Calcium looping CO2 capture is a promising technology to reduce CO2 emissions from cement production. Coal has been seen as a logical choice of fuel to drive the calcium looping process as coal is already the primary fuel used to produce cement. This study assesses the impact of using different fuels, namely coal, natural gas, woody biomass and a fuel mix (50% coal, 25% biomass and 25% animal meal), on the environmental performance of tail-end calcium looping applied to the clinker production at a cement plant in North-western Europe. Process modelling was applied to determine the impact of the different fuels on the mass and energy balance of the process which were subsequently used to carry out a life cycle assessment to evaluate the environmental performance of the different systems. Using natural gas, biomass or a fuel mix instead of coal in a tail-end calcium looping process can improve the efficiency of the process, as it decreases fuel, limestone and electricity consumption. Consequently, while coal-fired calcium looping can reduce the global warming potential (life cycle CO2 emissions) of clinker production by 75%, the use of natural gas further decreases these emissions (reduction of 86%) and biomass use could results in an almost carbon neutral (reduction of 95% in the fuel mix case) or net negative process (−104% reduction in the biomass case). Furthermore, replacing coal with natural gas or biomass reduces most other environmental impact categories as well, mostly due to avoided impacts from coal production. The level of improvement strongly depends on whether spent sorbent can be utilized in clinker production, and to what extent sequestered biogenic CO2 can reduce global warming potential. Overall, the results illustrate the potential of using alternative fuels to improve the environmental performance of tail-end calcium looping in the cement industry.@en

CO2 utilisation is gaining interest as a potential element towards a sustainable economy. CO2 can be used as feedstock in the synthesis of fuels, chemicals and polymers. This study presents a prospective assessment of carbon capture from a hydrogen unit at a refinery, where the CO2 is either stored, or partly stored and partly utilised for polyols production. A methodology integrating technical, economic and environmental models with uncertainty analysis is used to assess the performance of carbon capture and storage or utilisation at the refinery. Results show that only 10% of the CO2 captured from an industrial hydrogen unit can be utilised in a commercial-scale polyol plant. This option has limited potential for large scale CO2 mitigation from industrial sources. However, CO2 capture from a hydrogen unit and its utilisation for the synthesis of polyols provides an interesting alternative from an economic perspective. The costs of CO2-based polyol are estimated at 1200 €/t polyol, 16% lower than those of conventional polyol. Furthermore, the costs of storing the remaining CO2 are offset by the benefits of cheaper polyol production. Therefore, the combination of CO2 capture and partial utilisation provides an improved business case over capture and storage alone. The environmental assessment shows that the climate change potential of this CO2 utilisation system is 23% lower compared to a reference case in which no CO2 is captured at the refinery. Five other environmental impact categories included in this study present slightly better performance for the utilisation case than for the reference case.@en

This work presents the results of a comparative life cycle assessment study for three CCS technologies applied to a coal-fired power plant: post-combustion capture with MEA, post combustion capture with AMP/PZ and cryogenic oxy-fuel. This study has been performed in the context of the EDDiCCUT project, which aims to develop an environmental due diligence framework for assessing novel CCUS technologies. The research shows that there are no significant differences in climate change potential (CCP) for the technologies under study. In the three cases the reduction is about 70% (70% for the plant with MEA, 71% for the plant with AMP-PZ, and 73% for the plant with oxy-fuel technology). With regard to other impacts (e.g., acidification, toxicity, resource depletion) the results show an increase in the impacts as consequence of CCS, mostly driven by the increase amount of feedstock per kWh. Contrary to CCS, there are clear differences among the technologies with results ranging between 20 and 30%. Toxicity impacts related to the operation of the solvent-based carbon capture unit were also considered; however, it was observed that their contribution was only around 2% of the total impact for human toxicity potential. Rather, the largest contributor to human toxicity impacts in the life cycle of coal power plants with and without CCS is coal mining waste disposal.@en

This work presents the results of a comparative life cycle assessment study for three CCS technologies applied to a coal-fired power plant: post-combustion capture with MEA, post combustion capture with AMP/PZ and cryogenic oxy-fuel. This study has been performed in the context of the EDDiCCUT project, which aims to develop an environmental due diligence framework for assessing novel CCUS technologies. The research shows that there are no significant differences in climate change potential (CCP) for the technologies under study. In the three cases the reduction is about 70% (70% for the plant with MEA, 71% for the plant with AMP-PZ, and 73% for the plant with oxy-fuel technology). With regard to other impacts (e.g., acidification, toxicity, resource depletion) the results show an increase in the impacts as consequence of CCS, mostly driven by the increase amount of feedstock per kWh. Contrary to CCS, there are clear differences among the technologies with results ranging between 20 and 30%. Toxicity impacts related to the operation of the solvent-based carbon capture unit were also considered; however, it was observed that their contribution was only around 2% of the total impact for human toxicity potential. Rather, the largest contributor to human toxicity impacts in the life cycle of coal power plants with and without CCS is coal mining waste disposal.@en