D5.1 Post-capture CO2 management: options for the cement industry
Creators: name: Monteiro, Juliana Garcia Moretz-Sohn
name: Goetheer, Earl
name: Schols, Erin
name: van Os, Peter
name: Calvo, José Francisco Pérez
name: Hoppe, Helmut
name: Bharadwaj, Hariharan Subrahmaniam
name: Roussanaly, Simon
name: Khakharia, Purvil
name: Feenstra, Maartje
name: de Jong, Ardjan
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2018
Subjects: Post-capture CO2 management
CO2 utilization in cement industry
CO2 sequestration

description: This report evaluates post-capture CO2 management options for the cement industry. A number of possible CCU products are evaluated according to metrics such as the energy demand, the technology readiness level and the market size.<br>
Six scenarios were proposed and evaluated in this report, in order to illustrate of the options available for the reference CEMCAP cement plant.<br>
1) CCS1: CO2 capture from a cement plant in Belgium and injection in a saline aquifer in the Dutch continental shelf is estimated to cost 114 €/ton CO2 avoided.<br>
2) CCS2: CO2 capture from a cement plant in costal Germany and injection in a saline aquifer in the Norwegian continental shelf is estimated to cost 153 €/ton CO2 avoided.<br>
The difference between these two scenarios show the impact of the transportation mode and the distance between source and sink on the CO2 cost.<br>
3) CCS3: mineralization to MgCO3 is expected to between 150 and 400 €/ton CO2 avoided. The process efficiency, the transportation of rock and MgCO3, as well as the heat demand, play an important role in the final cost. Further process developments and an optimized chain can bring the costs significantly down;<br>
4) CCS1+U1: blue ethanol production using 3,1% of the emitted CO2 requires 50 MW excess renewable power. The remaining fraction of the captured CO2 (86,9%) is sequestered using CCS1. The total CCUS cost is 111 €/ton of CO2 avoided (3% reduction as compared to CCS1) when blue ethanol replaces green ethanol from sugarcane. In case of replacement of green ethanol from wheat, the cost drops to 96 €/ton of CO2 avoided (16% reduction as compared to CCS1).<br>
5) CCS1+U2: by using 7,5% of the emitted CO2, 288 kt/y of blue polyol are produced. 82,5% of the CO2 is stored via CCS1. This configuration may lead to a positive business case, depending on the spread between the polyol market price and that of propylene oxide. If both prices are set as 1400 €/ton (zero spread), the CCUS chain leads to a profit of 18 €/ton CO2 captured.<br>
6) CCS1+U3: purifying 6,5% of the emitted CO2 to food-grade (blue CO2) and placing it in the food market lowers the integrated CCUS cost as long blue CO2 replaces fossil-derived CO2: in that case, the cost drops to 108 €/ton CO2 captured. If green CO2 is available (e.g. from fermentation), the CCUS option actually leads to a higher cost than CCS1: 120 €/ton CO2 avoided.<br>
Polyol and ethanol are representative of other CO2 utilization routes, and the overall conclusions derived for these processes can be extended to high value specialties and fuels, respectively.<br>
CO2 utilization should always be considered in combination with storage. The fraction of the CO2 that is utilized in a full scale CCUS implementation in a cement plant is expected to be lower than 10%.<br>
High added-values products may lead to positive business cases. However. the number of cement plants that could benefit from this option will be strongly limited by the product’s market.<br>
The utilization of CO2 to replace CO2 intensive raw materials or products (e.g. ethanol from wheat or propylene oxide) lead to improved costs when the basis of calculation is CO2 avoided. LCA should be conducted for the different technological routes, in order to take this important factor into consideration.
description: This work was supported by the Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI)
under contract number 15.0160