SEPARATION SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering, 19(4) 615—620 (2011)
Economic Comparison of Three Gas Separation Technologies for CO2
Capture from Power Plant Flue Gas*
YANG Hongjun (杨宏军), FAN Shuanshi (樊栓狮), LANG Xuemei (郎雪梅), WANG Yanhong
(王燕鸿)** and NIE Jianghua (聂江华)
Key Laboratory of Enhanced Heat Transfer and Energy Conservation, Ministry of Education, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510640, China
Abstract Three gas separation technologies, chemical absorption, membrane separation and pressure swing adsorption, are usually applied for CO2 capture from flue gas in coal-fired power plants. In this work, the costs of the
three technologies are analyzed and compared. The cost for chemical absorption is mainly from $30 to $60 per ton
(based on CO2 avoided), while the minimum value is $10 per ton (based on CO2 avoided). As for membrane separation and pressure swing adsorption, the costs are $50 to $78 and $40 to $63 per ton (based on CO2 avoided), respectively. Measures are proposed to reduce the cost of the three technologies. For CO2 capture and storage process, the
CO2 recovery and purity should be greater than 90%. Based on the cost, recovery, and purity, it seems that chemical
absorption is currently the most cost-effective technology for CO2 capture from flue gas from power plants. However, membrane gas separation is the most promising alternative approach in the future, provided that membrane
performance is further improved.
Keywords CO2 capture cost, flue gas, chemical absorption, membrane gas separation, pressure swing adsorption
1
INTRODUCTION
Large amounts of greenhouse gases releasing to
the atmosphere in a short period can lead to global
warming, among which CO2 is the main contributor
and accounts for about 60% of the greenhouse effect
[1]. Coal-fired power plants are one of the major sources
of the intensive emission of CO2 and responsible for
roughly 30% of the total emission of CO2 [2]. According to the report of the U.S. energy information administration, 43% of the electricity is generated by
coal-fired power plants all over the world before 2030
[3], so more CO2 will be released to the atmosphere
and the climate change will be more serious. Hence,
the emissions of greenhouse gases must be reduced
greatly. One of the feasible methods to solve the dilemma is CO2 capture and storage (CCS), including
the separation of CO2 from sources, transportation to a
storage location, and long-term isolation from the atmosphere [3], in which CO2 capture accounts for
about 70%-80% of the total cost. There are three
options for capture CO2 from power plants, namely,
pre-combustion capture, oxy-fuel combustion capture,
and post-combustion capture [4-6], among which the
post-combustion capture is the simplest and suitable
for newly-built and existing coal-fired power plants
without requiring substantial change [7]. Since the
post-combustion capture is essentially a separation of
CO2 from flue gas (mainly consisted of N2, CO2, O2
and H2O), the traditional gas separation technologies,
such as chemical absorption, membrane separation,
and pressure swing adsorption, can be applied. The
objective of this work is to analyze the cost of the
three technologies and determine the most feasible
and cost-effective one.
2
2.1
RESEARCH PROGRESS
Economic indicators
Two major indicators are used here to evaluate
the economic performance of different CO2 capture
technologies, namely, CO2 avoided cost and captured
cost [8, 9], which are defined as
F1 =
Cafter − Cbefore
M 1,before − M 1,after
(1)
Cafter − Cbefore
M2
(2)
F2 =
Where, C is the cost of electricity($·kW−1·h−1), M1 is
the amount of CO2 emission per kWh of the net electricity output to grid (t·kW−1·h−1), before or after
means the same power plant without or with CO2
capture, M2 is CO2 captured amount per kWh of the
net electricity output to grid (t·kW−1·h−1). Furthermore,
it is worth noting that the cost of CO2 capture consists
of the expense for the separation of CO2 from flue gas
and the subsequent compression to about 10 MPa to
transport, usually by pipeline.
The definition of CO2 captured and avoided is
shown in Fig. 1. The amount of CO2 captured is that
captured by a CO2 capture system, while the amount
of CO2 avoided is the difference in CO2 emission per
kWh from the power plant before and after CO2 capture.
Received 2010-11-23, accepted 2011-05-26.
* Supported by the National High Technology Research and Development Program of China (2007AA03Z229) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2009ZM0185).
