Techno-economic analysis of carbon dioxide capture from low concentration sources using membranes

Journal Article · Sat Sep 09 00:00:00 EDT 2023 · Chemical Engineering Journal

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2023.145876· OSTI ID:1999993

Adhikari, Birendra  ^[1]; Orme, Christopher J.  ^[1]; Stetson, Caleb ^[1]; Klaehn, John R.  ^[1]

---

1. Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Idaho Falls, ID (United States)

Rising carbon dioxide (CO₂) levels in the atmosphere lead to global warming, causing climate change. As such, carbon capture has become necessary to slow the increase and reduce CO₂ levels in the atmosphere. Point source emissions have a wide range of CO₂ concentrations, but emissions below 3% CO₂ have mostly been ignored because Carbon capture from these sources has been viewed as costly and economically unsustainable. Membrane technologies are considered the most viable solution by virtue of more energy-efficient operation. Our group at Idaho National Laboratory (INL) has developed poly[bis((2-methoxyethoxy)ethoxy)phosphazene] (MEEP)-based carbon dioxide selective membranes with CO₂/N₂ selectivity greater than 40 and CO₂ permeability greater than 450 Barrer. To understand the economics of carbon capture, a spreadsheet-based techno-economic analysis (TEA) model was developed to consider multiple parameters, including selectivity and permeability of the membranes, performance conditions such as the number of stages, module material, electricity price, membrane price, and capital financing. The cost of carbon capture in US $$\$$$$/metric ton was calculated at various purities and compared with other membrane processes, cryogenic capture, solvent-based capture, and pressure swing adsorption-based capture. It was determined that a MEEP-based three-stage process had a capture cost of US $$\$$$$ 50.1/metric ton for 99.8% purity CO₂ from a 1% CO₂ feed source in nitrogen (N₂). In conclusion, the capture cost using the best performing Pebax-based membrane was 464% higher, cryogenic capture was 60%–140% higher, pressure swing adsorption was 55%–165% higher, and chemical absorption was -10%–110% higher than MEEP-based membrane capture, respectively.

• Research Organization: Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Idaho Falls, ID (United States)
• Sponsoring Organization: USDOE Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) Program
• Grant/Contract Number: AC07-05ID14517
• OSTI ID: 1999993
• Report Number(s): INL/JOU-23-71302-Rev000; TRN: US2405495
• Journal Information: Chemical Engineering Journal, Vol. 474; ISSN 1385-8947
• Publisher: Elsevier
• Country of Publication: United States
• Language: English

Related Subjects

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATION
36 MATERIALS SCIENCE
37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
42 ENGINEERING
membrane gas separation
Carbon enrichment and capture
technoeconomic analysis
staged membrane system
global warming