Capture and Utilisation of CO2

CO2 Capture, Storage and Utilisation in Finland
CO2:n erotus, varastointi ja hyötykäyttö Suomessa

Tiina Koljonen
VTT Processes, Espoo, Finland
VTT Prosessit, Espoo
Hanne Siikavirta
Fortum Engineering Ltd, Vantaa, Finland
Fortum Engineering Ltd, Vantaa
Ron Zevenhoven, Jens Kohlman,
Arun B. Mukherjee
Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo, Finland
Teknillinen korkeakoulu, Espoo
Liisa Aarikka
Tampere University of Technology,
Tampere, Finland
Tampereen teknillinen korkeakoulu, Tampere
Abstract
The objective of the projects ’CO2 capture technologies and their potential’and ’Carbon dioxide storage and reuse’was to 1) review the state of the art of
the technologies, 2) evaluate the long-term storage
options of CO2 for Finland and possibilities to reuse captured CO2, 3) evaluate the potential and costto reduce Finland’s CO2 greenhouse gas emissions
by CO2 capture, storage and utilisation, and 4)
identify opportunities for Finnish technology.
Several CO2 separation and capture technologies
exist today to produce CO2 for commercial markets. The capture technologies may be applied before of after combustion of fossil fuel dependingon the capture concept. The main options consid-

ered for the long-term storage of CO2 are underground geologic formations. These include old oil
and gas fields, coal formations and saline wateraquifers. Deep oceans represent large potential
sink for CO2, but environmental uncertainties
make it less feasible in the short term. Several demonstration projects are underway to evaluate technical, economical and environmental aspects of
CO2 sequestration. The estimated total cost withcurrent technology for CO2 sequestration ranges
from 40–60 US$ per tonne CO2 avoided. Most of
the industrial applications do not offer long-termsink of CO2, and currently the need is very small
compared to the amount of emitted CO2.
CO2 capture and storage is more economical whenapplied on a large scale. The largest CO2 emitting
plants in Finland are oil refineries, coal-fired
power plants and steel works. By applying CO2
capture and storage technologies 80–90 per centreduction of CO2 emissions can be achieved. The
costs were estimated only for the electricity sector.
The CO2 capture, transportation of CO2 (1 000 km,
onshore) and offshore storage would double thecost of electricity for natural gas and triple the costfor coal fired power plants compared to the current
market price of electricity in Finland. According tothis study, capturing CO2 near the storage sites andinvesting in new cross-border electricity transmission capacity is a more feasible option. Storing
CO2 as solid mineral carbonate in Finland and integration of CO2 capture concepts with industrial
processes could be an option in the future.

