Montagnaro. A Modeling and Simulation Study to Accommodate Sorbent Sintering in a Ca-Looping System Coupled with a Cement Plant. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2024, 63 (25) , 11069-11081. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.4c00941
  6. Kaiqi Jiang, Hai Yu, Zening Sun, Zhiqi Lei, Kangkang Li, Lidong Wang. Zero-Emission Cement Plants with Advanced Amine-Based CO2 Capture. Environmental Science & Technology 2024, 58 (16) , 6978-6987. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c00197
  7. Xiaoliang Wang, Maytham Alzayer, Arthur J. Shih, Saptasree Bose, Haomiao Xie, Simon M. Vornholt, Christos D. Malliakas, Hussain Alhashem, Faramarz Joodaki, Sammer Marzouk, Grace Xiong, Mark Del Campo, Pierre Le Magueres, Filip Formalik, Debabrata Sengupta, Karam B. Idrees, Kaikai Ma, Yongwei Chen, Kent O. Kirlikovali, Timur Islamoglu, Karena W. Chapman, Randall Q. Snurr, Omar K. Farha. Tailoring Hydrophobicity and Pore Environment in Physisorbents for Improved Carbon Dioxide Capture under High Humidity. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2024, 146 (6) , 3943-3954. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.3c11671
  8. Saeed Talei, Daniel Fozer, Petar Sabev Varbanov, Agnes Szanyi, Peter Mizsey. Oxyfuel Combustion Makes Carbon Capture More Efficient. ACS Omega 2024, 9 (3) , 3250-3261. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.3c05034
  9. Zishuai Bill Zhang. Low-Temperature Electrochemical Cement Clinker Production. ACS Energy Letters 2023, 8 (9) , 3927-3934. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.3c01211
  10. Andreas M. Bremen, Till Strunge, Hesam Ostovari, Hendrik Spütz, Adel Mhamdi, Phil Renforth, Mijndert van der Spek, André Bardow, Alexander Mitsos. Direct Olivine Carbonation: Optimal Process Design for a Low-Emission and Cost-Efficient Cement Production. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2022, 61 (35) , 13177-13190. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.2c00984
  11. Stefano E. Zanco, José-Francisco Pérez-Calvo, Antonio Gasós, Beatrice Cordiano, Viola Becattini, Marco Mazzotti. Postcombustion CO2 Capture: A Comparative Techno-Economic Assessment of Three Technologies Using a Solvent, an Adsorbent, and a Membrane. ACS Engineering Au 2021, 1 (1) , 50-72. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsengineeringau.1c00002
  12. Hesam Ostovari, Leonard Müller, Jan Skocek, André Bardow. From Unavoidable CO2 Source to CO2 Sink? A Cement Industry Based on CO2 Mineralization. Environmental Science & Technology 2021, 55 (8) , 5212-5223. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c07599
  13. José-Francisco Pérez-Calvo, Federico Milella, Kevin Ammann, Marco Mazzotti. Density and Viscosity of Aqueous (Ammonia + Carbon Dioxide) Solutions at Atmospheric Pressure and Temperatures between 278.15 and 318.15 K. Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data 2021, 66 (4) , 1787-1801. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jced.0c01090
  14. Mónica Alonso, José Ramón Fernández, Juan Carlos Abanades. Kinetic Study of Belite Formation in Cement Raw Meals Used in the Calcium Looping CO2 Capture Process. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2019, 58 (14) , 5445-5454. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.9b00813
  15. Sandra Turrado, Borja Arias, José Ramón Fernández, Juan Carlos Abanades. Carbonation of Fine CaO Particles in a Drop Tube Reactor. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2018, 57 (40) , 13372-13380. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.8b02918
  16. Ming Zhao, Yinqiang Song, Guozhao Ji, Xiao Zhao. Demonstration of Polymorphic Spacing Strategy against Sintering: Synthesis of Stabilized Calcium Looping Absorbents for High-Temperature CO2 Sorption. Energy & Fuels 2018, 32 (4) , 5443-5452. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.8b00648
  17. Mónica Alonso, Yolanda Álvarez Criado, José Ramón Fernández, and Carlos Abanades . CO2 Carrying Capacities of Cement Raw Meals in Calcium Looping Systems. Energy & Fuels 2017, 31 (12) , 13955-13962. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b02586
  18. Borja Arias, Mónica Alonso, and Carlos Abanades . CO2 Capture by Calcium Looping at Relevant Conditions for Cement Plants: Experimental Testing in a 30 kWth Pilot Plant. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2017, 56 (10) , 2634-2640. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.6b04617
  19. Tongyuan Wu, S. Thomas Ng, Ji Chen. Incorporating carbon capture and storage in decarbonizing China's cement sector. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2025, 209 , 115098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2024.115098
  20. Tharun Roshan Kumar, Johanna Beiron, V.R. Reddy Marthala, Lars Pettersson, Simon Harvey, Henrik Thunman. Enhancing early-stage techno-economic comparative assessment with site-specific factors for decarbonization pathways in carbon-intensive process industry. Carbon Capture Science & Technology 2025, 14 , 100338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccst.2024.100338
  21. Sina Rezvani, Angela Rolfe, Flavio Franco, Caterina Brandoni, Kyra Böge, Neil Hewitt, Ye Huang. Indirectly heated carbonate looping cycles in cement plants for CO2 capture and storage. Applied Thermal Engineering 2025, 263 , 125349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2024.125349
  22. Marianne Zanon-Zotin, Luiz Bernardo Baptista, Pedro R.R. Rochedo, Alexandre Szklo, Roberto Schaeffer. Industrial sector pathways to a well-below 2 °C world: A global integrated assessment perspective. Applied Energy 2025, 381 , 125173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.125173
  23. Amanuel Bersisa, Ki-Yeon Moon, G.M. Kim, Jin-Sang Cho, Solmoi Park. Internal carbonation of calcium silicate cement incorporated with Na2CO3 and NaHCO3. Construction and Building Materials 2025, 462 , 139732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2024.139732
  24. Godknows Dziva, Jonas Weitzel, Pengjun Cui, Maxine Yew, Guangchao Ding, Liang Zeng, Songgeng Li. Low-carbon, hydrogen-rich syngas from sorption-enhanced gasification: A review. Carbon Capture Science & Technology 2025, 461 , 100372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccst.2025.100372
  25. Amir Taqieddin, Stephanie Sarrouf, Muhammad Fahad Ehsan, Ken Buesseler, Akram N. Alshawabkeh. Electrochemical ocean iron fertilization and alkalinity enhancement approach toward CO2 sequestration. npj Ocean Sustainability 2024, 3 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s44183-024-00064-8
  26. Piotr Palimąka, Stanisław Pietrzyk, Maciej Balcerzak, Krzysztof Żaba, Beata Leszczyńska-Madej, Justyna Jaskowska-Lemańska. Evaluation of the Wear of Ni 200 Alloy After Long-Term Carbon Capture in Molten Salts Process. Materials 2024, 17 (24) , 6302. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17246302
  27. Ayat-Allah Bouramdane. Multi-criteria evaluation of carbon capture technologies in steel, cement, petrochemical, and fertilizer industries: Insights for emerging and developed countries. Science of The Total Environment 2024, 957 , 177754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.177754
