Available online at [Link].

com

ScienceDirect

Carbon capture and storage technologies: present

scenario and drivers of innovation
Ofélia de Queiroz Fernandes Araújo and José Luiz de Medeiros

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies are being Flue gas is released from carbon-fired power plants at
developed to comply with the intensification of environmental moderate temperature (50–100 C) and low pressure
laws and policies. Techniques for carbon capture from exhaust (<1.5 bar). Post-combustion with chemical absorption
gases include post-combustion, pre-combustion and oxy- or physical absorption are the technologies closest to full
combustion. CO2 separation in gas processing is also a scale realization and preferred for retrofitting [3].
relevant application, employing alternatives commonly used in Although post-combustion and NG processing may
post-combustion, sharing developments and pulling employ different technologies, capture of CO2 by chemi-
innovations (additional to innovations pushed by knowledge cal and physical absorption are their leading options,
from basic and applied research). The high volume of exhaust where the solvent loading (a, mol CO2 per mol of active
gases and expanding reserves of natural gas defy the state-of- solvent, AS) is a capture response while the capture ratio
the art in chemical and physical absorption (the most mature (CR, kg of total solvent per kg of fed CO2) and the solvent
technology). The review identifies technological gaps and regeneration heat ratio (HR, kJ per kg of fed CO2) are
drivers of innovation in the CCS chain. In the context of offshore input factors [4]. In chemical absorption, CO2 and the
natural gas processing, this work reports a recent and massive AS chemically bond giving high selectivity and low
technological niche for commercial use of membrane based hydrocarbon losses (NG processing) with maximum stoi-
processes. chiometric a of 1 molCO2/mol at CR 10–15 kg/kgCO2 and
reversibly requiring high solvent regeneration HR (2000–
4500 kJ/kgCO2). In physical absorption, weak physical
Address binding of CO2 to solvent reduces selectivity, but can give
Escola de Quı́mica, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil a > 1 molCO2/mol of AS at low CR (1–5 kg/kgCO2) and
Corresponding author: Araújo, Ofélia de Queiroz Fernandes
low HR (0–500 kJ/kgCO2) for solvent regeneration. In
(ofelia@[Link]) chemical and physical absorption, the equilibrium a
increases with CO2 fugacity (CO2 partial pressure) and
decreases with increasing temperature [86].
Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering 2017, 17:22–34
This review comes from a themed issue on Energy and Pre-combustion firstly reforms fossil fuel to synthesis gas
environmental engineering
(syngas, H2 + CO), and, in a second step, to H2 and CO2
Edited by Heriberto Cabezas via water-gas shift (WGS) reaction. H2 is purified via
chemical or physical absorption of CO2 (easy separation
due to high CO2 partial pressure) and can fuel supercriti-
cal boilers, gas turbine (in H2-fired power plants) or
[Link]
promisingly used in integrated gasification-combined
cycle (IGCC) power plants [5]. In H2-IGCC, high capital
2211-3398/ã 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
expenditure (CAPEX) of syngas, WGS and capture units
are drawbacks, and H2 as fuel requires development of
new power machines, another H2-IGCC risk [6]. In
typical coal-fired power plants, the power efficiency
reduces from 38.4% without CO2 capture to 31.2% with
CO2 capture [7], a susceptibility eliminated by changing
Introduction
to full Coal-H2-IGCC. The capture energy penalty in a
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) comprises separation
carbon-fired power plant is the fraction of power output
of CO2 from industrial sources, compression and trans-
lost by implementing CO2 capture.
portation to a geologic site for storage, or to enhanced oil
recovery (EOR). Its uses cover a variety of industrial
Oxy-combustion eliminates N2 in oxidizer of carbon-fired
applications, outstanding abatement of CO2 from process
power plants [5], substituting CO2–N2 post-combustion
or exhaust gases and in natural gas (NG) processing. In
separation by O2–N2 fractionation via cryogenic distilla-
the former, depending on the technology, CO2 is sepa-
tion, the most cost-effective commercially available
rated from H2 (pre-combustion), N2 (post-combustion)
route, though with refrigeration energy penalties, in
and H2O (oxy-combustion, which burns hydrocarbons
the same range as that for fossil fuel de-carbonization
with pure O2) [1], while in NG processing CO2 is sepa-
[8]. As oxy-combustion flame temperature [5].
rated from CH4 and light hydrocarbons [2].

Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering 2017, 17:22–34 [Link]

 CCS technologies Araújo and de Medeiros 23

Oxy-combustion is not yet commercial, posing greater Boot-Handford et al. [20] present extensive review on
technical risks than pre-combustion or post-combustion leading CO2 capture technologies, available in the short
for large-scales [6]. Porter et al. [9] discuss cost and CO2 and long term and their maturity. Post-combustion CO2
purity variations for oxy-combustion and pre-combustion capture employing chemical absorption remains the most
scenarios. efficient and cost-effective capture [21], with heat
demand (OPEX) for solvent regeneration as main draw-
In NG processing, CO2 must be removed to comply with back, reducing power capacity (capture energy penalty
treated gas specifications. A determinant change in the 10–30%), despite recent improvements lowering heat
technological scenario is pulled by offshore NG proces- ratio (HR, energy penalty for solvent regeneration) from
sing, mainly at ultra-deep waters on FPSO (Floating 5.5 to 2.6 GJ/tCO2. Carbon-fired power plant repowering
Production, Storage & Offloading) platforms. Membrane or hybridization using solar-assisted post-combustion may
permeation offers advantages over conventional chemi- conciliate capture and power plant load targets [22].
cal or physical absorption for NG processing: small Limitations of driving force indicate that state-of-the-
footprints, modularity and easy scale-up. The treated art membrane permeation are unlikely to compete with
NG is the membrane permeation retentate at high chemical absorption in capturing CO2 from exhaust gases
pressure, which fits the final compression for pipeline [21].
dispatch.
The deployment of renewable energy substitutes par-
Considering the state-of-the-art, Figure 1 depicts the tially the need of (fossil) carbon-fired power plants,
CCS scenario, contemplating CO2-EOR and other CO2 reducing the amount of fossil-fuel burned. However,
sources (e.g., fertilizers, cement and steel production), renewable energy dispatch is intermittent, demanding
including bioethanol plants producing food grade CO2 flexible operation of the capture unit to improve the
from fermenters, which can be directed to downstream economics of CCS power plants [23]; flexibility allows
CCS. This work analyzes the main technologies involved, exploring this transient pattern to reduce CAPEX up to
focusing in identifying technological gaps requiring inno- 28% [73]. With chemical absorption, flexibility can be
vations and technology drivers in the big CCS scenario. achieved by solvent storage, exhaust gas venting
Table 1 presents a compilation of state-of-the-art and (decoupling energy generation from CO2 capture, to
advanced processes, including those at lower Technology meet peak energy prices) and time-varying solvent
Readiness Level (TRL) [72], from proof-of-concept to regeneration (allowing CO2 to accumulate in the sol-
small pilot plants. vent at peak energy prices) [24]. Variable capture
aligned to energy demand and dispatch [25] results
Carbon capture from exhaust gases in temporary reduction of capture energy penalty,
Capture energy penalty on carbon-fired power plants increasing net efficiency and capacity [26]. For instance,
is significant (15–30%) [10] representing 65–80% of the absorber sized for a time-average condition costs
CCS costs [11,12]. To retrofit carbon-fired power 4% less then when sized for peak energy generation
plants with 33% power efficiency, a decrease of 12% [27].
of efficiency represents more than 1/3 of power out-
put [13], with a capital expenditure (CAPEX) increase Capture energy penalty can be minimized by new sol-
of 77% [14]. Carbon-fired power plants face large vents or flowsheet modifications, reducing power losses
variations in CO2 emissions due to differences in effi- by 25% [28], conciliating the tradeoff of sensible heat
ciency and employed fuel: coal-fired power plants emit loss (to raise the temperature of the stripper feed) at high
1116 gCO2/kWh at 30% and 669 gCO2/kWh at 50% of solvent rate (high lean loading) and stripping steam use at
efficiency [15,5]. low solvent rate (low lean loading) [20]. Additionally,
low solvent thermochemical stability [29] leads to accu-
Despite coal being the most CO2 intensive option, capac- mulation of degradation products and toxic emissions
ity expansion plans [67] indicate that carbon mitigation [30].
initiatives are insufficient to outweigh the economic
incentives of a relatively cheap fuel. Concerning CAPEX, Evolving from the first commercial plant (first of a kind,
NG-fired power plants configure the best alternative with FOAK) to the nth commercial plant (nth of a kind,
half CAPEX of coal-fired power plants and 1/5 of nuclear NOAK) reduces OPEX and CAPEX [31]. Alternative
plants [16]. Impacts on operational costs (OPEX) are technologies are sought, posing greater risk because of
quantified mainly by simulation [17]. Uncertainties in their earlier stage of development [6]. Emerging technol-
overall performance are estimated probabilistically [18]. ogies (e.g., new membranes and solvents) with potential
CAPEX estimation uncertainties are high (40%), for ‘game-changing’ improvements are still scheduled to
though variability has little influence on the levelized large-scale testing by 2025 and complete demonstration
cost of energy (LCOE) [19], suggesting that OPEX scale testing by 2030 [64]. Besides low TRL (Technology
dominates CCS. Readiness Level), a major issue in post-combustion