145

Tiivistelmä
Projekteissa ’CO2 erotusteknologioiden kartoitus
ja potentiaali’ ja ’Hiilidioksidin loppusijoitus ja
hyötykäyttö’ kartoitettiin CO2-erotusteknologioiden ja -loppusijoituksen sekä -hyötykäytön nykytila. Tiedon avulla oli tavoitteena arvioida Suomen
kasvihuonekaasupäästöjen vähentämisen potentiaalia ja kustannuksia sekä tunnistaa mahdollisuuksia suomalaiselle teknologialle.
On olemassa useita kaupallisia CO2-erotusteknologiota, joita voidaan soveltaa ennen polttoprosessia tai sen jälkeen. Geologisia muodostumia, kuten
ehtyneitä öljy- ja kaasulähteitä, hiiliesiintymiä jasuolavesikerrostumia, pidetään pääasiallisena pitkän aikavälin CO2-loppusijoitusvaihtoehtoina.
Valtameret ovat merkittävä mahdollinen loppusijoitusvaihtoehto, mutta ekologiset epävarmuustekijät estävät CO2-varastoinnin valtameriin lähitulevaisuudessa. Käynnissä on useita demonstraatioprojekteja, joissa arvioidaan CO2-varastoinnin
teknis-taloudellista toteutettavuutta sekä ympäristö- ja turvallisuusnäkökohtia. CO2-erotuksen ja -varastoinnin kokonaiskustannusten arvioidaan teknologioiden nykytasolla olevan 40–60 US$/ CO2 (vältetty). CO2:n hyötykäyttö teollisuudessa ei useinkaan muodosta pitkäaikaista CO2-varastoa. Lisäksi tarve CO2:lle teollisuuden raaka-aineena on erittäin vähäinen verrattuna CO2 päästöihin.
CO2-erotus ja -varastointi on kustannustehokkainta suuren mittakaavan sovelluksissa. Suomen suurimmat pistemäiset päästölähteet ovat öljynjalostamot, hiilivoimalaitokset sekä terästehtaat. CO2erotus- ja varastointiteknologioita käyttämällä on
mahdollista vähentää CO2 päästöjä 80–90 %. Kustannukset arvioitiin vain menetelmien soveltamiselle uusissa fossiilista polttoainetta käyttävissä lauhdevoimalaitoksissa. CO2-erotus, -kuljetus (1 000
km, mantereella) ja -varastointi nostivat sähkön
tuotantokustannukset kaksin-kolminkertaiseksi(maakaasu-kivihiili) verrattuna sähkön nykyiseenmarkkinahintaan. CO2-erotus lähellä varastointipaikkaa ja investointi sähkönsiirtokapasiteettiin on
tulosten perusteella kustannustehokkaampi vaihtoehto. Tulevaisuuden vaihtoehto Suomelle saattaisi olla myös CO2-varastointi mineraalikar-

146

bonaattina ja CO2-erotuksen ja -varastoinnin integrointi teollisuuden prosesseihin.

1 Introduction
Worldwide emissions from fossil fuel combustion
are about 25 Gt of CO2 per year. Approximately
one third of all CO2 emissions due to human activity come from fossil fuels generating electricity.
Several industrial processes also emit large amountsof CO2, like oil refineries, cement works, and ironand steel production. The Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change (IPCC) has indicated thatemission reductions of 50–60% are required to
avoid dangerous interference with the climate. To
make such deep reductions in global emissions, forexample, CO2 emissions from power production
should be reduced by 90% (IEA GHG 2001a). Fossil fuels may continue to be used if the CO2 produced was captured and put into long-term storage.
CO2 capture and storage is already possible, andcurrently several demonstration projects are underway. Capturing and storing CO2 would not needmajor changes to processes, and widespread use ofthis technique could be achieved without the needfor rapid change in the energy supply infrastructure.
In 1999, Finland’s CO2 emissions from fossil fuelcombustion were 56.8 million tonnes of CO2-eq.
The annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,however, depend on hydropower production in theNordic counties, the demand of heating energy andthe degree of economic growth. On the average, inthe 1990’s the total GHG emissions have grownslightly, but the annual variation has been quite
large due to variations in hydropower production
and imported electricity. The total GHG emissionof all Kyoto gases were roughly about the samelevel as in 1990 due to decreases of emission inother sectors like waste management and agriculture. The net growth of the forest biomass caused abiological sequestration impact varying annually
between 10 and 35 million tonnes in the 1990’s(Pipatti et al. 2001). Only a small fraction of this biological net sink can be accounted in the fulfilment
of Kyoto Protocol commitments according to theagreements made at the Bonn and Marrakech negotiations between the parties of Climate Convention.
The objective of the projects ’CO2 capture technologies and their potential’and ’Carbon dioxide storage and reuse’was to 1) review the state of the art of
the CO2 capture technologies, 2) evaluate thelong-term storage options of CO2 for Finland andpossibilities to reuse captured CO2, 3) evaluate thepotential and cost to reduce Finland’s CO2 greenhouse gas emissions by CO2 capture, storage andutilisation, and 4) identify opportunities for Finnish technology.
The costs were evaluated only for the electricity
sector and new condensing fossil fuel fired power
plants. Due to limited possibilities to store CO2 in
Finland, a part of the research was focused on theapplication of technologies in Finland and part of
the work was concerned with application of CO2
capture and storage technologies near the storagesites and importing the energy in the form of electricity or hydrogen to Finland.