  28. Adrian Chajec, Sławomir Czarnecki, Łukasz Sadowski. Smart optimization of packing density for cleaner production of cementitious composites using mineral powders. Developments in the Built Environment 2024, 19 , 100532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dibe.2024.100532
  29. Ikenna J. Okeke, Dipti Kamath, Sachin U. Nimbalkar, Joe Cresko. The Role of Low-Carbon Fuels and Carbon Capture in Decarbonizing the U.S. Clinker Manufacturing for Cement Production: CO2 Emissions Reduction Potentials. Energies 2024, 17 (20) , 5233. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17205233
  30. Nurgabyl Khoyashov, Gaini Serik, Amina Togay, Yerdaulet Abuov, Alisher Alibekov, Woojin Lee. Development of carbon capture and storage (CCS) hubs in Kazakhstan. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 2024, 138 , 104259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2024.104259
  31. Tomas Tuhin Kashyap, Ravi Sharma, Dipen Paul, Rahul Hiremath. Techno-economic feasibility of CO2 utilization for production of green urea by Indian cement industries. Journal of Cleaner Production 2024, 476 , 143799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.143799
  32. Ben Maes, Bart Craeye, Matthias Buyle, Amaryllis Audenaert. Enriching IAM scenarios for effective pLCA integration: A clinker case study. Journal of Cleaner Production 2024, 470 , 143316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.143316
  33. Quanliang Li, Feng He, Shuxia Mei, Junlin Xie, Chao Zhang, Yuhua Deng. Effect of oxy-fuel combustion with different O2/CO2 fractions on the pulverized coal combustion mechanism and heat transfer characteristics in rotary kilns: A numerical simulation study. Chemical Engineering Journal 2024, 494 , 153181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2024.153181
  34. Otavio Cavalett, Marcos D. B. Watanabe, Mari Voldsund, Simon Roussanaly, Francesco Cherubini. Paving the way for sustainable decarbonization of the European cement industry. Nature Sustainability 2024, 7 (5) , 568-580. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-024-01320-y
  35. Servan Baran, Ahmet Baran, Sidar Nihat Bicakci, Hasan Nuri Turkmenoglu, Hakan Nuri Atahan. Fresh, Setting, and Hardened Properties of Fly Ash Concrete with Nano-Silica. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering 2024, 16 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-024-09022-5
  36. Kyung Hwan Ryu, Doyeon Lee, Byungwook Hwang. Sustainability assessment for the cement flue gas methanation process using dual functional material (DFM). Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 2024, 12 (2) , 112451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2024.112451
  37. Amit Kumar, Arun Kumar Tiwari, Dia Milani. Decarbonizing Hard-to-Abate Heavy Industries: Current Status and Pathways towards Net-Zero Future. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 2024, 15 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2024.04.107
  38. Kaiqing Zhang, Rui Wang. A critical review on new and efficient adsorbents for CO2 capture. Chemical Engineering Journal 2024, 485 , 149495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2024.149495
  39. Runhao Zhang, Yongze Li, Chujie Qi, Bo Liu, Kai Zhou, Yuchen Yang, Hui Dai, Zhenzhen Zhao, Bo Bian. A novel strategy for urban and rural organic waste utilization with outstanding integrated benefits: based on study in China's Taihu Lake region. Journal of Cleaner Production 2024, 191 , 142076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.142076
  40. M. Bacatelo, F. Capucha, P. Ferrão, F. Margarido, J. Bordado. Carbon-neutral cement: The role of green hydrogen. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2024, 63 , 382-395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2024.03.028
  41. Junjun Yin, Chao'en Li, Gabriel Paicu, Shi Su. Techno-economic assessment of retrofitting indirect-heated calcium looping using coal and biomass as fuels into an existing cement plant for CO2 capture. Gas Science and Engineering 2024, 123 , 205236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgsce.2024.205236
  42. Hongyou Lu, Kairui You, Wei Feng, Nan Zhou, David Fridley, Lynn Price, Stephane de la Rue du Can. Reducing China’s building material embodied emissions: Opportunities and challenges to achieve carbon neutrality in building materials. iScience 2024, 27 (3) , 109028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2024.109028
  43. Ivonne Servin-Balderas, Koen Wetser, Cees Buisman, Bert Hamelers. Implications in the production of defossilized methanol: A study on carbon sources. Journal of Environmental Management 2024, 354 , 120304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120304
  44. Simon Pratschner, Martin Hammerschmid, Stefan Müller, Franz Winter. Off-grid vs. grid-based: Techno-economic assessment of a power-to-liquid plant combining solid-oxide electrolysis and Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. Chemical Engineering Journal 2024, 481 , 148413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2023.148413
  45. Jonah M. Williams, Diandian Zhao, Ning Zhang, Allen Zheng, Steven G. Greenbaum, Shiho Kawashima, Aaron J. Moment. Calcium carbonate and reactive silica recovery from waste cement: The influence of processing parameters on upcycled material properties and carbon intensity. Chemical Engineering Journal 2024, 482 , 149013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2024.149013
  46. Goran Durakovic, Hongyu Zhang, Brage Rugstad Knudsen, Asgeir Tomasgard, Pedro Crespo del Granado. Decarbonizing the European energy system in the absence of Russian gas: Hydrogen uptake and carbon capture developments in the power, heat and industry sectors. Journal of Cleaner Production 2024, 435 , 140473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.140473
  47. Quanliang Li, Feng He, Shuxia Mei, Junlin Xie, Chao Zhang, Yuhua Deng. Effect of Oxy-Fuel Combustion with Different O2/Co2 Fractions on the Pulverized Coal Combustion Mechanism and Heat Transfer Characteristics in Rotary Kilns: A Numerical Simulation Study. 2024https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4796899
  48. Mitra Jafari, Harvey Arellano-Garcia. CO2 Sources and Features for Direct CO2 Conversion to Methanol. 2024https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-15740-0.00127-0
  49. Josefine A. Olsson, Sabbie A. Miller, Mark G. Alexander. Near-term pathways for decarbonizing global concrete production. Nature Communications 2023, 14 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-40302-0
  50. José Aguirre Castillo, Markus Broström, Matias Eriksson. Phase evolution and burnability of cement raw meal. Advances in Cement Research 2023, 35 (12) , 577-587. https://doi.org/10.1680/jadcr.23.00034
  51. Paulo Garcia, Warisa Sritriratanarak. We need a theoretical framework for the modernization of industrial legacy systems. Frontiers in Industrial Engineering 2023, 1 https://doi.org/10.3389/fieng.2023.1266651