** To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected]
616
Chin. J. Chem. Eng., Vol. 19, No. 4, August 2011
Figure 1
The definition of CO2 captured and avoided [7, 10]
In other words, it is the amount of CO2 eliminated
from the atmosphere. In the same case, CO2 captured
cost is always less than CO2 avoided cost. For simplicity, both cost units are omitted.
2.2
Chemical absorption
Absorption and stripping constitute the main
process of capturing CO2 from flue gas. CO2 reacts
with absorbent in the absorber to form an intermediate
compounds, separating CO2 from flue gas. The intermediate compounds will release CO2 if the alkaline
solution is heated. Two kinds of absorbers may be
used, such as packed column and membrane contactor
[11], which is referred to membrane absorption.
The CO2 capture cost by chemical absorption
[6, 12-36] according to time and absorbent type is
shown in Figs. 2 and 3, respectively. Fig. 2 shows that
CO2 avoided cost is mainly $30-$60 and the minimum
value is $10 [26], while CO2 captured cost ranges from
$20 to $42. Both CO2 recovery and purity are greater
than 90% in these researches. From 2001 to 2009, at
least two reports for CO2 capture cost by chemical
absorption appear each year, indicating that chemical
absorption is mature in the CO2 capture. Most of the
processes are carried out in packed columns, and only
two publications are on membrane absorption. The
CO2 captured cost for membrane absorption only include the direct investment for construction of additional units and the cost of system operation [18, 19],
so more research on this topic is needed. Fig. 3 shows
Figure 3 CO2 capture cost by chemical absorption with
different absorbents
● CO2 avoided cost; ○ CO2 captured cost
that monoethanolamine (MEA) is the main absorbent
used for CO2 capture from flue gas and the CO2
avoided cost is mainly $30-$60. A few new adsorbents have been used, such as NH3, KS1 and K2CO3,
where the economical absorbent is NH3 with a CO2
avoided cost of $10-$37. Thus investigations for new
absorbents are needed.
Based on the above-mentioned researches, four
methods are proposed to reduce the cost of CO2 capture from flue gas in the power plants with chemical
adsorption method.
(1) Optimize the operation parameters. The small
flow rate ratio of absorbent to flue gas can reduce the
investment for pumps and equipment and the operating cost [13]. In addition, the cost may be reduced by
optimizing the load and concentration of absorbent,
and stripping pressure [20].
(2) Integrate CO2 capture units with power plants.
This measure can partly recover the waste heat in the
system to improve the total energy efficiency of the
power plant [17].
(3) Use new absorbents. The CO2 avoided cost
with NH3 and MEA is $47 and $27, respectively. The
overall cost can drop from $47 to $10 with NH3 considering byproduct of fertilizer [26].
(4) Improve the membrane life-span for membrane absorption. The price of membrane has more
effect on the equipment investment than the operation
cost. In the operation, one should ensure 3 to 5 years
of membrane life [19].
2.3
Figure 2 CO2 capture cost by chemical absorption according to time
● CO2 avoided cost; ○ CO2 captured cost
Membrane separation
The principle of membrane gas separation is that
when flue gas passes through the membrane, CO2 is
enriched on one side of the membrane due to its selectivity and permeability to CO2 and other gases. Pressure difference is the driving force for the process.
The required pressure ratio can be achieved either by
compression the flue gas or using a vacuum pump on
the permeate side, termed as pressurization separation
and vacuum separation, respectively.
Figure 4 shows the CO2 captured cost based on
Chin. J. Chem. Eng., Vol. 19, No. 4, August 2011
617
Figure 4 CO2 captured cost by membrane separation
○ CO2 captured cost; △ CO2 recovery; ▲ CO2 purity
literature [37-41]. The cost is from $25 to $217, the
main range is $40-$100, and the minimum cost is $25
[40]. Both CO2 recovery and purity are greater than
90% except one case. Most of data do not include the
cost for compression of CO2 product. Fig. 5 is a summary for CO2 avoided cost based on literature [22-24, 42],
in which CO2 avoided cost is $50-$78 and the CO2
recoveries are 90% except one case. The CO2 purity is
43%-77%, with the main range in 43%-60%, which
is much less than 90%. The comparison of Figs. 4 and
5 shows that most of the previous studies are based on
CO2 captured cost, since most of membrane separations for CO2 capture from flue gas are on the laboratory level or only through numerical simulation. Fig. 5
shows a wide range of CO2 purity, since the membranes used in the researches include commercial
product and those used in laboratory only at the moment. The other reason may be that these results are
from the membrane systems with different stages.