2 Description of technologies
2.1 CO2 capture technologies andconcepts
A wide range of CO2 separation and capture technologies exists today to produce CO2 for commercial markets. The capture technologies may be applied before or after combustion depending on thecapture concept. Concepts for capturing CO2 canbe divided into three main categories:
1. Post-combustion decarbonisation(Flue Gas Scrubbing)
2. Pre-combustion decarbonisation
3. Novel combustion concepts(Oxygen Combustion).
The main CO2 capture technologies are absorption,
adsorption, cryogenics and membranes.
Capture of CO2 is best carried out at large point
sources, such as power stations, oil refineries, petrochemical, fertiliser and gas processing plants, steel
works and pulp and paper mills (U.S. DOE 2001).

N2
O2
Amine
Absorption

Post-Combustion
Flue Gas
Scrubbing
Air

CO2Power & Heat

Pre-Combustion
Decarbonisation
H2
Reformer+ Co2 Sep Air

Power & Heat

CO2
CO2Compression& Dehydration

N2&H2O

Storage,Utilization

Power & Heat
CO2

O2

Air
Fuel

Air separation unit

N2

Oxygen combustion

Figure 1. CO2 capture concepts in energy production (Joint Industry Carbon Capture
Project 2002).

147

2.2 CO2 storage

CO2 storage in hydrocarbon reservoirs should haveeconomical advantages over storage in aquifers or
ocean. Enhanced oil (EOR) recovery has the commercial benefit of sequestering CO2 while increasing production from active oil fields. Deep,
unmineable coal beds provide an opportunity to simultaneously sequester CO2 and increase the production of natural gas (IEA GHG 2001b).

The captured CO2 should be concentrated andpressurised into a liquid or gas stream suitable fortransportation and sequestration. Major options
considered for the final storage of CO2 are deep underground geological formations, such as depleted
oil and gas fields, deep coal seams, salt domes,
rock caverns, and deep aqueous formations including saline formations. The geologic formations arewidespread and have large potential for CO2 sequestration. Also, deep oceans represent a large
potential sink for anthropogenic CO2 storage. Table 1 shows the estimates of global capacity of CO2
storage reservoirs.

Advanced chemical approaches to CO2 sequestration could allow gaseous CO2 to be transferred into
inert and long-lived solid materials. A suggestionof a process that would bind anthropogenic CO2 is
to convert naturally occurring mineral oxides tocarbonates. For mineral carbonation the use of

Hydrogenpower plant

Conventional fossil
fuel power plant
Flue gas

H2O

Oil production

Gas production

Pipe line
CO2

CO2 Methane
CO2

Towed pipe
CO2

Oil/CO2

Depleted oilor gas field
Coal bed

Oil field

CO2 lakeGas field

Saline aquifer

Saline aquifer

Figure 2. Illustration of major options considered for the final storage of CO2.

Table 1. Estimates of global capacity of CO2 storage reservoirs compared with projected total emissions between 2000 and 2050, according to ’business as usual scenario’ (IEA GHG
2001b, Edmonds et al. 2000, IEA GHG 2000a).