[Link] Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering 2017, 17:22–34

24 Energy and environmental engineering

Figure 1

CO2-FREE BIOMASS
GASES BIOETHANOL
Lean solvent BIO-ETHANOL
INDUSTRIAL
SOURCES EXHAUST PLANT
GASES PostC
CO2 (Chemical or Physical) CO2
ABSORPTION TRANSPORTATION
AIR (Pipeline)
SOLVENT
Rich solvent COMPRESSION
REGENERATION

COMBUSTION Energy penalty

ENERGY

CO2-EOR
H 2O
ENERGY
COMBUSTION CO2
CO2
STORAGE
Energy penalty
FOSSIL
FUELS
H2
Lean solvent
FUEL X
REFORMING SOLVENT
GEOLOGIC
Syngas REGENERATION ENERGY STORAGE
CO2 GRID
ABSORPTION
PreC
Rich Solvent (Chemical or Physical)
O2
OIL
H2O
OIL FIELD
AIR
AIR SEPARATION COMBUSTION ENERGY 0.4X
UNIT
OxyC
N2 COMPRESSION
CO2
Energy penalty

AIR
CO2
Lean solvent
ABSORPTION
PostC
COMBUSTION
(Chemical or Physical)
SOLVENT
REGENERATION
ENERGY Rich solvent CO2
TRANSPORTATION
SWEET (Pipeline)
COMPRESSION
NATURAL GAS
Lean solvent

CO2
ABSORPTION SOLVENT CO2-EOR
CO2SEPARATION REGENERATION
(Chemical or Physical)
ONSHORE
ONSHORE Rich solvent
CO2
CO2
STORAGE
NATURAL
GAS
Lean solvent
CO2 SWEET
OFFSHORE
ABSORPTION COMPRESSION NATURAL GAS
LOW CO2CONTENT CO2SEPARATION SOLVENT
(Chemical or Physical) REGENERATION
OFFSHORE
HIGH CO2CONTENT OIL
SWEET
COMPRESSION Rich solvent
NATURAL GAS
AIR

MEMBRANE 2 barrel / t CO2,injrcted

MODULES CO2-EOR
COMBUSTION CO2 X ton
COMPRESSION
CO2 SEPARATION
ENERGY (Membrane Permeation) OIL & GAS
FIELD

0.4 to 0.6X

Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering

The big CCS picture filtered by state-of-the-art CO2 capture routes. The expression ‘energy penalty’ refers to the decrease in energy generation
efficiency resulting from electric and thermal power demand from CO2 capture processes.

Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering 2017, 17:22–34 [Link]

 CCS technologies Araújo and de Medeiros 25

Table 1

CO2 capture technologies

STATE OF THE ART (high technology readiness level—TRL, large-scale demonstration projects and/or commercial use)
Technology Benefits and application Gaps and challenges References
Chemical Mature technology for NG processing and post- High capture ratio (CR) and heat ratio (HR, energy [104,29,
absorption combustion; capture-ready standard for carbon-fired penalty for solvent regeneration); high capture 48,85,3]
power plant; high capture efficiency and selectivity; energy penalty (20–30%) for coal-fired power
low hydrocarbon losses; adequacy via CO2 partial plants; corrosion, emissions and solvent
pressure degradation; new solvents challenges to: increase
thermochemical stability; reduce CR, HR and
stripping temperatures allowing use of waste heat
Physical Mature technology for NG processing and post- Low selectivity; hydrocarbon losses [86,3]
absorption combustion; capture-ready standard for carbon-fired
power plants; high capture efficiency; low heat ratio
(HR) for regeneration; adequacy via CO2 partial
pressure
Membrane Used in NG processing of large-scale FPSOs; no Demands compression of fed NG and permeate; [34,87,88]
permeation regeneration; no chemicals; low footprint; adequacy hydrocarbon losses; trade-off permeability-
via CO2 partial pressure selectivity; low CO2 partial pressure forbids it in
post-combustion
Pre-combustion Applicable to coal-fired power plants; potential lower Complex scheme; novel materials for high [89,90,91,
cost; commercial for H2 production; high efficiency; temperature CO2 capture; high capital expenditure 86,3]
low capture energy penalty (10–15%); large-scale in (CAPEX); still in development; insufficient large-
H2 production scale H2-fired power plant experience
Cryogenic Mature technology for processing NG with high CO2 Refrigeration energy penalties; avoidance of CO2 [35,3]
distillation content; high selectivity; low hydrocarbon losses; CO2 freeze-out required
obtained as liquid with benefits in CO2 transport (no
compressors needed, pumps used instead);
appropriate for high CO2 content

ADVANCEMENTS (low technology readiness level—TRL, inadequate large-scale experience)

Technology Advanced features Claimed benefits References
Hybrids Bulk CO2 removal by cryogenic distillation or Lower costs and capture energy [92,2]
membrane permeation with polishing via chemical penalty
or physical absorption
Enhanced chemical Complex flowsheets; mixed solvents 12% less equivalent work than a simple [93,85]
or physical stripper; heat ratio (HR) reductions via
absorption mixed solvents instead of MEA
solution. Increased thermochemical
stability
High efficiency solvents Reduced HR Luo et al. [71]
Hybrid solvents Reduced HR [95]
Anhydrous solvents, outstanding TSILs (Task Low vapor pressure eliminating fugitive [96,97]
Specific Ionic Liquids) and CO2BOLs (CO2-bonding stripping emissions in regeneration. In
Organic Liquids) addition, being anhydrous, the problem
of high parasitic energy consumption
associated with water
Ionic liquids Reduced HR, reduced loss by [98,99]
evaporation
Phase changing solvents Reduced HR, phase switch triggered [100–103,76,97]
by CO2 loading
Addition of inert solvent for CO2 solventing-out Use of waste heat in solvent [104]
regeneration
Metal-organic solvents Lower HR [30]
Membrane New materials While having the benefit of high flux [87 [105]
permeation ], the low pressure of exhaust gases
requires highly CO2 permeable and
selective membranes for application
Metal oxide framework (MOF) membranes Superior thermal and chemical stability [106,107]
Dense mixed-conducting membranes (MCMs) Superior thermal and chemical stability [92]
Integrated membrane material and process Sustained membrane permeability [108]
development for gas separation