More stages give higher CO2 purity.
Figure 5 CO2 avoided cost by membrane separation
avoided cost; △ CO2 recovery; ▲ CO2 purity
● CO2
Based on the results in literature, two methods
are proposed to reduce CO2 capture cost with membrane separation.
(1) If CO2/N2 selectivity is less than 30, the CO2
capture cost is higher, so membranes with higher selectivity should be used. If CO2/N2 selectivity is
higher than 30, permeability of membrane has more
influence on the cost, membranes with higher CO2
permeability should be selected [40].
(2) Membranes with higher price are suitable for
pressurization separation process and those with lower
price are suitable to vacuum separation process [40, 42].
If the price of membrane is lower, it is cost-effective
to choose a membrane with higher CO2/N2 selectivity.
If the price is higher, a membrane with a higher CO2
permeability is more suitable [22].
2.4
Pressure swing adsorption
Pressure swing adsorption is based on different
adsorption abilities of absorbent to components in the
flue gas. The process consists of two primary steps,
namely, CO2 adsorption by adsorbent at high pressure
and desorption at low pressure. A large pressure difference between adsorption and desorption is needed.
Adsorption at higher pressure and desorption at atmospheric pressure is termed as high pressure swing
adsorption (HPSA), and adsorption at pressure slightly
above atmospheric pressure and desorption under
vacuum condition is termed as vacuum pressure swing
adsorption (VPSA).
Figure 6 gives the CO2 capture cost by pressure
swing adsorption [24, 43]. CO2 avoided cost is $40-$63.
The CO2 recovery is less than 90% and the purity is
less than 50%, which can not meet the requirement of
CCS process. The data currently available are much
less than those by chemical absorption and membrane
618
Chin. J. Chem. Eng., Vol. 19, No. 4, August 2011
Table 1
CO2 avoided cost by chemical absorption
F1/$·t−1
Year
2009
30, 46, 55, 73
[6]
26.0, 30.2, 30.7, 39.7, 46.6, 47.8
[12]
2008
2007
68, 80
[13]
52.2
[14]
37.3, 46.3, 89.5
[17]
44.2, 52.7
[20]
28.1, 36.2
[21]
2006
Figure 6
CO2 capture cost by pressure swing adsorption
3 COMPARISON OF THREE GAS SEPARATION TECHNOLOGIES
To mitigate global warming caused by greenhouse emission, CO2 avoided amount is preferable to
CO2 captured amount, so CO2 avoided cost is chosen
as the economic indicator to evaluate the technologies.
In addition, CO2 recovery and purity are selected as
indicators for technology feasibility. CO2 avoided
costs are presented in Tables 1 and 2, and also plotted
in Fig. 7. The chemical absorption presents the lowest
cost and highest CO2 recovery and purity.
4
CONCLUSIONS
The targets of European Union for CO2 capture
in coal-fired power plants include that the recovery of
CO2 is no less than 90% and the cost is €20-€30 per ton
(based on CO2 captured) [45]. The goals of U.S. Department of Energy for CO2 capture are that CO2 recovery is not less than 90% and the cost of electricity
does not increase more than 20% [4]. Based on these
targets, some conclusions are obtained for the three
traditional gas separation methods for CO2 capture
from power plant flue gas.
(1) For the CO2 recovery, both chemical absorption and membrane separation can meet the requirement for CO2 capture. Chemical absorption is better
34
[22]
43
[23]
34, 47
[24]
40
[25]
2005
separation. To evaluate the economic performance of
pressure swing adsorption for capturing CO2 from flue
gas, further investigations are needed.
Some measures may be used to reduce the cost.
(1) VPSA is superior to HPSA. The energy consumption for compression of flue gas by VPSA is
much less [24, 43, 44].
(2) Increase work capacity and N2/CO2 selectivity of adsorbent [24].
(3) Increase adsorption and desorption rate. The
amount of adsorbent is reduced and the CO2 purity is
increased, decreasing the investment in CO2 capture
units and the operating cost [24].
Reference
10, 11, 20, 23, 43
[26]
28.2
[27]
88.1, 96.2
[28]
2004
36.3, 55
[29]
36.2, 40.3
[30]
2003
2002
2001
55
[31]
46
[32]
47, 67
[33]
49, 51
[34]
43
[35]
33, 73
[36]
Note: CO2 recovery and purity are both greater than 90%.