148

Carbon storage reservoir

Range, Gt CO2% of emissions to 2050

Deep ocean

5 000–100 000

250–5 000

Deep saline reservoirs

400–10 000

20–500

Depleted gas reservoirs

800

40

Depleted oil reservoirs

120

5

Unmineable coal seams

> 15

>1

magnesium based silicates, xMgO⋅ySiO2⋅zH2O isfavoured, because they are worldwide available inhuge amounts. These natural resources may be capable of binding all fossil fuel-bound carbon (Ziock
2002, Lackner and Ziock 2000). Magnesium silicates can be divided into several subgroups. The
largest quantities are olivine, (Mg,Fe)SiO4, and serpentine, Mg3Si2O5(OH)4. Large-scale flue gas CO2
sequestration as mineral carbonates would, however, require enormous amounts of mineral, and it
may be very energy consuming. Another option is
the formation of CO2 hydrates, an ice-like material(CO2·nH2O), which may be sequestered on theocean floor (IEA GHG 2000b).
2.3 Direct utilisation of CO2
Wide range physical and chemical properties of
CO2 make it a key part in countless industrial andchemical applications, either in gaseous, liquid or
solid forms. The current industrial need is verysmall compared to the amount of emitted CO2. For
example, in the USA, the industrial need of CO2 is
only about 2% of the emitted CO2, and about 80%of this amount is used in EOR. In countries, which
do not have oil production, the industrial usage of
CO2 is usually considerably lower. Another problem is that most of the applications do not offer
long term sink of CO2.
In utilisation of captured CO2, net reduction of CO2
emissions takes place only if captured CO2 replaces CO2 that is at present produced from fossil
fuel. The most examined alternatives of direct utilisation fall into three categories: industrial uses,
chemical conversion to fuels, and biological conversion to fuels. Although direct utilisation of CO2
would not solve the problem of global warming,
the potential income that it might generate would
reduce the burden of disposal (RUCADI 2001,
Crabb 2000).

3 Development of technologies
The major barriers for applying CO2 separationand capture technologies and concepts are, in addition to issues related to storage or utilisation ofCO2, the high capital and operating costs and reduced efficiencies. The cost of avoided emissions
for the capture stage (including pressurisation fortransport) is 30–50 US$/t CO2 and the total cost(including also CO2 storage and transport) 40–60
US$/t CO2 (IEA GHG 2001b). However, opportunities exist for significant reductions in costs andenergy requirement, and there appear to be niches
wherein CO2 sequestration may be competitive
among other long-term mitigation technologies,
like large-scale renewable energy production.
Post-combustion technologies like monoethanolamine (MEA) absorption can be considered commercial, although there is still room for improvement. There are several R&D Programmes goingon that look for possibilities to reduce the costs significantly in the future. The goal of Joint Industry
Carbon Capture Project cofunded by several large
oil companies, U.S. DOE, EU and Norway, for example, is to reduce the costs for CO2 capture andstorage in geological formations by 50 % when applied to retrofit and 75 % when applied to newbuild applications compared with current best
available technology. There are also several demonstration projects underway to evaluate technical,
economical and environmental feasibility of CO2
storage in geological formations.
Significant cost reductions require radical changes
to combustion technologies, and it is estimated that
it will take 5 to 10 years before these concepts aretranslated into commercial processes (Joint Industry Carbon Capture Project 2002, U.S. DOE and
NETL 2002)• CO2 capture and storage technologies and concepts are mainly being developed in the following programmes and countries:• Joint Industry Carbon Capture Project(http://www.co2captureproject.com)

149• IEA GHG R&D Programme(http://www.ieagreen.org.uk)• EU funded projects• US Carbon Sequestration Programme(http://fossil.energy.gov/coal_power/
sequestration)• Japan (NEDO, http://www.nedo.go.jp/GET/
e11.html)• Norway (Klimatek, http://program.
forskningsradet.no/klimatek)

4 Potential and cost of CO2 captureand storage for Finland
4.1 Industrial CO2 capture andutilisation in Finland
In Finland the largest CO2 consuming industries
are pulp and paper, beverage, food processing andmetal industries. Currently, industrial needs forCO2 are mostly covered by captured CO2 in Finland. Three CO2 capture plants exist in connection
with hydrogen, alcohol and calcium chloride production. The total capacity of these capture plants
is about 70 000 tonnes of CO2 per year. Finland’s
beverage industry also has additional CO2 capture
plants, which reduces the amount of purchased
CO2 for beverage production. CO2 is also produced
for greenhouses by burning fossil fuels.
Recently, especially in the Finnish pulp and paperindustries, innovative CO2 gas applications havebeen developed, and they are presently in use at anumber of large mills. The CO2 applications havebeen introduced especially for recycled paper. In
food processing industries, CO2 usage has also
grown to increase food safety. In the 1990’s, Finland’s beverage sales increased from 230 million to
360 million litres. It is assumed that beverage production in Finland may still increase to some degree, but not to the same extent as in the 1990’s.
The potential to reuse captured CO2 in industry isless than 0,5% of Finland’s anthropogenic emissions. On the other hand, various industrial processes like pulp and paper manufacturing processes could offer niches, wherein CO2 capture