  52. Kaiyin Zhao, Cunqi Jia, Zihao Li, Xiangze Du, Yubei Wang, Jingjing Li, Zechen Yao, Jun Yao. Recent Advances and Future Perspectives in Carbon Capture, Transportation, Utilization, and Storage (CCTUS) Technologies: A Comprehensive Review. Fuel 2023, 351 , 128913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2023.128913
  53. Tongyuan Wu, S. Thomas Ng, Ji Chen, Zhi Cao. More intensive use and lifetime extension can enable net-zero emissions in China’s cement cycle. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2023, 198 , 107144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107144
  54. Ron M. Jacob, Jean-Patrick Pinheiro, Lars-André Tokheim. Electrified externally heated rotary calciner for calcination of cement raw meal. Heliyon 2023, 9 (11) , e22023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e22023
  55. Ron M. Jacob, Lars-André Tokheim. CPFD simulation of an electrically heated fluidized bed calciner with binary particles. Energy Conversion and Management: X 2023, 20 , 100444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecmx.2023.100444
  56. Xiaokang Liu, Kaiyuan Jin, Xiaobo Li, Ronggui Yang. Low-carbon cement manufacturing enabled by electrified calcium looping and thermal energy storage. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 2023, 129 , 103986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2023.103986
  57. Yu Wang, Honghong Yi, Xiaolong Tang, Yaxin Wang, Haowen An, Jun Liu. Historical trend and decarbonization pathway of China's cement industry: A literature review. Science of The Total Environment 2023, 891 , 164580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.164580
  58. Steve Griffiths, Benjamin K. Sovacool, Dylan D. Furszyfer Del Rio, Aoife M. Foley, Morgan D. Bazilian, Jinsoo Kim, Joao M. Uratani. Decarbonizing the cement and concrete industry: A systematic review of socio-technical systems, technological innovations, and policy options. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2023, 180 , 113291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2023.113291
  59. Wei Wu, Zhong-Lin Jian, Bang-Yan Chou, Chun-Yang You, Yu-Ning Kuo. Process Design and Techno-ECONOMIC Evaluation of a Decarbonized Cement Production Process Using Carbon Capture and Utilization. Processes 2023, 11 (7) , 2043. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11072043
  60. Nahed Bahman, Mohamed Al-Khalifa, Safeya Al Baharna, Zainab Abdulmohsen, Ezzat Khan. Review of carbon capture and storage technologies in selected industries: potentials and challenges. Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology 2023, 22 (2) , 451-470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-023-09649-0
  61. Simon Pratschner, Martin Hammerschmid, Stefan Müller, Franz Winter. Evaluation of CO2 sources for Power-to-Liquid plants producing Fischer-Tropsch products. Journal of CO2 Utilization 2023, 72 , 102508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcou.2023.102508
  62. Eyad Smadi, Mehdi Jafarian, Bassam Dally, Graham J. Nathan. Steam calcination of lime for CO2 capture. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 2023, 11 (3) , 109812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2023.109812
  63. L.M. Marques, S.M. Mota, P. Teixeira, C.I.C. Pinheiro, H.A. Matos. Ca-looping process using wastes of marble powders and limestones for CO2 capture from real flue gas in the cement industry. Journal of CO2 Utilization 2023, 71 , 102450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcou.2023.102450
  64. Hope McLaughlin, Anna A. Littlefield, Maia Menefee, Austin Kinzer, Tobias Hull, Benjamin K. Sovacool, Morgan D. Bazilian, Jinsoo Kim, Steven Griffiths. Carbon capture utilization and storage in review: Sociotechnical implications for a carbon reliant world. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2023, 177 , 113215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2023.113215
  65. Xiaoquan Gao, Cuiping Liao, Xiaoling Qi, Yulong Zhang. A Scenario Simulation of Material Substitution in the Cement Industry under the Carbon Neutral Strategy: A Case Study of Guangdong. Sustainability 2023, 15 (7) , 5736. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075736
  66. Peiliang Shen, Yi Jiang, Yangyang Zhang, Songhui Liu, Dongxing Xuan, Jianxin Lu, Shipeng Zhang, Chi Sun Poon. Production of aragonite whiskers by carbonation of fine recycled concrete wastes: An alternative pathway for efficient CO2 sequestration. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2023, 173 , 113079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.113079
  67. Daniele Ferrario, Stefano Stendardo, Vittorio Verda, Andrea Lanzini. Solar-driven calcium looping system for carbon capture in cement plants: Process modelling and energy analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production 2023, 394 , 136367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136367
  68. M. Bacatelo, F. Capucha, P. Ferrão, F. Margarido. Selection of a CO2 capture technology for the cement industry: An integrated TEA and LCA methodological framework. Journal of CO2 Utilization 2023, 68 , 102375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcou.2022.102375
  69. Mohd Hanifa, R. Agarwal, U. Sharma, P.C. Thapliyal, L.P. Singh. A review on CO2 capture and sequestration in the construction industry: Emerging approaches and commercialised technologies. Journal of CO2 Utilization 2023, 67 , 102292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcou.2022.102292
  70. Xiaokang Liu, Xiaobo Li, Ronggui Yang. High-temperature thermal storage-based cement manufacturing for decarbonization. Carbon Neutrality 2022, 1 (1) https://doi.org/10.1007/s43979-022-00030-8
  71. Zhiwei Ge, Binlin Dou, Liang Wang, Yulong Ding, Haisheng Chen, Yimin Xuan. Calcium-looping based energy conversion and storage for carbon neutrality –the way forward. Carbon Neutrality 2022, 1 (1) https://doi.org/10.1007/s43979-022-00034-4
  72. Justin G. Driver, Thomas Hills, Phil Hodgson, Mark Sceats, Paul S. Fennell. Simulation of direct separation technology for carbon capture and storage in the cement industry. Chemical Engineering Journal 2022, 449 , 137721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2022.137721
  73. Carina Harpprecht, Tobias Naegler, Bernhard Steubing, Arnold Tukker, Sonja Simon. Decarbonization scenarios for the iron and steel industry in context of a sectoral carbon budget: Germany as a case study. Journal of Cleaner Production 2022, 380 , 134846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134846
  74. Otavio Cavalett, Marcos D. B. Watanabe, Kristina Fleiger, Volker Hoenig, Francesco Cherubini. LCA and negative emission potential of retrofitted cement plants under oxyfuel conditions at high biogenic fuel shares. Scientific Reports 2022, 12 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-13064-w
  75. Xiaozhen Xu, Beijia Huang, Litao Liu, Zhi Cao, Xiaofeng Gao, Ruichang Mao, Lian Duan, Yanxi Chen, Yuyue Wang, Gang Liu. Modernizing cement manufacturing in China leads to substantial environmental gains. Communications Earth & Environment 2022, 3 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00579-3