[Link] Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering 2017, 17:22–34

26 Energy and environmental engineering

Table 1 (Continued )
ADVANCEMENTS (low technology readiness level—TRL, inadequate large-scale experience)
Technology Advanced features Claimed benefits References
Multi-stage schemes Higher efficiency [109]
Steam as sweep agent. For lean CO2 flue gas, Efficient permeate removal, avoiding [110]
driving force is low, unless compressed fed CO2 buildup, reducing membrane area
(2–4 bar) and/or permeate vacuum are used for exhaust gases even at low CO2
content
Solvent supported membranes Solvent with negligible volatility (ionic [118]
liquids and deep eutectic solvents) to
increase selectivity
Gas–liquid Synthesis, characterization and performance of Higher efficiency; higher modularity; [111,112]
membrane various membrane materials, contactors and their independence of gravity; no flooding
contactors design aspects effects
Adsorption New sorbent materials (e.g., residues from With higher surface area, high [113,3
industrial and agricultural activities; Metal-organic selectivity and high regeneration ability, ,114,115,86]
frameworks) reducing energy penalty
Amine-functionalized solid sorbents Reduced energy for regeneration [116,94,117]
Oxy-combustion Simplifies post combustion capture; high efficiency High efficiency; low capture energy [3,86,90]
penalty
Chemical looping Use of metal oxide as oxygen carrier, which is Low capture energy penalty [3]
combustion reduced to oxidize fuel to CO2 and water, being
regenerated in a second stage
Mineralization Conversion to a solid material Commercialization [86]

technologies is the huge scale-up in size required for full The main factors in selecting NG processing technologies
scale (10X) and integration with carbon-fired power are the partial pressure of CO2 in raw NG and plant
plants. location (onshore versus offshore). Chemical absorption is
best suited to low CO2 feeds (<20%, as higher CO2
content increases solvent recirculation rate and heat-
CO2 capture from natural gas (NG) duty). From medium to high CO2 partial pressure, mem-
Zahid et al. [32] list eight large scale CCS projects (six for brane permeation outperforms chemical absorption [34
EOR and two in saline aquifers): four applications use ]. For ultra-high CO2 contents – Libra (48%) and Jupiter
physical absorption with Selexol (the largest facilities, (78%) offshore Pre-Salt fields in Brazil and La Barge gas
notedly Century Plant and Shute Creek Gas Processing field (65%) in Wyoming (USA) – cryogenic distillation
Facility, with 8 and 7 Mtpa, respectively), two use chem- comes to scene. It has the advantage of producing liquid
ical absorption with MDEA (N-methyl-diethanolamine) CO2, suitable for pipeline transportation. At low tempera-
(Sleipner and Snøhvit CO2 Storage Projects), one uses tures and high pressures, freeze-out of CO2 may occur,
chemical absorption with DGA (diglycolamine) (Uthma- demanding special technologies as in the Ryan Holmes
niyah CO2-EOR Project) and one uses membrane per- process [35].
meation (Petrobras Lula Field, 1 Mtpa). Analogous to
post-combustion in exhaust gases, NG processing is Extreme scenarios demand NG processing innovations
dominated by absorption, mainly physical absorption. inspired in Ormen-Lang Project, where raw NG and
monoethylene glycol as anti-hydrate, are transported
A ‘game-changing’ scenario is found in offshore NG through two subsea 120 km pipelines [36]. Raw NG
processing on FPSOs, where limited area creates a tech- may be sent to onshore facilities for separation of CO2
nology niche for membrane permeation due to its low and fractionation of NG liquids, where CO2 is pipe-
footprint and modularity. In Brazil Pre-Salt oil and gas lined back to offshore CO2-EOR [37]. Hybrid pro-
fields, the first FPSO started operation in 2010, employing cesses can use cryogenic distillation for bulk separa-
membrane permeation for separating CO2, used in early tion, reducing CO2 composition so that chemical or
CO2-EOR. In 2016, seven FPSOs where in operation physical absorption is usable [38]. Hybrid NG proces-
[33], with six using membrane permeation. By the end sing using membrane permeation for bulk removal and
of the decade, there will be sixteen FPSOs processing chemical absorption for polishing was evaluated [2],
gas with membrane permeation, each processing with superior economic performance and smaller foot-
4–7 MMscmd of NG with 20% CO2 [2]. print when compared to conventional alternatives

Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering 2017, 17:22–34 [Link]