150

processes could become economical. The possible
growing industrial need of CO2 in Finland may not
be covered by existing CO2 production plants,
which indicates that there might be niches for new
processes to capture and produce CO2 (Koljonen etal. 2002).
4.2 Large scale CO2 capture andstorage from Finland’s perspective
As CO2 capturing would be more economical on alarge scale, the largest CO2 emitting point sourceswere evaluated. The largest CO2 emitting plants in
Finland are oil refineries, coal-fired power plants
and steel works. Five to ten plants produce morethan 1 million tonnes of CO2 annually. In pulp andpaper industry, an increased amount of biofuels
used in heat and power generation has decreased
CO2 emissions considerably. The CO2 emissionsof coal-fired condensing power plants vary a lot
from year to year. If the annual amount of rainfall ishigh in the Nordic countries, hydropower production is high and more electricity is imported to Finland. During dry seasons Finland exports electricity, which is mainly produced by condensing coal
fired power plants. To meet the targets for greenhouse gas emission reduction in the long term, theCO2 sequestration might be one option among
many emission reduction alternatives. By applying
CO2 capture and storage technologies 80–90 per
cent reduction of CO2 emissions can be achieved.
In Finland, no suitable geologic formations exist to
sequestrate CO2. Further, the oceans nearby Finland are not deep enough for considering CO2 storage in oceans. The nearest potential CO2 sequestration sites are offshore oil and gas fields and saline
aquifers in the North Sea and Barents Sea. This
would mean a 500 to 1 000 km CO2 transmission
depending on the location of the CO2 capture plant(Koljonen et al. 2002).
Storing CO2 as mineral carbonate could be an option for Finland, since large resources of suitablesilicates exist in Finland as natural minerals and as
wastes of mining industry. Most of the mineral deposits are found in Central and Northern Finland.

However, mineral carbonation may be very energy
consuming and thus in a recent study (Kohlmann etal. 2002) reaction pathways with minimum energy
input were addressed. It was concluded that themineral carbonation process has to involve the release or activation of the mineral’s MgO content
before the reaction with CO2 to MgCO3, which
could imply a two-stage process. Water catalyses
the carbonation reaction somewhat, which makes
the use of serpentine (its 10–14%-wt crystal water
is released) more attractive than other MgO-containing minerals (olivine, fosterite). CO2 will haveto be transported to a suitable mineral deposit sincetransporting minerals to/from CO2 emission sources
will present unacceptable costs. Fortunately, process integration with mining activities may be very
advantageous from cost and energy consumption
points of view, possibly allowing for, e.g., higher
valuable metal extraction rates as well. Further research will concentrate on reaction kinetics andlarge-scale integrated processing based on direct,
dry carbonation of MgO-containing mineral withpressurised CO2 from a separate capture process(Kohlmann et al. 2002).

4.3 Costs of application of CO2 captureand storage in electricity
production in Finland
4.3.1 New fossil fuel fired power plant in
Finland with CO2 capture

The economic feasibility of CO2 capture by conventional chemical absorption was evaluated for
660–790 MWe conventional natural gas fired combined cycle (NGCC) and for 360–500 MWe pulverized coal once through boiler (PF). The CO2
capture process was integrated with a green fieldpower plant. The estimated costs of 1 000 km pipeline transmission to storage site and offshore storage of CO2 were included in the evaluation. The
data was collected form literature for power plant
concepts and for CO2 capture process. For transmission and storage of CO2 and energy, a spreadsheet-based model recently published by IEA
Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme (IEA GHG
2002) was used as well. The results of the evaluations are presented in Figures 3 and 4. The electricity market price is the average electricity price in
the Nordic Power Exchange, which is the world’s