  76. Mugahed Amran, Natt Makul, Roman Fediuk, Yeong Huei Lee, Nikolai Ivanovich Vatin, Yee Yong Lee, Kachalla Mohammed. Global carbon recoverability experiences from the cement industry. Case Studies in Construction Materials 2022, 17 , e01439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e01439
  77. Peiliang Shen, Jianxin Lu, Yangyang Zhang, Yi Jiang, Shipeng Zhang, Chi Sun Poon. Preparation aragonite whisker-rich materials by wet carbonation of cement: Towards yielding micro-fiber reinforced cement and sequestrating CO2. Cement and Concrete Research 2022, 159 , 106891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2022.106891
  78. Erik Sandberg, Anna Krook-Riekkola. The impact of technology availability on the transition to net-zero industry in Sweden. Journal of Cleaner Production 2022, 363 , 132594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132594
  79. Mehdi Jafarian, Bassam B. Dally, Graham J. Nathan. Hydrogen peroxide for fuel oxidation to achieve CO2 capture from lime production. Energy Conversion and Management: X 2022, 15 , 100276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecmx.2022.100276
  80. Liang Teng, Yimin Xuan, Yun Da, Chen Sun, Xianglei Liu, Yulong Ding. Direct solar-driven reduction of greenhouse gases into hydrocarbon fuels incorporating thermochemical energy storage via modified calcium looping. Chemical Engineering Journal 2022, 440 , 135955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2022.135955
  81. Ravi Teja Kusuma, Rahul B. Hiremath, Pachimatla Rajesh, Bimlesh Kumar, Suresh Renukappa. Sustainable transition towards biomass-based cement industry: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2022, 163 , 112503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112503
  82. Georgios Varvoutis, Athanasios Lampropoulos, Evridiki Mandela, Michalis Konsolakis, George E. Marnellos. Recent Advances on CO2 Mitigation Technologies: On the Role of Hydrogenation Route via Green H2. Energies 2022, 15 (13) , 4790. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15134790
  83. Stephen Stokreef, Farzaneh Sadri, Arthur Stokreef, Ahmad Ghahreman. Mineral carbonation of ultramafic tailings: A review of reaction mechanisms and kinetics, industry case studies, and modelling. Cleaner Engineering and Technology 2022, 8 , 100491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clet.2022.100491
  84. Muhammad Nasir Amin, Muhammad Armaghan Siffat, Khan Shahzada, Kaffayatullah Khan. Influence of Fineness of Wheat Straw Ash on Autogenous Shrinkage and Mechanical Properties of Green Concrete. Crystals 2022, 12 (5) , 588. https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst12050588
  85. Maciej Zajac, Jan Skocek, Mohsen Ben Haha, Jan Deja. CO2 Mineralization Methods in Cement and Concrete Industry. Energies 2022, 15 (10) , 3597. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15103597
  86. Claudio Carbone, Daniele Ferrario, Andrea Lanzini, Stefano Stendardo, Alessandro Agostini. Evaluating the Carbon Footprint of Cement Plants Integrated With the Calcium Looping CO2 Capture Process. Frontiers in Sustainability 2022, 3 https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2022.809231
  87. D. Coffetti, E. Crotti, G. Gazzaniga, M. Carrara, T. Pastore, L. Coppola. Pathways towards sustainable concrete. Cement and Concrete Research 2022, 154 , 106718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2022.106718
  88. Francesco Magli, Maurizio Spinelli, Martina Fantini, Matteo Carmelo Romano, Manuele Gatti. Techno-economic optimization and off-design analysis of CO2 purification units for cement plants with oxyfuel-based CO2 capture. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 2022, 115 , 103591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2022.103591
  89. José-Francisco Pérez-Calvo, Marco Mazzotti. Techno-economic assessment of post-combustion CO2 capture using aqueous piperazine at different flue gas compositions and flowrates via a general optimization methodology. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 2022, 114 , 103587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2022.103587
  90. Dimitris Ipsakis, Georgios Varvoutis, Athanasios Lampropoulos, Spiros Papaefthimiou, George E. Marnellos, Michalis Konsolakis. Τechno-economic assessment of industrially-captured CO2 upgrade to synthetic natural gas by means of renewable hydrogen. Renewable Energy 2021, 179 , 1884-1896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.07.109
  91. Ehsan Vahidi, Randolph Kirchain, Jasmina Burek, Jeremy Gregory. Regional variation of greenhouse gas mitigation strategies for the United States building sector. Applied Energy 2021, 302 , 117527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117527
  92. Sabbie A. Miller, Guillaume Habert, Rupert J. Myers, John T. Harvey. Achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions in the cement industry via value chain mitigation strategies. One Earth 2021, 4 (10) , 1398-1411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.09.011
  93. Eric Schuler, Marilena Demetriou, N. Raveendran Shiju, Gert‐Jan M. Gruter. Towards Sustainable Oxalic Acid from CO 2 and Biomass. ChemSusChem 2021, 14 (18) , 3636-3664. https://doi.org/10.1002/cssc.202101272
  94. Luqman Kolawole Abidoye, Diganta B. Das. Carbon Storage in Portland Cement Mortar: Influences of Hydration Stage, Carbonation Time and Aggregate Characteristics. Clean Technologies 2021, 3 (3) , 563-580. https://doi.org/10.3390/cleantechnol3030034
  95. Isabel M Morris, Vivek Kumar, Branko Glisic. Predicting material properties of concrete from ground-penetrating radar attributes. Structural Health Monitoring 2021, 20 (5) , 2791-2812. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475921720976999
  96. Paula Teixeira, Auguste Fernandes, Filipa Ribeiro, Carla I. C. Pinheiro. Blending Wastes of Marble Powder and Dolomite Sorbents for Calcium-Looping CO2 Capture under Realistic Industrial Calcination Conditions. Materials 2021, 14 (16) , 4379. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14164379
  97. F. Yang, J.C. Meerman, A.P.C. Faaij. Carbon capture and biomass in industry: A techno-economic analysis and comparison of negative emission options. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2021, 144 , 111028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111028
  98. Sabbie A Miller. The role of data variability and uncertainty in the probability of mitigating environmental impacts from cement and concrete. Environmental Research Letters 2021, 16 (5) , 054053. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abe677
  99. Sarah Pamenter, Rupert J. Myers. Decarbonizing the cementitious materials cycle: A whole‐systems review of measures to decarbonize the cement supply chain in the UK and European contexts. Journal of Industrial Ecology 2021, 25 (2) , 359-376. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13105
  100. Yiyi Ju, Masahiro Sugiyama, Etsushi Kato, Yuhji Matsuo, Ken Oshiro, Diego Silva Herran. Industrial decarbonization under Japan’s national mitigation scenarios: a multi-model analysis. Sustainability Science 2021, 16 (2) , 411-427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-00905-2
Load all citations
Download PDF
Go to Environmental Science & Technology
Get e-Alerts
Get e-Alerts

