Techno-economic evaluation of technologies for CO2 capture in the cement industry

Mari Voldsund 1*, Stefania Osk Gardarsdottir 1, Edoardo De Lena 2, José-Francisco Pérez-Calvo 3, Armin Jamali 4, David Berstad 1, Chao Fu 1, Matteo Romano 2, Simon Roussanaly 1, Rahul Anantharaman 1, Helmut Hoppe 4, Daniel Sutter 3, Marco Mazzotti 3, Matteo Gazzani 5, Giovanni Cinti 6 and Kristin Jordal 1 1 SINTEF Energy Research 2 Politecnico di Milano 3 ETH Zurich 4 VDZ gGmbH 5 Utrecht University 6 Italcementi Heidelberg Group *Contact: mari.voldsund@sintef.no

2

Introduction

• Motivation

7-9% of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions from the cement

industry – CCS only viable option

• H2020 project CEMCAP Prepare the ground for large-scale implementation of CO2 capture in

the European cement industry

Understanding costs and reducing uncertainties important!

CEMCAP technologies

3

• Oxyfuel process

• Chilled ammonia process

• Membrane-assisted CO2 liquefaction

• Calcium looping (CaL)

• Tail-end

• Integrated entrained flow

• Reference: MEA CaL-integrated

- tail-end

Approach

• CEMCAP framework

• Reference cement kiln

• Reference technology: MEA absorption

4

CEMCAP analytical work

Size: 3000 tclk/d Best available techniques

Retrofitability evaluation

• Impact on cement production

• Equipment and footprint

• Utilities and services

• New chemicals/systems

• Available experience

Techno-economic evaluation

• KPIs

• SPECCA

• Cost of clinker

• Cost of CO2 avoided

• Several conditions studied

• Base case (90% capture, pipeline, steam from NG boiler)

• Alternative cases: Low air leak, ship transport, steam

supply, etc.

• Sensitivity analysis

5

MEA absorption

Retrofitability • No impact on burning process/clinker quality

• Can be installed away from kiln

• Steam and power demand

• Amines introduced at plant

• Mature technology

Techno-economic evaluation

• Base case

• SPECCA: 7.1 MJ/kgCO2

• Cost of clinker (COC): +72%

• Cost of CO2 avoided (CAC): 80 €/tCO2

• Cost of steam critical

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Referencecement

plant

Base case Steam import

Co

s t

of

CO

2 a

void

ed [€

/tC

O2]

Co

st o

f cl

inke

r [€

/tcl

k]

COC - Variable OPEX

COC - Fixed OPEX

COC - CAPEX

CAC - Variable OPEX

CAC - Fixed OPEX

CAC - CAPEX

Techno-economic evaluation

• Base case

• SPECCA: 1.6 MJ/kgCO2

• Cost of clinker (COC): +49%

• Cost of CO2 avoided (CAC): 42 €/tCO2

• Low CAPEX and OPEX

6

Oxyfuel process

Retrofitability

• Modified burning process

• Space required close to kiln

• Power demand

• ASU and possibly ORC introduced at plant

• No experience with full system

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Referencecement

plant

Base case

Co

s t

of

CO

2 a

void

ed [€

/tC

O2]

Co

st o

f cl

inke

r [€

/tcl

k]

COC - Variable OPEX

COC - Fixed OPEX

COC - CAPEX

CAC -Variable OPEX

CAC -Fixed OPEX

CAC - CAPEX

7

Chilled ammonia process

Retrofitability

• No impact on burning process / clinker quality

• Can be installed away from kiln

• Steam and power demand

• Ammonia, sulfuric acid and refrigeration system

• Certain experience from power plants

Techno-economic evaluation

• Base case

• SPECCA: 3.8 MJ/kgCO2

• Cost of clinker (COC): +68%

• Cost of CO2 avoided (CAC): 66 €/tCO2

• Less steam and power demand than MEA

• IP protection for improved process ongoing

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Ref. cement plant Base case Steam import

Co

s t

of

CO

2 a

void

ed [€

/tC

O2]

Co

st o

f cl

inke

r [€

/tcl

k]

COC - Variable OPEX

COC - Fixed OPEX

COC - CAPEX

CAC - Variable OPEX

CAC - Fixed OPEX

CAC - CAPEX

8

Membrane-assisted CO2 liquefaction

Retrofitability

• No impact on burning process/clinker quality

• Can be installed away from kiln

• Power demand

• Refrigeration system introduced at plant

• Experience with membranes from Norcem

Techno-economic evaluation

• Base case

• SPECCA: 3.2 MJ/kgCO2

• Cost of clinker (COC): +92%

• Cost of CO2 avoided (CAC): 84 €/tCO2

• Power consumption and CAPEX

• Membrane performance critical

• Low membrane maturity -> High contingency

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Ref. cement plant Base case Low air leak

Co

s t

of

CO

2 a

void

ed [€

/tC

O2]

Co

st o

f cl

inke

r [€

/tcl

k]

