MEMBRANE AND MEMBRANE ASSISTEDLIQUEFACTION PROCESSESFOR CO2 CAPTURE FROM CEMENT PLANTS

Rahul Anantharaman and David BerstadSINTEF Energy Research

22nd October 2018Melbourne, Australia

Background

2

• 6‐7% of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions from the cement industry

• CO2 emissions an inherent part of the cement production process

CO2 composition: 22% (low air leak)

Membranes processes and their applicability in cement plants

• Low enviromental impact

• Ease of integration (no steam required in theprocess)

• Compact process

• Membrane separation processes favour highCO2 partial pressure3

Cost of membrane-based CO2 capture compared to post-combustionMEA-based capture at a 90% CCR depending on the membraneproperties for cement plant

Roussanaly, S. et al. (2018) ‘A new approach to the identification of high‐potentialmaterials for cost‐efficient membrane‐based post‐combustion CO2 capture’, Sustainable Energy & Fuels. 

CO2

CO2 liquefaction process

• No chemicals• Separation by phase change

• Flexible process• CO2 product at conditions suitable for ship or pipeline transport

• Compact• CO2 capture at high pressure

• Used as standard for oxy‐combustion processes

4

Is there a role for CO2 liquefaction in post‐combustion capture from cement?

5

Membrane assisted liquefaction

6

CO2

High-pressure CO2

Refrig. Refrig.

Decarbonised flue gas

Flue gas

Mainseparator

Purificationseparator

Dehydration

Vacuumpump

SOx removal

BlowerMain

blower

Direct contact cooler

Membrane unit

Permeate cooler Retentate

expander

Coldbox

Recycle compr.

CO2 pump

CO2 pump

Tail gas expanders

Water knockout

Intercooled permeate compressor train

Water purge

CO2 concentration at the interface is important

• Affects CO2 capture ratio

• Affects amount of recycle to membrane

• Membrane area

• Vaccum pump size and work

CO2 concentration at interface dependson• Membrane type

• Pressure differential across membrane

• Membrane area

Membrane assisted liquefaction

From CEMCAP cost estimation

• Around 60% of total direct cost of the MAL process is due to themembrane process

• Membrane itself, the vacuum pump and the flue gas compressorstand out as the most expensive pieces of equipment

• These three together account for around 80% of the membrane part costs, or 46% of the total direct costs

• Membrane accounts for 9% of the total direct cost7

Membranes considered

8

Membrane in CEMCAP work MTR 1st Gen MTR Theoretical FSC

Advanced FSC

CO2 permeance(Sm3/m2.bar.h) 2.7 2.7 5.94 5.94 2 4N2 selectivity 20 50 50 79 135 135O2 selectivity 26 26 26 26 35 35H2O selectivity 20 20 20 20 25 25

Membrane assisted liquefaction processperformance

9

1050

1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1,75 2 2,25 2,5 2,75 3

Specific work for cap

ture (M

J/kg CO2)

Membrane feed pressure (bar)

CEMCAP membrane MTR 1st Gen MTR Theoretical FSC Advanced FSC

50000

150000

250000

350000

450000

550000

650000

1,75 2 2,25 2,5 2,75 3

Mem

bran

e area

 (m2)

Membrane feed pressure (bar)

CEMCAP membrane MTR 1st Gen MTR Theoretical FSC Advanced FSC

10

CO2

CO2

vs

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

CEMCAPmembrane

MTR 1st Gen MTR Theoretical FSC Advanced FSCSpecific work for C

O2 capture (kJ/kg 

CO2)

MAL process 2 satge membrane process

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

CEMCAPmembrane

MTR 1st Gen MTR Theoretical FSC Advanced FSC

Mem

bran

e area

 (m2)

MAL process 2 stage membrane process

Summary

• Membrane assisted liquefaction process performance and cost is willvary significanctly with membrane performance

• Critical to identify suitable membrane properties for the process for a given flue gas composition

• Membrane assisted liquefaction outperforms the 2 stage membraneprocess for post‐combustion CO2 capture• Thermodynamic proof irrespective of membrane type or performance (not included in thispresentation)

• Techno‐economic analysis of membrane processes presented in thiswork will be performed and compared

11

Acknowledgements

This work was done as part of the

CEMCAP project that has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 641185

and

the NCCS Centre, performed under the Norwegian research program Centres for Environment‐friendly Energy Research (FME). The authors acknowledge the followingpartners for their contributions: Aker Solutions, ANSALDO Energia, CoorsTekMembrane Sciences, Gassco, KROHNE, Larvik Shipping, Norcem, Norwegian Oil and Gas, Quad Geometrics, Shell, Statoil, TOTAL, and the Research Council of Norway (257579/E20).

12

Technology for a better society