Environmental Science & Technology

Cite this: Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 1, 368–377
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b03508
Published December 2, 2015

Copyright © 2015 American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under CC-BY.

Article Views

28k

Altmetric

-

Citations

130
Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Abstract

    High Resolution Image
    Download MS PowerPoint Slide

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. Direct emissions of CO2 from CEM I (95% clinker) cement manufacture (own calculations). CEM I rather than CEM II was chosen for comparisons in this paper because of its smaller range of composition than CEM II (95–100% clinker by weight versus 35–94%).

    High Resolution Image
    Download MS PowerPoint Slide

  • References

    This article references 58 other publications.

    1. 1
      Elzinga, D., Bennett, S., Best, D., Burnard, K., Cazzola, P., D’Ambrosio, D., Dulac, J., Fernandez Pales, A., Hood, C., LaFrance, M., McCoy, S., Mueller, S., Munuera, L., Poponi, D., Remme, U., Tam, C., West, K., Chiavari, J., Jun, F., and Qin, Y. Energy Technology Perspectives 2015: Mobilising Innovation to Accelerate Climate Action; International Energy Agency: Paris, 2015.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    2. 2
      WBCSD Cement Sustainability Initiative. “Gettingthe Numbers Right” (GNR). http://www.wbcsdcement.org/index.php/key-issues/climate-protection/gnr-database (accessed Nov. 23, 2015).
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    3. 3
      Diczfalusy, B., Wråke, M., Breen, K., Burnard, K., Cheung, K., Chiavari, J., Cuenot, F., D’Ambrosio, D., Dulac, J., Elzinga, D., Fulton, L., Gawel, A., Heinen, S., Ito, O., Kaneko, H., Koerner, A., McCoy, S., Munuera, L., Remme, U., Tam, C., Trigg, T., Trudeau, N., and Yamada, H. Energy Technology Perspectives 2012: Pathways to a Clean Energy System (ETP 2012); International Energy Agency: Paris, 2012.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    4. 4
      Heidrich, C., Sanjayan, J., Berndt, M. L., Foster, S., and Sagoe-Crentsil, K. Pathways and Barriers for Acceptance and Usage of Geopolymer Concrete in Mainstream Construction; World of Coal Ash Conference: Nashville, May 5–7, 2015.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    5. 5
      Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona, Y., Farahani, E., Kadner, S., Seyboth, K., Adler, A., Baum, I., Brunner, S., and Eickemeier, P.; . Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change: Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England, 2014.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    6. 6
      Napp, T., Gambhir, A., Florin, N., and Fennell, P. S.Reducing CO2 Emissions from Heavy Industry: A Review of Technologies and Considerations for Policy Makers; Grantham Briefing Paper 7 for Grantham Institute for Climate Change, Imperial College London: London, 2012.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    7. 7
      García-Gusano, D.; Herrera, I.; Garraín, D.; Lechón, Y.; Cabal, H. Life Cycle Assessment of the Spanish Cement Industry: Implementation of Environmental-Friendly Solutions Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2015, 17 (1) 59– 73 DOI: 10.1007/s10098-014-0757-0
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    8. 8
      Industrial Decarbonisation and Energy Efficiency Roadmaps to 2050. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/industrial-decarbonisation-and-energy-efficiency-roadmaps-to-2050 (accessed Jun 5, 2015) .
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    9. 9
      Global CCS Institute. Large-Scale CCS Projects Database. http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/projects/large-scale-ccs-projects#map (accessed Nov 19, 2015) .
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    10. 10
      International Energy Agency. Technology Roadmap: Carbon Capture and Storage, 2013 Ed.; Energy Technology Perspectives: Paris, 2013.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    11. 11
      International Energy Agency. Global Action to Advance Carbon Capture and Storage: A Focus on Industrial Applications - Annex to Tracking Clean Energy Progress 2013; International Energy Agency: Paris, 2013.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    12. 12
      Barker, D. Global Technology Roadmap for CCS in Industry: Sectoral Assessment: Cement; UNIDO: Vienna, Austria, 2010.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    13. 13
      Kober, T.; de Coninck, H.; Mikunda, T.; Bazilian, M.CCS in Industry: The Case for an Undervalued Mitigation Option; Report CATO2-WP2.3-D09; CATO-2: Utrecht, the Netherlands, 2012.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    14. 14
      Leese, R. MPA Cement GHG Reduction Strategy: Technical Document; Mineral Products Association: London, 2013.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    15. 15
      Department of Energy and Climate Change, U.K. Government, Element Energy Limited. Appendix to Demonstrating CO2 Capture in the UK Cement, Chemicals, Iron and Steel and Oil Refining Sectors by 2025: A Techno-Economic Study; UK Departments of Energy and Climate Change and Business, Innovation and Skills: London, 2014.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    16. 16
      Harland, K.; Pershad, H.; Slater, S.; Cook, G.; Watt, J. Potential for the Application of CCS to UK Industry and Natural Gas Power Generation for the Committee on Climate Change; U.K. Committee on Climate Change, 2010, https://www.theccc.org.uk/archive/aws2/0610/pr_supporting_research_element_Energy_CCS_on_gas_and_industry.pdf (accessed March 17, 2015.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    17. 17
      World Business Council for Sustainable Development; International Energy Agency. Cement Technology Roadmap 2009: Carbon Emissions Reductions up to 2050report for WBCSD and IEA; IEA Publications: Paris, 2009.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    18. 18
      Liang, X.; Li, J. Assessing the Value of Retrofitting Cement Plants for Carbon Capture: A Case Study of a Cement Plant in Guangdong, China Energy Convers. Manage. 2012, 64, 454– 465 DOI: 10.1016/j.enconman.2012.04.012
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    19. 19
      Li, J.; Tharakan, P.; Macdonald, D.; Liang, X. Technological, Economic and Financial Prospects of Carbon Dioxide Capture in the Cement Industry Energy Policy 2013, 61, 1377– 1387 DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.082
      19
      Technological, economic and financial prospects of carbon dioxide capture in the cement industry
      Li, Jia; Tharakan, Pradeep; MacDonald, Douglas; Liang, Xi
      Energy Policy (2013), 61 (), 1377-1387CODEN: ENPYAC; ISSN:0301-4215. (Elsevier Ltd.)
      Cement is the second largest anthropogenic emission source, contributing approx. 7% of global CO2 emissions. Carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) technol. is considered by the International Energy Agency (IEA) as an essential technol. capable of reducing CO2 emissions in the cement sector by 56% by 2050. The study compares CO2 capture technologies for the cement manufg. process and analyses the economic and financial issues in deploying CO2 capture in the cement industry. Post-combustion capture with chem. absorption is regarded as a proven technol. to capture CO2 from the calcination process. Oxyfuel is less mature but Oxyfuel partial capture-which only recycles O2/CO2 gas in the precalciner-is estd. to be more economic than post-combustion capture. Carbonate looping technologies are not yet com., but they have theor. advantages in terms of energy consumption. In contrast with coal-fired power plants, CO2 capture in the cement industry benefits from a higher concn. of CO2 in the flue gas, but the benefit is offset by higher SOx and NOx levels and the smaller scale of emissions from each plant. Concerning the prospects for financing cement plant CO2 capture, large cement manufacturers on av. have a higher ROE (return on equity) and lower debt ratio, thus a higher discount rate should be considered for the cost anal. than in power plants. IEA ests. that the incremental cost for deploying CCS to decarbonise the global cement sector is in the range US$350-840 billion. The cost ests. for deploying state-of-the art post-combustion CO2 capture technologies in cement plants are above $60 to avoid each tonne of CO2 emissions. However, the expectation is that the current market can only provide a minority of financial support for CO2 capture in cement plants. Public financial support and/or CO2 utilization will be essential to trigger large-scale CCS demonstration projects in the cement industry.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC3sXhtVGqtrbI&md5=83c3b20297c1c3442ad896790cc77785
    20. 20
      Hoenig, V.; Hoppe, H.; Koring, K.; Lemka, J. ECRA CCS Project – Report on Phase III; TR-ECRA-119/2012; European Cement Research Academy: Duesseldorf, Germany, 2012.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    21. 21
      Global CCS Institute. The Global Status of CCS: 2014; Global CCS Institute: Melbourne, Australia, 2014.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    22. 22