0.09

Production cost of electricity, €/kWH

0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02

Market price in Finland

0.01
0
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Fuel price,
Coal PF

Coal PF+CO2 capture

Coal PF+CO2 capture+transmission+storage

Figure 3. Power production costs for a condensing coal fired power plant with CO2 capture(includes gas compression), 1 000 km onshore pipeline transmission of CO2 and offshore CO2
geological storage (discount rate 5%, plant life 25 years, operating time annually 8 000 h).

151

0.09

Production cost of electricity, €/kWH

0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02

Market price in Finland

0.01
0
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Fuel price,
NGCC

NGCC+CO2 capture

NGCC+CO2 capture+transmission+storage

Figure 4. Power production costs for a condensing natural gas fired power plant with CO2
capture (includes gas compression), 1 000 km onshore pipeline transmission of CO2 and offshore
CO2 geological storage (discount rate 5%, plant life 25 years, operating time annually 8 000 h).

first international commodity exchange for electrical power.
As shown in the figures 3 and 4, the production costof electricity for coal fired power plant would be
about three times higher than the average electricity market price in Finland if the investment andoperating costs of CO2 capture, transmission andstorage were included. For natural gas fired power
plant, the corresponding electricity production
cost would be about two times higher than the current market price of electricity (Koljonen et al.
2002).
4.3.2 Application of technologies closer tostorage sites as an alternative

Application of technologies closer to the storagesites was compared with application of technologies in Finland. The options included in the study
were:
1. Natural gas is imported by existing pipeline
and electricity produced by NGCC in Finland.
The captured CO2 is transported by a 1 000 km
onshore pipeline and sequestered offshore.
152

2. Carbon-free fuel, i.e. hydrogen, is imported
into Finland by a 1 000 km onshore pipeline.
In this scenario, fuel is decarbonized near the
storage site and CO2 is sequestered offshore.
3. Electricity is produced near the sequestration
place and imported into Finland. CO2 is sequestered offshore. Cross-border DC electricity transmission capacity is increased by agiven amount.
In figure 5, investment costs of the above scenarios
are shown. In the calculations, fuel efficiency has
been increased to cover the losses of electricity
transmission, initial gas compression and/or gas
transmission. Preliminary results indicated that
CO2 transport and electricity transmission would
be the most feasible options with such long transmission distances. Considering environmental andsafety issues, electricity transmission would become the most feasible option. However, it should
be noted, that the investment costs of hydrogen alternative have remarkable uncertainty, and a moredetailed analysis should be performed before final
conclusions (Koljonen et al. 2002).

3 000Capital cost, Million

2 500

2 000

1 500

1 000

500

0
CO2 trans.
500 MW

H2 trans.
500 MW

El. trans.
500 MW

Power plant

CO2 trans.
1000 MWH2 trans.
1000 MWH2 production

El. trans.
1000 MWTransm. 1000 km

CO2 trans.
1500 MWH2 trans.
1500 MWEl. trans.
1500 MWCO2 storage

Figure 5. Comparison of investment costs of three CO2 management scenarios for Finland.

4.4 Opportunities for Finnish
technology
Because of the relatively short history of the development of CO2 capture technologies and concepts,
there is still room for new ideas and need to improve the existing concepts. Opportunities exist
e.g. in developing Finnish power plant technologies into a zero or low-CO2 emitting direction.
Also, development of CO2 capture technologies
and concepts that can be integrated to various industrial process, especially processes that employ
Finnish technology, could offer niches, wherein
CO2 capture would become economical.
Storing CO2 as mineral carbonate could be an option, since large resources of suitable silicates exist
in Finland as natural minerals and as wastes ofmining industry. The most important positive feature, which justifies further work on improvementof this technology, is that CO2 as MgCO3 is a stablecompound and environmentally acceptable solution for a long term storage of CO2. It is also the
only currently known alternative for Finland to
store CO2 (Kohlmann et al. 2002, Koljonen et al.
2002).