 CCS technologies Araújo and de Medeiros 27

(chemical and physical absorption) and membrane earthquakes triggered by large injections of CO2 into
permeation alone. the brittle rocks found in continental interiors, threaten-
ing the seal integrity [77]. However, CO2 leakage uncer-
CO2 transportation tainties do not seem to pose a major barrier to scaling up
Excepting cases where the CO2 source is located above a CCS [48].
suitable geological formation (e.g., offshore NG proces-
sing), CO2 must be transported from capture points to Typical injection costs have been reported as 0.5–8
destination sites [39]. Relevant aspects of transportation $/tCO2 [68]. Combining storage with EOR may offset
are CO2 compression to supercritical state, pipeline cor- costs [49], as EOR is beneficial (decreasing oil viscosity
rosion and the impacts of fluid composition on power and density, improving fluidity and enhancing lifting),
consumption [11]. A design aspect of CO2 pipelines is resulting in 1–3 bbl oil/tCO2 [50]. Additionally, 60% of
that CO2 should remain above its critical pressure. This the injected CO2 can be retained in the reservoir [51],
can be achieved by recompression along the pipeline, with room for improvement (e.g., use of polymers to adjust
which is needed for distances above 150 km. the mobility ratio) [52].

Cost of CO2 transport does not limit penetration of CCS, Carbon price
but impacts site choice [40]. Transporting large quanti- Demand-pull innovations arise in response to market
ties of CO2 is most economical with pipelines, a mature stimulation, the most obvious being carbon price. A
technology in CCS chain with 40 years of age in the USA, survey of OECD countries using environmental taxes
transporting 50 Mtpa CO2 through 3600 miles [41]. To shows positive effect on innovation [53]. There is a
reduce costs, shared transport network must be encour- growing convergence of policy-makers that establishing
aged [42], as pipeline transport costs benefit from econ- a carbon price is the most effective way to reduce carbon
omies of scale [43]. footprint [54]. In the long-term, when CCS technologies
are mature, carbon price should be the main driver to
The knowledge of thermodynamic and transport proper- reduce emissions through CCS deployment, besides
ties of CO2 mixtures is important for designing CCS [44]. avoiding technology locking [55]. Despite increasing
Since a major cost of the transportation/storage stages of marginal costs of CO2 emissions [56], carbon taxation
CCS is compression of the CO2 stream, any opportunity increases prices of energy and energy-intensive goods
to carry out higher pressure capture reduces downstream [57].
compression power.
The two key factors affecting decisions are the future
CO2 geological storage carbon price and the future CCS cost [6]. If the carbon
Storage sites (saline aquifers, depleted basins and EOR) price is sufficiently high, CCS is more economical than
to support CCS development are vast and higher than paying CO2 emissions taxes, and installing CCS in antici-
projected capacity requirements over the coming decades pation could be costlier. If a disruptive technology sub-
[45,65]. To be suitable for CO2 storage, formations must stantially reduces CCS costs, delayed adoption of CCS
be porous and permeable to allow injection of large (paying carbon taxes) could be costlier [6]. Carbon prices
volumes of CO2, and bear impermeable rock caps for of $60–65/tCO2 are needed to make CCS economical
CO2 imprisonment. Storage in abandoned oil–gas fields is [48].
geologically appropriate as they are likely to be imper-
meable after holding oil and gas for millions of years. A In the short-term, CCS costs will decrease benefitting
drawback of such reservoirs is that they were penetrated from expansion of deployments (from the first to the nth
by many wells that may have damaged the reservoir or commercial plant, that is, from FOAK, first of a kind, to
seal [46]. NOAK, nth of a kind) reaching $65/tCO2 [58]. In the
mid- to long-term, costs decline slowly with technology
CO2 is retained through trapping mechanisms: (a) strati- maturity. The impact of innovations on CCS costs is
graphic and structural (primary trapping, occurs beneath unpredictable. On the other hand, carbon prices will start
seals of low permeability rocks, dominant at early stage); at low values and escalate with the years, pulling innova-
(b) residual (trapped in rock pores by water capillary tions. Nykvist [59] reports 10X increase in carbon price
pressure); (c) solubility (residual gas trapping), and (d) among efforts needed to mature CCS technologies.
mineralization (changing the pore-space topology and
connectivity) [46]. At later stages of the storage process, Large scale CCS projects
precipitation of carbonates may cause blockage of fluid Figure 2 presents a pictured review of CO2 capture
pathways and loss of storage pore volume [21]. technologies in large-scale CCS covering exhaust gases,
NG processing and other CO2 sources, including projects
Relationship between long-term injection and induced starting operation in 2018. Clearly, NG processing dom-
seismicity is reported [47], suggesting probability of inates the scene in 2010 pulling large-scale membrane