      Global CCS Institute; Electric Power Research Institute; WorleyParsons. Strategic Analysis of the Global Status of Carbon Capture and Storage. Report 4: Existing Carbon Capture and Storage Research and Development Networks around the World; Strategic Analysis Series 4; GCCSI: Melbourne, Australia, 2009.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    23. 23
      Office of Fossil Energy. 2012 Technology Readiness Assessment - Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage (CCUS); United States Department of Energy: Washington, D.C., 2012.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    24. 24
      Boot-Handford, M. E.; Abanades, J. C.; Anthony, E. J.; Blunt, M. J.; Brandani, S.; Mac Dowell, N.; Fernández, J. R.; Ferrari, M.-C.; Gross, R.; Hallett, J. P.; Haszeldine, R. S.; Heptonstall, P.; Lyngfelt, A.; Makuch, Z.; Mangano, E.; Porter, R. T. J.; Pourkashanian, M.; Rochelle, G. T.; Shah, N.; Yao, J. G.; Fennell, P. S. Carbon Capture and Storage Update Energy Environ. Sci. 2013, 7 (1) 130– 189 DOI: 10.1039/C3EE42350F
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    25. 25
      Graff, O.CCS in Aker Solutions with a Focus on Cement Industry. Norcem International CCS Conference; Langesund, Norway, May 20–21, 2015.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    26. 26
      Florin, N.; Fennell, P. S. Assessment of the Validity of “Approximate Minimum Land Footprint for Some Types of CO2 Capture Plant”; United Kingdom Department of Energy and Climate Change: London, 2010.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    27. 27
      Volkart, K.; Bauer, C.; Boulet, C. Life Cycle Assessment of Carbon Capture and Storage in Power Generation and Industry in Europe Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 2013, 16, 91– 106 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.03.003
      27
      Life cycle assessment of carbon capture and storage in power generation and industry in Europe
      Volkart, Kathrin; Bauer, Christian; Boulet, Celine
      International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control (2013), 16 (), 91-106CODEN: IJGGBW; ISSN:1750-5836. (Elsevier B. V.)
      To prevent serious neg. effects of climate change, greenhouse gas (GHG) emission redns. are required on global level and at large scale. One option is Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) which aims to capture carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power generation and industry and store it permanently in geol. structures. For a comprehensive comparative assessment of the environmental performance of CCS technologies life cycle assessment (LCA) is required. This study provides a systematic comparison of LCA-based environmental performances of fossil and wood power plants as well as cement prodn. in Europe for 2025 and 2050 with and without CCS. The implementation of CCS leads to life cycle GHG emission redns. of 68-92% for fossil power generation and 39-78% for cement prodn. while to neg. ones for wood power generation. There are trade-offs with respect to environmental and human health impacts due to direct (e.g. air emissions) and indirect (e.g. coal mining) impacts of the increase in fuel use and addnl. processes and materials necessary for CCS. Cement plants are suitable point sources for the implementation of CCS. Here the energy supply for the CO2 capture and compression is decisive for the environmental impacts, what indicates benefits of system integration.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC3sXosFWrt7k%253D&md5=3c5d12631c683d9c16b742e4207a937d
    28. 28
      Bjerge, L.-M.; Brevik, P. CO2 Capture in the Cement Industry, Norcem CO2 Capture Project (Norway) Energy Procedia 2014, 63, 6455– 6463 DOI: 10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.680
      28
      CO2 Capture in the Cement Industry, Norcem CO2 Capture Project (Norway)
      Bjerge, Liv-Margrethe; Brevik, Per
      Energy Procedia (2014), 63 (12th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, GHGT-12), 6455-6463CODEN: EPNRCV; ISSN:1876-6102. (Elsevier Ltd.)
      The cement industry is a major emitter of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and contributes to around 5% of the global CO2 emissions. In Norway, Norcem is the only cement manufacturer and account for 2.5% of the national emissions, due to different industrial structure compared to other countries. Until recently, CO2 capture in Norway has focused primarily on emissions from offshore installations and gas power plants. There has been little focus on CCS in connections with land-based industrial emissions, although the no. of sources is relatively large, with annual CO2 emission totalling approx. 6 million tonnes. The demand for cement and concrete is expected to increase in the coming years. Therefore, the cement industry needs to be proactive in finding solns. which reduce its climate impact. Norcem AS (Norcem) and its parent company HeidelbergCement Group (HeidelbergCement) have joint forces with the European Cement Research Academy (ECRA) to establish a small-scale test center for studying and comparing various post-combustion CO2 capture technologies, and detg. their suitability for implementation in modern cement kiln systems. The small-scale test center has been established at Norcem's cement plant in Brevik (Norway). The project has received funding from Gassnova through the CLIMIT program. The project was launched in May 2013 and is scheduled to conclude in spring 2017 (Test Step 1). The project is being carried out on behalf of the European cement industry and managed by Norcem. The project mandate involves testing of more mature post-combustion capture technologies initially developed for power generation applications, as well as small scale technologies at an early stage of development. The project does not encompass CO2 transport and storage.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC2MXoslOlsQ%253D%253D&md5=de0e5d43e9a76d48168823693d98b264
    29. 29
      Zeman, F. Oxygen Combustion in Cement Production Energy Procedia 2009, 1 (1) 187– 194 DOI: 10.1016/j.egypro.2009.01.027
      29
      Oxygen combustion in cement production
      Zeman, Frank
      Energy Procedia (2009), 1 (1), 187-194CODEN: EPNRCV; ISSN:1876-6102. (Elsevier)
      A review. The cement industry faces a unique challenge in reducing greenhouse gas emissions owing to the large amt., 5% of global total, of process emissions originating from the calcination of limestone. Oxygen combustion is considered the most promising technol. option as the energy penalty for capturing the CO2 is only assocd. with the fuel, as opposed to post combustion capture where sorbent regeneration is required for both fuel and process CO2. While more attractive, the implementation of oxygen combustion and the necessary flue gas recycling, will alter process conditions. As a result, significant research is required to produce a viable design for the complete conversion to oxygen combustion. The conversion will require modifications to every component of the plant with the exception of the quarry and finish grinding sections. The plant boundary will also expand to include an oxygen prodn. facility and a CO2 compression station. While the cost of the addns. can be quantified, the final cost will be a balance between the modifications and revenues from increased prodn.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD1MXht1ygsrnP&md5=8a9bd6a6074d828a2a3bbd120d7cbb16
    30. 30
      Barker, D. J.; Holmes, D.; Hunt, J.; Napier-Moore, P.; Turner, S.; Clark, M. CO2 Capture in the Cement Industry; IEAGHG: Cheltenham, UK, 2008.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    31. 31
      Bhatty, J. I.; Miller, F. M.; Kosmatka, S. H.; Bohan, R. P. Innovations in Portland Cement Manufacturing; Portland Cement Association: Skokie, IL, 2011.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    32. 32
      Koring, K.; Hoenig, V.; Hoppe, H.; Horsch, J.; Suchak, C.; Klevenz, V.; Emberger, B. Deployment of CCS in the Cement Industry; 2013/10; IEAGHG: Cheltenham, UK, 2013.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    33. 33
      Moya, J. A.; Pardo, N.; Mercier, A. The Potential for Improvements in Energy Efficiency and CO2 Emissions in the EU27 Cement Industry and the Relationship with the Capital Budgeting Decision Criteria J. Cleaner Prod. 2011, 19 (11) 1207– 1215 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.03.003
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    34. 34
      Schneider, M.ECRA’s Oxyfuel Project. Norcem International CCS Conference: Langesund, Norway, May 20–21, 2015.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    35. 35
      Rodríguez, N.; Murillo, R.; Abanades, J. C. CO2 Capture from Cement Plants Using Oxyfired Precalcination And/or Calcium Looping Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46 (4) 2460– 2466 DOI: 10.1021/es2030593
      35
      CO2 Capture from Cement Plants Using Oxyfired Precalcination and/or Calcium Looping
      Rodriguez, Nuria; Murillo, Ramon; Abanades, J. Carlos
      Environmental Science & Technology (2012), 46 (4), 2460-2466CODEN: ESTHAG; ISSN:0013-936X. (American Chemical Society)