5 Discussion and conclusions
The lack of long-term CO2 storage sites in Finland,
together with long transmission distances to theclosest storage sites abroad would be the greatest
barriers to overcome before the implementation of
the CO2 capture and long-term storage technologies in emission management. The production costof electricity would be approximately doubled for
NGCC with CO2 capture, onshore transmission andoffshore storage. For coal fired power plant, the corresponding electricity production cost would beeven higher. According to this study, capturing CO2
near the storage sites and investing in new crossborder electricity transmission capacity seems to bea more feasible option. Mineral carbonation could
be a future option for Finland, but the reaction kinetics of carbonation process still has to be investigatedbefore any final conclusions could be made.
The potential to reuse captured CO2 in industry isless than 0.5% of Finland’s anthropogenic emissions. On the other hand, various industrial processes like pulp and paper manufacturing processes, could offer niches, wherein CO2 capture
process could become economical. However, quite
153

few CO2 reuse options in Finland offer long-term
carbon sinks.
There is still room for new ideas and for improvement of existing CO2 capture technologies andconcepts, especially pre-combustion and novel
combustion concepts. Opportunities exist e.g. indeveloping Finnish power plant technologies into
zero or low-CO2 emitting direction. Integration of
CO2 capture technologies and concepts in industrial processes is less studied a subject comparedwith energy production. Developing CO2 capture
technologies and concepts that can be integrated tovarious industrial processes, especially processes
that employ Finnish technology, could offer new
possibilities in the future.
Publications and reports made under
the project
Aarikka, L. 2001. Capture of Carbon Dioxide fromPower Plants, M.Sc. Thesis, Tampere University ofTechnology, Department of Environmental Engineering/Energy and Process Engineering
Kohlmann, J., Zevenhoven, R. 2001. The removal of
CO2 from flue gases using magnesium silicates, inFinland, In Proc. of the 11th Int. Conf. on Coal Science, San Francisco (CA), Sept. 30–Oct. 5, 2001
(CD-ROM)
Kohlmann, J., Zevenhoven, R., Mukherjee, A.B. 2002.
Carbon dioxide emissions control by mineral carbonation: the option for Finland, In Proceedings of
INFUB - 6th European Conference on Industrial
Furnaces and Boilers, Vol. 2, Estoril (Portugal),
April 2-5, 2002.
Kohlmann, J., Zevenhoven, R., Mukherjee, A.B., Koljonen, T. 2002. Mineral carbonation for long-term
storage of CO2 from flue gases, Helsinki Universityof Technology, Espoo. Report TKK-ENY-9. (Finalreport of the subproject ’Mineral Carbonation for
CO2 Removal from Flue Gases’, available at
http://eny.hut.fi/ )Koljonen, T., Siikavirta, H., Zevenhoven, R. 2002. CO2
Capture, Storage and Utilisation in Finland, Project
Report PRO4/T7504/02 (Final report of the projects ’CO2 capture technologies and their potential’
and ’Carbon dioxide storage and reuse’ , available
at http://www.vtt.fi/ene/Climtech)