Table 2
F1/$·t−1
CO2 avoided cost by membrane separation and
pressure swing adsorption
CO2 recovery/%
CO2 purity/%
Reference
membrane separation
54
90
45
75
90
74
[42]
71
90
77
57
90
45
52
90
63
50
90
53
55
80
45
[23]
78
90
43
[24]
64
90
62
[22]
pressure swing adsorption
40
48
75
61
90
44
63
85
48
56
85
48
[24]
[43]
than membrane separation, if CO2 avoided cost is
taken into account.
Chin. J. Chem. Eng., Vol. 19, No. 4, August 2011
7
8
9
10
Figure 7 Comparison of chemical absorption, membrane
separation and pressure swing adsorption
● CO2 avoided cost; △ CO2 recovery; ▲ CO2 purity; Bracketed number-data number with same value
(2) The major drawback for chemical absorption
is the energy consumption [6, 13, 46] and further reduction in cost is relatively difficult.
(3) Membrane separation for CO2 capture from
flue gas is not as mature as chemical absorption and
the minimum cost reaches $25 per ton (based on CO2
captured) by now, which meets the economic requirement for CO2 capture [40]. An advantage of the
approach is that membrane can be easily added to the
power plant without requiring complicated integration
[41]. With further improvement on the membrane performance, CO2 capture cost can be significantly reduced, making membrane gas separation the most
promising substitute for chemical absorption technology in the future.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
NOMENCLATURE
19
C
F1
F2
M1
M2
−1
−1
cost of electricity, $·kW ·h
CO2 avoided cost, $·t−1 (based on CO2 avoided)
CO2 captured cost, $·t−1 (based on CO2 captured)
amount of CO2 emission per kW·h of the net electricity output to
grid, t·kW−1·h−1
amount of CO2 captured per kW·h of the net electricity output to
grid, t·kW−1·h−1
REFERENCES
1
2
3
4
5
6
Yamasaki, A., “An overview of CO2 mitigation options for global
warming-Emphasizing CO2 sequestration options”, J. Chem. Eng.
Japan, 36 (4), 361-375 (2003).
Zhang, A.L., Fang, D., Greenhouse Gas CO2 Control and Recovery,
China environmental science press, Beijing (1996). (in Chinese)
U.S. EIA, “International energy outlook 2010”, Washington, DC,
2010 [2010-10-13], http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo.
National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), “Pulverized coal
oxy-combustion power plants”, 2008[2011-02-05], http://www.netl.
doe.gov/energy-analyses/pubs/PC%20Oxyfuel%20Combustion%20
Revised%20Report%202008.pdf.
Yang, H.Q., Xu, Z.H., Fan, M.H., Gupta, R., Slimane, R.B., Bland,
A.E., Wright, L., “Progress in carbon dioxide separation and capture:
A review”, J. Environ. Sci., 20 (1), 14-27 (2008).
Ho, M.T., Allinson, G.W., Wiley, D.E., “Factors affecting the cost
of capture for Australian lignite coal fired power plants”, Energy
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
619
Procedia, 1 (1), 763-770 (2009).
Herzog, H., Meldon, J., Hatton, A., “Advanced post-combustion
CO2 capture”, 2009 [2011-02-05], http://web.mit.edu/mitei/docs/
reports/ herzog-meldon-hatton.pdf.
Klemes, J., Bulatov, I., Cockerill, T., “Techno-economic modeling
and cost functions of CO2 capture processes”, Comput. Aided Chem.
Eng., 20, 295-300 (2005).
Hoffmann, S., Bratlett, M., Finkenrath, M., Evulet, A., Ursin, T.P.,
“Performance and cost analysis of advanced gas turbine cycles with
precombustion CO2 capture”, J. Eng. for Gas Turbines and Power,
131 (2), 021701, 1-7.
Metz, B., Davidson, O., Coninck, H. D., Loos, M., Meyer, L., “Carbon dioxide capture and storage”, Cambridge University Press, 2005
[2010-10-13], http://www.climatescience.gov/workshop2005/presentations/breakout_2ARubin.pdf.
Li, J.L., Chen, B.H., “Review of CO2 absorption using chemical
solvents in hollow fiber membrane contactors”, Sep. Purif. Technol,
41 (2), 109-122 (2005).