      This paper compares two alternatives to capture CO2 from cement plants: the first is designed to exploit the material and energy synergies with calcium looping technologies, CaL, and the second implements an oxyfired circulating fluidized bed precalcination (CFBP) step. The necessary mass and heat integration balances for these two options are solved and compared with a common ref. cement plant and a cost anal. exercise is carried out. The CaL process applied to the flue gases of a clinker kiln oven is substantially identical to those proposed for similar applications to power plant flue gases. It translates into avoided cost of $23/ton CO2 capturing up to 99% of the total CO2 emitted from the plant. The avoided cost of an equiv. system with an oxyfired CFBC precalcination only, goes down to $16/t CO2 but only captures 89% of the CO2 emitted. Both cases reveal that the application of CaL or oxyfired CFBC for precalcination of CaCO3 in a cement plant, at scales in the order of 50 MWth (referred to the oxyfired CFB calciner) is an important early opportunity for the development of CaL processes in large scale industrial applications as well as for the development of zero emissions cement plants.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC38Xks1ahug%253D%253D&md5=2b83da5c043a5353688ea62bafd726ac
    36. 36
      Gale, J.A Global Perspective on CO2 Capture Developments; CO2 Capture Technology Meeting; IEAGHG: Pittsburgh, PA, 2014
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    37. 37
      Davison, J. Pilot Plant Trial of Oxy-Combustion at a Cement Plant; Information Paper 2014-IP7; IEAGHG: Cheltenham, UK, 2014.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    38. 38
      Dean, C. C.; Blamey, J.; Florin, N. H.; Al-Jeboori, M. J.; Fennell, P. S. The Calcium Looping Cycle for CO2 Capture from Power Generation, Cement Manufacture and Hydrogen Production Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2011, 89 (6) 836– 855 DOI: 10.1016/j.cherd.2010.10.013
      38
      The calcium looping cycle for CO2 capture from power generation, cement manufacture and hydrogen production
      Dean, C. C.; Blamey, J.; Florin, N. H.; Al-Jeboori, M. J.; Fennell, P. S.
      Chemical Engineering Research and Design (2011), 89 (6), 836-855CODEN: CERDEE; ISSN:0263-8762. (Elsevier B.V.)
      A review. Calcium looping is a CO2 capture scheme using solid CaO-based sorbents to remove CO2 from flue gases, e.g., from a power plant, producing a concd. stream of CO2 (∼95%) suitable for storage. The scheme exploits the reversible gas-solid reaction between CO2 and CaO(s) to form CaCO3(s). Calcium looping has a no. of advantages compared to closer-to-market capture schemes, including: the use of circulating fluidized bed reactors-a mature technol. at large scale; sorbent derived from cheap, abundant and environmentally benign limestone and dolomite precursors; and the relatively small efficiency penalty that it imposes on the power/industrial process (i.e., estd. at 6-8 percentage points, compared to 9.5-12.5 from amine-based post-combustion capture). A further advantage is the synergy with cement manuf., which potentially allows for decarbonisation of both cement manuf. and power prodn. In addn., a no. of advanced applications offer the potential for significant cost redns. in the prodn. of hydrogen from fossil fuels coupled with CO2 capture. The range of applications of calcium looping are discussed here, including the progress made towards demonstrating this technol. as a viable post-combustion capture technol. using small-pilot scale rigs, and the early progress towards a 2MW scale demonstrator.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC3MXotV2rurc%253D&md5=778d0617eda21671d575307cf27dca7f
    39. 39
      Ozcan, D. C.; Ahn, H.; Brandani, S. Process Integration of a Ca-Looping Carbon Capture Process in a Cement Plant Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 2013, 19, 530– 540 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.10.009
      39
      Process integration of a Ca-looping carbon capture process in a cement plant
      Ozcan, Dursun Can; Ahn, Hyungwoong; Brandani, Stefano
      International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control (2013), 19 (), 530-540CODEN: IJGGBW; ISSN:1750-5836. (Elsevier B. V.)
      An anal. of the integration of a Ca-looping process into a cement plant is presented. The capture process, based on selective absorption of CO2 by calcium oxide, has two interconnected reactors where the carbonator captures CO2 from the preheater flue gases and the calciner regenerates the CaCO3 into CaO by oxy-combustion. The study also considers the purge rate of part of the circulating CaO, given the tendency of the material to sinter and reduce its capture capacity. Fresh CaCO3 is added to maintain reactivity in the carbonator, while the purged sorbents are utilized as a cement kiln feed. The detailed carbonator model has been implemented using Matlab and incorporated into Unisim to provide a full flowsheet simulation for an exemplary dry-feed cement plant as a user-defined operation. The effect of molar flowrate ratio of lime make-up to feed CO2 (\\F0/FCO2\\) between two operational limits has been investigated. This process configuration is capable of achieving over 90% CO2 capture with addnl. fuel consumption of 2.5-3.0 GJth/ton CO2 avoided which depends on the \\F0/FCO2\\ ratio. It is found that a proper heat recovery system supplementary to the Ca-looping process makes the Ca-looping process more competitive than the traditional low temp. absorption process based on amine solvents.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC3sXitVWhs7jO&md5=6f40a710fe85ba228c1046e43952c360
    40. 40
      Industrial Technology Research Institute. R & D Achievementson Carbon Capture and Storage in ITRI, Taiwan. http://ccs.tw/sites/default/files/datashare/pdf/2014-10-06-0923-gong_yan_yuan_ccsyan_fa_cheng_guo_ying_wen_.pdf (accessed Nov 22, 2015) .
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    41. 41
      Chang, M.-H.; Huang, C.-M.; Liu, W.-H.; Chen, W.-C.; Cheng, J.-Y.; Chen, W.; Wen, T.-W.; Ouyang, S.; Shen, C.-H.; Hsu, H.-W. Design and Experimental Investigation of Calcium Looping Process for 3-kWth and 1.9-MWth Facilities Chem. Eng. Technol. 2013, 36 (9) 1525– 1532 DOI: 10.1002/ceat.201300081
      41
      Design and Experimental Investigation of Calcium Looping Process for 3 kWth and 1.9 MWth Facilities
      Chang, M.-H.; Huang, C.-M.; Liu, W.-H.; Chen, W.-C.; Cheng, J.-Y.; Chen, W.; Wen, T.-W.; Ouyang, S.; Shen, C.-H.; Hsu, H.-W.
      Chemical Engineering & Technology (2013), 36 (9), 1525-1532CODEN: CETEER; ISSN:0930-7516. (Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA)
      The Ca looping CO2 capture process using CaO as a regenerable solid sorbent has been under development at the Industrial Technol. Research Institute (ITRI) of Taiwan for several years. The ITRI 3-KWh test facility is mainly comprised of a fluidized-bed carbonator and a rotary kiln calciner. Calcination and CO2 capture efficiency and operating stability were assessed. A cold model test facility was constructed and an ITRI-designed 1.9 MWh pilot plant is currently being erected. The combination of Ca looping and cement manufg. reduces the adsorbent and calcination energy consumption costs.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC3sXht1Skur3L&md5=09e62448f60a7c25998e37b32ca211a1
    42. 42
      Calix Ltd. Direct Separation Technology for Low Emissions Intensity Lime and Cement. http://www.calix.com.au/cement-and-lime.html (accessed Mar 10, 2015) .
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    43. 43
      Sceats, M. Calix Ltd. Direct Capture for the Cement Industry. Private communcation, February 2015.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    44. 44
      Green, D. W.; Perry, R. H. Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook, 8th edition.; McGraw-Hill Professional: New York, 2007.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    45. 45
      Schneider, M.; Hoenig, V. Development of State of the Art Techniques in Cement Manufacturing: Trying to Look Ahead (CSI/ECRA Technology Papers); Cement Sustainability Initiative: Geneva, Switzerland, 2009.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    46. 46
      Kuramochi, T.; Ramírez, A.; Turkenburg, W.; Faaij, A. Comparative Assessment of CO2 Capture Technologies for Carbon-Intensive Industrial Processes Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2012, 38 (1) 87– 112 DOI: 10.1016/j.pecs.2011.05.001
      46
      Comparative assessment of CO2 capture technologies for carbon-intensive industrial processes
      Kuramochi, Takeshi; Ramirez, Andrea; Turkenburg, Wim; Faaij, Andre
      Progress in Energy and Combustion Science (2012), 38 (1), 87-112CODEN: PECSDO; ISSN:0360-1285. (Elsevier Ltd.)