[Link] Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering 2017, 17:22–34

28 Energy and environmental engineering

Figure 2

80

70
CO2 Capture Capacity (Mtpa)

60

50

40

30

2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
20

2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
10

2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
0

2001
2000
A

C
P

Pr PA
A

s
re

ds
Po PA

rs
A

s
er
-C
ry

er
xy
-P

-M

-C
-C

e
tu

-A
-
-
-C

th
th

th
C

eC
oc

eC
ap

oc

oc

eC
-O
O

O
st
st
oc
Pr

Pr

Pr
C

Pr
Pr
A-
Po

PA
Pr
as

as

as
al

C
as
t

G
To

8
2000
CO2 Capture Capacity (Mtpa)

7 CO2 Capture Technology

Exhaust Gases 2010
6 2018
80
5
4
70
3
Total CO2 Capture Capacity (Mtpa)

60 2
Gas Processing Exhaust Gases Others
1
50 0
PostC-CA PostC-PA Others
40
CO2 Capture Capacity (Mtpa)

25
CO2 Capture Technology 2000
30 20 Gas Processing 2010
2018
15
20

10
10
5
0
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2011

Chemical Physical Membrane Others

Absorption Absorption Permeation
Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering

Large scale CCS projects in operation or to start operation until 2020. GasProc-PA = gas processing with physical absorption, GasProc-CA = gas
processing with chemical absorption, GasProc-MP = gas processing with membrane permeation, GasProc-Cryo = gas processing with cryogenic
distillation, Post-PA = post-combustion capture with physical absorption, PostC-CA = post-combustion capture with chemical absorption, CA-
Others = chemical absorption from industrial sources, PA-Others = physical absorption from industrial sources, OxyC = oxy-combustion, PreC-
CA = pre-combustion capture with chemical absorption, PreC-PA = precombustion capture with physical absorption, Others = other capture
technologies and sources, PreC-Ads = pre-combustion capture with adsorptiom. Data was compiled from Ref. [78,65,1,42,25,26,91,8,66,75,79–
84,2] (on line Supplementary material); [7,84].

Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering 2017, 17:22–34 [Link]

 CCS technologies Araújo and de Medeiros 29

Figure 3

Pre-Combustion

CO2Capture from Oxy-combustion

Exhaust Gases

TECHNOLOGIES Post-Combustion
Membrane
Permeation
Physical Chemical
Absorption Adsorption vith
Absorption Advanced
with Advanced Sorbents
Chemical
Solvents
Absorption

Hybrid processes
Low CO2
CO2Capture from (Membrane Permeation for
Content
Natural Gas bulk removal and Chemical
Absorption for polishing)
High CO2
CO2
Content
Compression
Cryogenic
Offshore Onshore Separation
CO2
Transportation
Membrane Permeation

Pipelines Others

Expansion of
Intensification
proven oil & gas
of CO2-EOR
reserves

Carbon taxes &

environmental
regulations

DRIVERS
Learning from
Cost reductions from
first to nthof a
deployments
kind

Shared Public
transportation acceptance
of CCS

Reliable monitoring of
sequestration sites
and regulatory actions
Market expansion of
CO2
CO2as feedstock to
availability
chemicals

SHORT-TERM MID-TERM LONG-TERM

Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering

CCS technologies and drivers versus timeline (boldface: mature technologies; dashed-lines: driver-technology connections).