Gibson, J., Schallehn, D., Zheng, Q., Chen, J., “Carbon dioxide capture from coal-fired power plants in China”, Summary Report for
NZEC Work Package 3,2009 [2010-10-13], http://www.nzec.info/en/
assets/Reports/Techno-Economic-Comparison-WP3-Final-English.pdf.
Oexmann, J., Kather, A., “Post-combustion CO2 capture in coal-fired
power plants: Comparison of integrated chemical absorption processes with piperazine promoted potassium carbonate and MEA”,
Energy Procedia, 1 (1), 799-806 (2009).
Hamilton, M.R., Herzog, H.J., Parsons, J.E., “Cost and U.S. public
policy for new coal power plants with carbon capture and sequestration”, Energy Procedia, 1 (1), 4487-4494 (2009).
Yan, S.P., Fang, M.X., Zhang, W.F., Zhong, W.L., Luo, Z.Y., Cen,
K.F., “Comparative analysis of CO2 separation from flue gas by
membrane gas absorption technology and chemical absorption technology in China”, Energy Convers. Manage., 49 (11), 3188-3197
(2008).
Zhong, W.L., “Study on CO2 chemical absorption technology”,
Master Thesis, Zhejiang University, China (2008). (in Chinese).
Romeo, L.M., Bolea, I., Escosa, J.M., “Integration of power plant
and amine scrubbing to reduce CO2 capture costs ”, Appl. Therm.
Eng., 28 (8-9), 1039-1046 (2008).
Fang, M.X., Zhang, W.F., Yan, S.P., Luo, Z.Y., Cen, K.F., “Economic
analysis on separation of CO2 from coal-fired power plant”, J. Zhejiang
University (Eng. Sci.), 41 (12), 2077-2081 (2007). (in Chinese)
Yan, S.P., Fang, M.X., Zhang, W.F., Luo, Z.Y., Cen, K.F., “Engineering design and economic analysis of CO2 sequestration from
flue gas by using membrane absorption techniques”, J. Power Eng.,
27 (3), 415-421 (2007). (in Chinese).
Abu-Zahra, M.R.M., Niederer, J.P.M., Feron, P.H.M., Feron, P.H.M.,
Versteeg, G.F., “CO2 capture from power plants Part II. A parametric
study of the economical performance based on mono-ethanolamine”,
Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control, 1 (2), 135-142 (2007).
Peeters, A.N.M., Faaij, A.P.C., Turkenburg, W.C., “Techno-economic
analysis of natural gas combined cycles with post-combustion CO2
absorption, including a detailed evaluation of the development potential”, Greenhouse Gas Control, 1 (4), 396-417 (2007).
Ho, M.T., Allinson, G.W., Wiley, D.E., “Comparison of CO2 separation options for geo-sequestration: Are membranes competitive?”,
Desalination, 192 (1-3), 288-295 (2006).
Ho, M.T., Leamon, G., Alinson, G.W., Wiley, D.E., “Economics of
CO2 and mixed gas geosequestration of flue gas using gas separation
membranes”, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 45 (8), 2546-2552 (2006).
Ho, M.T., Wiley, D.E., Allinson, G.W., “Reducing the cost of
post-combustion CO2 capture”, In: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Technologies (GHGT-8),
Tronheim, Norway (2006).
Rubin, E.S., Rao, A.B., Chen, C., “Comparative assessments of fossil fuel power plants with CO2 capture and storage”, 2005
[2010-02-05], http://uregina.ca/ghgt7/PDF/papers/peer/475.pdf.
Ciferno, J.P., DiPietro, P., Tarka, T., “An economic scoping study for
CO2 capture using aqueous ammonia”, 2005 [2010-10-13], http://www.
transactionsmagazine.com/ArgonneLabCommonSense.pdf.
Simmondsl, M., Hurst, P., “Post combustion technologies for CO2
capture: A techno-economic overview of selected options”, 2005
620
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Chin. J. Chem. Eng., Vol. 19, No. 4, August 2011
[2010-10-13], http://uregina.ca/ghgt7/PDF/papers/nonpeer/471.pdf .
Jaud, P., Gros-Bonnivard, R., Kanniche, M., “Technico-economic
feasibility study of CO2 capture, transport and geo-sequestration: a
case study for France”, 2005[2010-10-13], http://uregina.ca/ghgt7/
PDF/papers/peer/033.pdf.