      A review. This article presents a consistent techno-economic assessment and comparison of CO2 capture technologies for key industrial sectors (iron and steel, cement, petroleum refineries and petrochems.). The assessment is based on an extensive literature review, covering studies from both industries and academia. Key parameters, e.g., capacity factor (91-97%), energy prices (natural gas: 8 euro2007/GJ, coal: 2.5 euro2007/GJ, grid electricity: 55 euro/MWh), interest rate (10%), economic plant lifetime (20 years), CO2 compression pressure (110 bar), and grid electricity CO2 intensity (400 g/kWh), were standardized to enable a fair comparison of technologies. The anal. focuses on the changes in energy, CO2 emissions and material flows, due to the deployment of CO2 capture technologies. CO2 capture technologies are categorized into short- to mid-term (ST/MT) and long-term (LT) technologies. The findings of this study identified a large no. of technologies under development, but it is too soon to identify which technologies would become dominant in the future. Moreover, a good integration of industrial plants and power plants is essential for cost-effective CO2 capture because CO2 capture may increase the industrial onsite electricity prodn. significantly. For the iron and steel sector, 40-65 euro/tCO2 avoided may be achieved in the ST/MT, depending on the ironmaking process and the CO2 capture technique. Advanced LT CO2 capture technologies for the blast furnace based process may not offer significant advantages over conventional ones (30-55 euro/tCO2 avoided). Rather than the performance of CO2 capture technique itself, low-cost CO2 emissions redn. comes from good integration of CO2 capture to the ironmaking process. Advanced smelting redn. with integrated CO2 capture may enable lower steel prodn. cost and lower CO2 emissions than the blast furnace based process, i.e., neg. CO2 mitigation cost. For the cement sector, post-combustion capture appears to be the only com. technol. in the ST/MT and the costs are above 65 euro/tCO2 avoided. In the LT, a no. of technologies may enable 25-55 euro/tCO2 avoided. The findings also indicate that, in some cases, partial CO2 capture may have comparative advantages. For the refining and petrochem. sectors, oxyfuel capture was found to be more economical than others at 50-60 euro/tCO2 avoided in ST/MT and about 30 euro/tCO2 avoided in the LT. However, oxyfuel retrofit of furnaces and heaters may be more complicated than that of boilers. Crude ests. of tech. potentials for global CO2 emissions redn. for 2030 were made for the industrial processes investigated with the ST/MT technologies. They amt. up to about 4 Gt/yr: 1 Gt/yr for the iron and steel sector, about 2 Gt/yr for the cement sector, and 1 Gt/yr for petroleum refineries. The actual deployment level would be much lower due to various constraints, about 0.8 Gt/yr, in a stringent emissions redn. scenario.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC3MXhsV2mtLbJ&md5=166fa448fee8dbfbe0c09dc25e2da9e1
    47. 47
      Ho, M. T.; Allinson, G. W.; Wiley, D. E. Comparison of MEA Capture Cost for Low CO2 Emissions Sources in Australia Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 2011, 5 (1) 49– 60 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2010.06.004
      47
      Comparison of MEA capture cost for low CO2 emissions sources in Australia
      Ho, Minh T.; Allinson, Guy W.; Wiley, Dianne E.
      International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control (2011), 5 (1), 49-60CODEN: IJGGBW; ISSN:1750-5836. (Elsevier Ltd.)
      This paper ests. the cost of CO2 capture for three Australian industrial emission sources: iron and steel prodn., oil refineries and cement manufg. It also compares the estd. capture costs with those of post-combustion capture from a pulverized black coal power plant. The cost of capture in 2008 using MEA solvent absorption technol. ranges from less than A$60 per ton CO2 avoided for the iron and steel prodn. to over A$70 per ton CO2 avoided for cement manuf. and over A$100 per ton CO2 avoided for oil refineries. The costs of capture for the iron and steel and cement industries are comparable to or less than that for post-combustion capture from a pulverized black coal power plant. This paper also studies costs for converting low partial pressure CO2 streams from iron and steel prodn. to a more concd. stream using pressurization and the water-gas shift reaction. In those cases, the costs are similar to or less than the cost ests. without conversion. The analyses in this paper also show that estd. costs are highly dependent on the characteristics of the industrial emission source, the assumptions related to the type and price of energy used by the capture facilities and the economic parameters of the project such as the discount rate and capital costs.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC3MXjtFWlsA%253D%253D&md5=ce214b48a73f00c80ecf1a69be02da8f
    48. 48
      British Standards Institute. Cement. Composition, Specifications and Conformity Criteria for Common Cements; Report BS EN 197–1:2011; 2011.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    49. 49
      Lafarge, S. A.Lafarge Annual Report 2007; Paris.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    50. 50
      Cochez, E.; Nijs, W. ETSAP: Cement Production; Technology Brief I03; IEA-ETSAP: Cork, Ireland, 2010.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    51. 51
      Carbon Capture Storage project in Estevan Takes Another Step Forward. http://www.estevanmercury.ca/news/city/carbon-capture-storage-project-in-estevan-takes-another-step-forward-1.1450820 (accessed Jun 4, 2015) .
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    52. 52
      FLSmidth Highlights Archive. http://www.flsmidth.com/en-US/eHighlights/Highlights+archive (accessed Jun 5, 2015) .
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    53. 53
      Bohm, M. C.; Herzog, H. J.; Parsons, J. E.; Sekar, R. C. Capture-Ready Coal plants—Options, Technologies and Economics Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 2007, 1 (1) 113– 120 DOI: 10.1016/S1750-5836(07)00033-3
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    54. 54
      Lucquiaud, M.; Chalmers, H.; Gibbins, J. Capture-Ready Supercritical Coal-Fired Power Plants and Flexible Post-Combustion CO2 Capture Energy Procedia 2009, 1 (1) 1411– 1418 DOI: 10.1016/j.egypro.2009.01.185
      54
      Capture-ready supercritical coal-fired power plants and flexible post-combustion CO2 capture
      Lucquiaud, Mathieu; Chalmers, Hannah; Gibbins, Jon
      Energy Procedia (2009), 1 (1), 1411-1418CODEN: EPNRCV; ISSN:1876-6102. (Elsevier)
      Delivering a rapid redn. in global CO2 emissions through CCS requires a two -track approach: CCS needs to be developed at scale as quickly as possible and other plants, if built without CCS, need to be built CO2 capture ready (CCR). CCR plants can be upgraded as CCS technol. develops so that their cost of electricity prodn. can be minimized. Retrofitted CCR plants could also be very suitable for providing flexible electricity output. The options available for making steam turbines at pulverized coal plants suitable for adding post-combustion CO2 capture units are discussed, together with their potential for upgrading and enhanced flexibility.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD1MXht1yru73F&md5=b9116d588d2eabdf61c06a413900e5cf
    55. 55
      Liang, X.; Reiner, D.; Gibbins, J.; Li, J. Assessing the Value of CO2 Capture Ready in New-Build Pulverised Coal-Fired Power Plants in China Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 2009, 3 (6) 787– 792 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2009.09.008
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    56. 56
      Rohlfs, W.; Madlener, R. Assessment of Clean-Coal Strategies: The Questionable Merits of Carbon Capture-Readiness Energy 2013, 52, 27– 36 DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2013.01.008
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    57. 57
      Barker, D. J.; Turner, S. A.; Napier-Moore, P. A.; Clark, M.; Davison, J. E. CO2 Capture in the Cement Industry Energy Procedia 2009, 1 (1) 87– 94 DOI: 10.1016/j.egypro.2009.01.014
      57
      CO2 capture in the cement industry
      Barker, D. J.; Turner, S. A.; Napier-Moore, P. A.; Clark, M.; Davison, J. E.
      Energy Procedia (2009), 1 (1), 87-94CODEN: EPNRCV; ISSN:1876-6102. (Elsevier)
      A review. Modern cement plants have high energy efficiencies and the scope to reduce CO2 emissions by further efficiency improvements is small. One of the few ways of greatly reducing CO2 prodn. from cement prodn. is CO2 capture and storage (CCS). This paper summarizes a study which assessed the technologies that could be used for CO2 capture in cement plants, their costs, and barriers to their use. The work covered new-build cement plants with post-combustion and oxy-combustion CO2 capture. The basis of the study was a 5-stage preheater with precalciner dry process cement plant with a cement output of 1 Mt/y located in NE Scotland, UK. Process Flow Diagrams (PFDs) and heat and mass balance calcns. for both options were developed. The plant costs were estd. and the costs per ton of CO2 emissions avoided and per ton of cement product detd.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD1MXht1ygsrjM&md5=74db74d0f445f7288ebe0cbec931183d
    58. 58
      ITRI Today 80. Alliance Formedto Foster Carbon Capture Technology https://www.itri.org.tw/eng/DM/PublicationsPeriods/653176317250210672/content/snapshot.html (accessed Dec. 9, 2015) .
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.