154

Koljonen, T., Siikavirta, H., Zevenhoven, R., Savolainen, I. 2002. CO2 Capture, Storage and Utilisation in Finland, conference paper will be publishedin Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on
Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT-6),
Kyoto, Japan, September 30-October 4, 2002
Zevenhoven, R., Kohlmann, J. 2001. CO2 storage by
mineral carbonation in Finland (CO2 lagring genom
mineral karbonering i Finland)” invited lecture by
Ron Zevenhoven In Proc. of the Second Minisymposium on CO2 Capture and Storage, Gothenburg(Sweden), October 26, 2001 pp. 13-18 (available at
http://www.entek.chalmers.se/ ~anly/symp/symp
2001.html)
Zevenhoven, R., Kohlmann, J. 2002a. CO2 sequestration
by magnesium silicate mineral carbonation in Finland, In Proceedings of R’02 Recovery Recycling
Re-integration, Geneva (Switzerland) February
12-15, 2002, paper 220 (CD-ROM)
Zevenhoven, R., Kohlmann, J. 2002b. Reaction kinetics
of magnesium oxide-based mineral carbonation forCO2 sequestration, under preparation, to be submitted to a technical journal
Zevenhoven, R., Kohlmann, J., Mukherjee, A.B. 2002.
Direct dry mineral carbonation for CO2 emissions
reduction in Finland, In Proceedings of the 27th Int.
Tech. Conf. on Coal Utilization and Fuel Systems,
Clearwater (FL), March 4-7, 2002, pp. 743-745(CD-ROM)

References
Crabb, C. 2000. Versatile CO2 continues to expand into
new geographic markets and industrial applications. Chemical Engineering, Vol. 107, No. 7,
pp.49-52.
Edmonds, J.A., Freund, P., Doodley, J.J. 2000. The roleof carbon management technologies in addressing
atmospheric stabilization of greenhouse gases. 5thInternational Conf. on Greenhouse Gas Control
Technologies, 14 – 16 August 2000. Cairns, Australia.
IEA GHG 2000a. Barriers to overcome in implementation of CO2 capture and storage (1) Storage in disused oil and gas fields. IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D
programme. (Report Number PH3/22) 116 p.
IEA GHG 2000b. Issues underlying the feasibility of storing CO2 as hydrate deposits. IEA Greenhouse Gas
R&D programme. (Report Number PH3/25) 29 p.

th

IEA GHG 2001a. 10 Anniversary 1991-2001. IEA
Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme. 35 p.
IEA GHG 2001b. Putting carbon back in the ground.
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme. 26 p.
IEA GHG 2002. Transmission of CO2 and energy. IEA
Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme. (Report Number PH4/6). 139 p.
Joint Industry Carbon Capture Project 2002. WWW
pages. Referred in January 2002.
http://www.co2captureproject.com
Kohlmann, J., Zevenhoven, R., Mukherjee, A.B.,
Koljonen, T. 2002. Mineral carbonation for longterm storage of CO2 from flue gases, Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo. Report TKK-ENY-9.
(Final report of the subproject Mineral Carbonation for CO2 Removal from Flue Gases, available
http://eny.hut.fi)
Koljonen, T., Siikavirta, H., Zevenhoven, R. 2002. CO2
Capture, Storage and Utilisation in Finland, Project
Report PRO4/T7504/02 (Final report of the projects CO2 capture technologies and their potential
and Carbon dioxide storage and reuse, available at
http://www.vtt.fi/ene/Climtech)

Pipatti, R. 2001. Greenhouse gas emissions and removals in Finland. Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo. Research notes 2094.
RUCADI 2001. Progress reports of EU Rucadi project(BRRT-CT98-5089). WWW pages.
http://www.co2rucadi.uniba.it
U.S. DOE 2001. Carbon Sequestration- Research andDevelopment. WWW pages. Referred in January
2002. http://fossil.energy.gov./coal_power/sequestration/reports/rd/ chap2.pdf
U.S. DOE and NETL 2002. Carbon Sequestration Technology Roadmap 2002. WWW pages. Referred in
January 2002. http://www.netl.doe.gov/coalpower/
sequestration/ pubs/CS_roadmap_0115.pdf
Woodhill 2002. Transmission of CO2 and energy. Report
Number PH4/6, March 2002. IEA Greenhouse Gas
R&D Programme.
Ziock, H. 2002. Zero emissions coal to hydrogen. USA:
Los Alamos National Laboratory. Referred in June
2002. Available at: http://www.lanl.gov/energy/
est/zec/ index.html

Lackner, K., Ziock, H. 2000. From low to no emissions.
Modern Power Systems, 2000. Vol. 20, n:o 3, p. 31–
32.

155