## 5 Economical Assessment  
The research studied several variables, such as first compressor pressure, first membrane surface, second compressor pressure, second membrane surface, third compressor pressure, and third membrane surface values, see Table 3, in all considered cases to evaluate the economic variation for achieving a 90% carbon removal efficiency and a minimum of 99% purity with the lowest electricity demand. The following mathematical problems were employed to compute the fundamental economic standards. Total power needed to capture carbon dioxide, respecting the formula:  
\[\text{Membrane power required}\ =\ \sum\text{E}_{\text{T}} \tag{5}\]  
where ET is the total power of the accessories (like compression components) of membrane operation used (kW). LCOE, in EUR/kWh, can be defined regarding Equation (6) [64]:  
\[\text{LCOE}=\frac{\text{CAPEX}+\text{OPEX}}{\text{E}_{\text{fine}}} \tag{6}\]  
Efine refers to the overall electricity production of CFPP, in kWh; CAPEX represents capital expenditure (EUR), while OPEX indicates the operational expenditure of the project, (EUR). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Factor** & **Unit** & **Rate** \\ \hline Membrane module & - & Spiral wound [58] \\ \hline Flue gas flow & - & Counter-current [58] \\ \hline Permeability of CO2 & GPU & 3000 [59] \\ \hline CO2/N2 Selectivity & - & 50 [59] \\ \hline Compressors and vacuums’ efficiency & \% & 90 [58] \\ \hline Water pump efficiency & \% & 90 [58] \\ \hline Variance of the membrane variables simulated & & \\ Pressure of first compressor (CP1) & bar & 3–8 \\ Area of first membrane (MSA1) & m2 & 200,000–800,000 \\ Pressure of second compressor (CP2) & bar & 2–6 (case 2) \\ Area of second membrane (MSA2) & m2 & 80,000 \\ Pressure of third compressor (CP3) & bar & 2–6 (case 3) \\ Area of third membrane (MSA3) & m2 & 8000–40,000 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Prime factors of membrane module harnessed. SPECCA, in MJ/kg, for the membrane was calculated as the next formulation [61]:  
\[\text{SPECCA}=\frac{3600\times\left(\text{E}_{\text{fine,NO capture}}-\text{E}_{\text{fine,With Capture}}\right)}{\left(\text{E}_{\text{fine,No capture}}\times\text{C}_{\text{No capture}}\right)-\left(\text{E}_{\text{fine,With capture}}\times\text{C}_{\text{With capture}}\right)} \tag{7}\]  
where C\({}_{\text{No capture}}\) and C\({}_{\text{With capture}}\), in kg/kWh, demonstrate the total carbon dioxide released by the CFPP with and without the use of CCS. CO\({}_{2}\) removal price (CO\({}_{2,\text{RP}}\)), in EUR/t, is computed regarding the LCOE with and without the capture process as the following equation [65]:  
\[\text{CO}_{2,\text{RP}}=\frac{\text{LCOE}_{\text{with capture}}-\text{LCOE}_{ \text{No capture}}}{\text{CO}_{2}\text{removed}} \tag{8}\]  
CO\({}_{2}\)removed presents the quantity of carbon dioxide removed through the capture process, in t/kWh. In another way, CO\({}_{2}\) avoided price (CO\({}_{2,\text{AP}}\)), in EUR/t, is determined respecting the CFPP price with and without carbon-capture technologies and CO\({}_{2}\) released for both cases, Equation (10) below shows that relation [65]:  
\[\text{CO}_{2,\text{AP}}=\frac{\text{LCOE}_{\text{with capture}}-\text{LCOE}_{ \text{No capture}}}{\text{C}_{\text{No capture}}-\text{C}_{\text{with capture}}} \tag{9}\]  
The next prices identified in Table 4 were presented to determine the cost-effectiveness of CFPP, where the work duration is 75% of the overall hours per year (8760) which is 6570 h/y. To declare whether the current project is gainful from the economic belief, the subsequent formulas were harnessed to determine the financial factors [68].