COC - Variable OPEX

COC - Fixed OPEX

COC - CAPEX

CAC - Variable OPEX

CAC - Fixed OPEX

CAC - CAPEX

Techno-economic evaluation

• Base case

• SPECCA: 4.1 MJ/kgCO2

• Cost of clinker (COC): +66%

• Cost of CO2 avoided (CAC): 52 €/tCO2

• Coal consumption

• Power import/export

• Dependent on integration level (IL)

9

Calcium looping – tail-end

Retrofitability

• Slight integration with burning process

• Can be installed away from the kiln line

• Additional coal demand

• Integrated power generation (import/export)

• ASU and steam cycle introduced at plant

• Small-scale demo at power plants

𝐼𝐿 =𝐶𝑎purge

𝐶𝑎total

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Ref. cement plant Base case(IL 50%)

IL 20%

Co

s t

of

CO

2 av

oid

ed [€

/tC

O2]

Co

st o

f cl

inke

r [€

/tcl

k]

COC - Variable OPEX

COC - Fixed OPEX

COC - CAPEX

CAC - Variable OPEX

CAC - Fixed OPEX

CAC - CAPEX

Techno-economic evaluation

• Base case

• SPECCA: 3.2 MJ/kgCO2

• Cost of clinker (COC): +73%

• Cost of CO2 avoided (CAC): 59 €/tCO2

• Less coal consumption than tail-end

• Less heat recovery/power generation

• Low technology maturity -> High contingency

10

Calcium looping – integrated entrained flow (EF)

Retrofitability

• Modified calciner and preheater

• Space required close to kiln

• Additional coal demand

• Low power demand

• ASU and steam cycle introduced at plant

• Early stage of development

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Referencecement

plant

Base case

Co

s t

of

CO

2 av

oid

ed [€

/tC

O2]

Co

st o

f cl

inke

r [€

/tcl

k]

COC - Variable OPEX

COC - Fixed OPEX

COC - CAPEX

CAC - Variable OPEX

CAC - Fixed OPEX

CAC - CAPEX

Retrofitability vs. cost – summary

11

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

MEA Oxyfuel CAP MAL CaL tail-end CaL integrated EF

Co

st o

f C

O2

avo

ided

[€

/tC

O2]

Co

st o

f cl

inke

r [€

/tcl

k]

Base case

COC - CAPEX COC - Fixed OPEX COC - Variable OPEX

CAC - CAPEX CAC -Fixed OPEX CAC -Variable OPEX

Criteria MEA Oxyfuel CAP MAL CaL

(tail-end)

CaL

(integrated)

1 Impact on cement production

✔ !! ✔ ✔ ✔ !

2 Equipment and footprint

! !! ! ! ! !!

3 Utilities and services ! ! ! ! ! !

4 Introduction of new chemicals/subsystems

! ! ! ✔ ! !

5 Available experiences ✔ ? ! ? ! ?

✔ retrofitability o.k.; suitable in most cases/plants ! some attention needed for plant retrofit !! special attention needed for plant retrofit ? needs further assessment for plant retrofit X retrofit not possible

Sensitivity analysis - examples

12

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

10 20 30 40Co

st o

f C

O2

avo

ided

[€

/tC

O2

]

Steam cost [€/MWh]

CO2 avoided and steam cost

MEA

Oxyfuel

CAP

MAL

CaL tail-end

CaL EF

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

25 35 45 55 65 75 85Co

st o

f C

O2

avo

ided

[€

/tC

O2

]

Electricity price [€/MWh]

CO2 avoided and electricity price

MEA

Oxyfuel

CAP

MAL

CaL tail-end

CaL EF

Conclusions

• Methodology for cost evaluation developed

• Results sensitive to assumptions

• More integrated technologies more

promising from cost perspective

• End-of-pipe technologies easier from

retrofitability perspective

• Final evaluation must be taken for the

specific cement plant

13

Final reports and publications: • D4.5 Retrofitability study for CO2 capture

technologies in cement plants • Comparison of Technologies for CO2 capture from

Cement Production – Part 1 & 2 (in MDPI energies) Can be accessed through: https://zenodo.org/communities/cemcap/

14

15

Acknowledgements

This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020

research and innovation programme under grant agreement no 641185

This work was supported by the Swiss State Secretariat for Education,

Research and Innovation (SERI) under contract number 15.0160

www.sintef.no/cemcap

Twitter: @CEMCAP_CO2

Techno-economic evaluation of technologies for CO2 capture in the cement industry

Mari Voldsund 1*, Stefania Osk Gardarsdottir 1, Edoardo De Lena 2, José-Francisco Pérez-Calvo 3, Armin Jamali 4, David Berstad 1, Chao Fu 1, Matteo Romano 2, Simon Roussanaly 1, Rahul Anantharaman 1, Helmut Hoppe 4, Daniel Sutter 3, Marco Mazzotti 3, Matteo Gazzani 5, Giovanni Cinti 6 and Kristin Jordal 1 1 SINTEF Energy Research 2 Politecnico di Milano 3 ETH Zurich 4 VDZ gGmbH 5 Utrecht University 6 Italcementi Heidelberg Group *Contact: mari.voldsund@sintef.no