## 1 Literature Review
### Carbon Capture Technologies  
Widespread interest in the capture and sequestration of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel power plants (as a potential means of controlling GHG emissions) is increasing [31]. Canada energy regulator CER [12] reported that \"In 2014, 139 MW of coal-fired capacity at the Boundary Dam station was retrofitted with carbon capture and storage technology that is capable of capturing and storing up to 1.0 MT CO\({}_{2}\) per year of emissions that would have otherwise been released. In 2020, over 0.7 MT were captured, and over 4.0 MT have been captured since start-up.\" This further showed that good progress can be achieved in the effort to capture GHG emissions. More efforts to put these captured emissions into good use are recommended. Various governments are making efforts to reduce their GHG emissions. Some scholars [9] reported that the effort of the Chinese government in the promotion of the energy shift is expected to reduce the GHG emissions from the electricity grid to 376 gCO\({}_{2}\)-eq/kWh by 2035. Geological storage for injected CO\({}_{2}\) is a promising technology for the reduction of emissions of CO\({}_{2}\) into the atmosphere [38]. The storage options that were mentioned in a previous study by the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) [39] include mineral carbonation, ocean storage, and geological storage. Some scholars [33] illustrated a procedure for a post-combustion CO\({}_{2}\) capture system in a power plant. The authors mentioned that the system described is able to capture 95% of CO\({}_{2}\) from power plants with post-combustion CO\({}_{2}\) capture. A previous work [31] gave an illustration of a flowsheet for CO\({}_{2}\) capture from flue gases using an amine-based system. Another study [40] also gave a schematic diagram of a coal-fired plant with carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS). The scholars cited previous works that mentioned where CO\({}_{2}\) capture demonstration plants have been installed. Some researchers [30] mentioned three main technological routes for CO\({}_{2}\) capture from power plants (oxy-fuel combustion, pre-combustion, and post-combustion). The scholars noted that the application may reduce the net efficiency of a power plant by up to 14% and increase the cost of electricity by 30-70%. Other researchers [40] also mentioned that although carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) is a promising countermeasure against global warming, the installation of CCS into a power supply system causes a significant decrease in power output. Meanwhile, the specifications of a base case conventional power plant without CO\({}_{2}\) capture and the same power plant with an alternative post-combustion CO\({}_{2}\) capture that was assessed in the study by previous scholars [33] showed that the gross energy efficiency of a power plant is the same for the power plant before CO\({}_{2}\) capture and post-combustion CO\({}_{2}\) capture. The CO\({}_{2}\) capture rate was 95%, the SO\({}_{x}\) removal rate was 99%, and the particulate matter removal rate is 99.97%. US Appalachian (bituminous) coal was referenced for this. For the power plant that was mentioned in the study (a 500 MW capacity), before and after, the power plant's gross energy efficiency-LHV was 40%. Another study [40] indicated that an approximately 2% efficiency improvement can be expected by reducing the regeneration energy of the CO\({}_{2}\) scrubbing solvent by 1 GJ/t-CO\({}_{2}\). This shows a need for further research on how to improve the efficiency of power plants while implementing innovative carbon capture technologies. Citing previous works, the EPA [19] reported that the average carbon dioxide coefficient of natural gas is 0.0551 kgCO\({}_{2}\) per cubic foot. The average carbon coefficient of distillate fuel oil is 431.87 kgCO\({}_{2}\) per 42-gallon barrel. The average carbon dioxide coefficient of liquefied petroleum gases is 235.7 kgCO\({}_{2}\) per 42-gallon barrel.