Morrison, G.F., “Summary of Canadian clean power coalition
work on CO2 capture and storage”, 2004 [2010-10-13]
http://www.iea-coal.org.uk/publishor/system/component_view.asp?P
hyDocId=5602&LogDocId=81216.
Rao, A.B., Rubin, E.S., Berkenpas, M.B., “An integrated modeling
framework for carbon management technologies”, 2004 [2010-10-13],
http://www.iecm-online.com/documentation/tech_04.pdf.
Singh, D., Croiset, E., Douglas, P.L., Douglas, M.A., “techno-economic
study of CO2 capture from an existing coal-fired power plant: MEA
scrubbing vs. O2/CO2 recycle combustion”, Energy Convers. Manage., 44 (19), 3073-309 (2003).
Chen, C., Rao, A.B., Rubin, E.S., “Comparative assessment of CO2
capture options for Existing coal-fired power plants”, The Second
National Conference on Carbon Sequestration, Alexandria, VA, USA
(2003).
Rao, A. B., Rubine, S. A., “Technical, Economic, and environmental
assessment of amine-based CO2 capture technology for power plant
greenhouse gas control”, Environ. Sci. Technol., 36 (20), 4467-4475
(2002).
Parsons Infrastructure & Technology Group, Inc. “Updated cost and
performance estimates for fossil fuel power plants with CO2 removal”, 2002 [2010-10-13], http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/
carbon_seq/Resources/Analysis/pubs/UpdatedCosts.pdf.
Simbeck, D.R., “CO2 mitigation economics for existing coal-fired
power plants”, Pittsburgh Coal Conference, Newcastle, NSW, Australia, 2001 [2010-10-13], http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/
proceedings/01/carbon_seq/7c2.pdf.
Alstom Power Inc., ABB Lummus Global Inc., “Engineering feasibility and economics of CO2 capture on an existing coal-fired
power plant”, US Department of Energy/NETL, Pittsburgh, PA,
2001 [2010-10-13], http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Resources/Analysis/pubs/AlstomReport.pdf.
Yang, D.X., Wang, Z., Wang, J.X, Wang, S.C., “Potential of
two-stage membrane system with recycle stream for CO2 capture
from post-combustion gas”, Energy Fuels, 23, 4755-4762 (2009).
Zhao, L., Menzer, R., Riensche, E., Blum, L., Stolten, D., “Concepts
and investment cost analyses of muti-stage membrane systems used
in post-combustion processes”, Energy Procedia, 1 (1), 269-278
(2009).
He, X.Z., Lie, J.A., Sheridan, E., Hagg, M.B., “CO2 Capture by
Hollow Fibre Carbon Membranes: Experiments and Process Simulations”, Energy Procedia, 1 (1), 261-268 (2009).
Merkel, T.C., Lin, H.Q., Wei, X.T., Baker, R., “Power plant
post-combustion carbon dioxide capture: an opportunity for membranes”, J. Membr. Sci., 359 (1-2), 126 – 139 (2010).
Shim, H.M., Lee, J.S., Wang, H.Y., Choi, S.H., Kim, J.H., Kim, H.T.,
“Modeling and economic analysis of CO2 separation process with
hollow fiber membrane module”, Korean J. Chem. Eng., 24 (3),
537-541 (2007).
Ho, M.T., Allinson, G.W., Wiley, D.E., “Reducing the cost of CO2
capture from flue gases using membrane technology”, Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res., 47 (5), 1562-1568 (2008).
Ho, M.T., Allinson, G.W., Wiley, D.E., “Reducing the cost of CO2
capture from flue gases using pressure swing adsorption”, Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res., 47 (14), 4883-4890 (2008).
Zhang, J., Webley, P.A., Xiao, P., “Effect of process parameters on
power requirements of vacuum swing adsorption technology for CO2
capture from flue gas”, Energy Convers. Manage., 49 (2), 346-356
(2008).
European Commission, “CO2 capture and storage projects”, 2007
[2010-10-13], http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/pdf/synopses_co2_en.pdf.
Woods, M.C., Capicotto, P.J., Haslbeck, J.L., Kuehn, N.J.,
Matuszewski, M.., Pinkerton, L.L., Rutkowski, M.D. Schoff, R.L.,
Vaysman, V., “Cost and Performance Baseline For Fossil Energy
Plants”, National Energy Technology Laboratory, 2007 [2011-2-22],
http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/pubs/Bituminous%20Basel
ine_Final%20Report.pdf.