[Link] Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering 2017, 17:22–34

30 Energy and environmental engineering

permeation applications. Post-combustion capture is pipeline hubs are a key support to this decision, as shared
boosted by the end of the decade, with the increase of transport network reduces CCS costs.
carbon price, dominated by chemical and physical absorp-
tion. Offshore EOR and new post-combustion plants Regarding the storage step in CCS chain, relationship
respond for a 5X increase in capacity in the decade between long-term injection and induced seismicity sug-
2008–2018 (from 17 to 76 Mtpa). gests the need for monitoring leakages. Injecting large
quantities of CO2 into geological reservoirs creates risks
Lessons learned in 2000–2010 paved the road for the that need to be addressed within a regulatory framework,
accelerated growth, but ‘game-changers’ came to play: mainly considering the timeframe of storage. Internation-
increased reserves of non-conventional NG (high %CO2) ally accepted guidance for monitoring the integrity stor-
demand CO2 separation, and increased carbon taxes age sites and mitigation safeguards in place are required
induced CCS initiatives (noticeable expansion of post- [61].
combustion chemical absorption). Ultra-deepwaters NG
processing on FPSOs pulled membrane permeation tech- Literature generally argues for the necessity of disruptive
nology to become an unpredicted co-adjuvant actor with changes to meet energy needs. This review shows that
chemical and physical absorption (in post-combustion the current system mainly supports incremental changes.
and NG processing). In this sense, Figure 3 summarizes the outcomes includ-
ing CCS from bioethanol production as an immediate
Andersen [60] listed StatoilHydro’s learning experiences bioenergy CCS application (BECCS), mainly due to the
from 1997 to 2008: (a) mature suppliers exist for pre- grade of CO2 from fermentation [62], counterpointing the
combustion (Syngas Plants) and oxy-combustion (Air view that CCS is necessarily oriented to fossil carbon.
Separation Units), resulting in abandonment of mem- Without BECCS, the goal may be substantially costlier to
brane permeation for separating H2 (pre-combustion) meet [63].
and O2 (oxy-combustion); (b) post-combustion showed
no real improvement (pulled by carbon taxes, Figure 2 Lastly, as CCS is not a short-term option (presently too
shows that last decade proves this learning inaccurate for costly with too low carbon price), emissions reduction in
forecasts); (c) limited capital and high risk restricted energy will mainly depend on energy efficiency improve-
supplier industry from investing in CCS technologies, ments, needed before CO2 capture retrofit can be con-
resulting in key investors being government, large emit- templated [15].
ters and oil and gas producers (pulled by carbon taxes);
and (d) CCS market uncertainties impact industry.
Acknowledgement
Financial support from CNPq-Brazil is kindly acknowledged.
Final remarks
CCS chain processes differ in TRL (Technology Readi- References and recommended reading
ness Level): (a) compression and transportation are Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review,
have been highlighted as:
mature, (b) EOR is well-proved and sequestration in
geological formations have more than a decade of dem-  of special interest
onstration in large scale (Sleipner project in Norway); and  of outstanding interest
(c) CO2 capture presents mature alternatives, mainly
1. Adams D, Davison J: Capturing CO2. IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D
chemical absorption (amine based) and physical absorp- Programme Report; 2007.
tion (SelexolTM and RectisolTM), and amenable to post- 2. Araújo OQF, Reis AC, de Medeiros JL, Nascimento JF, Grava WM,
combustion and NG processing applications. Technical Musse APS: Comparative analysis of separation technologies
risks derive from the ‘systems level’ integration of multi- for processing carbon dioxide rich natural gas in ultra-
deepwater oil fields. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 155:12-22 [Link]
ple processes [6], and the huge scale demanded [48]. NG [Link]/10.1016/[Link].2016.06.073 Part 1.
processing with membrane permeation dominates the 3. Leung DYC, Caramanna GC, Maroto-Vaaler MM: An overview of
high %CO2 offshore scene.  current status of carbon dioxide capture and storage
technologies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 39:426-443
[Link]
In exhaust gas applications, capture energy penalty Reviews the state of the art of CCS chain technologies, including cost
(resulting from heat consumption for solvent regenera- comparison for capture alternatives, lifecycle assessment leakage and
monitoring.
tion) drives technology developments, but low maturity
4. Rochelle GT: Amine scrubbing for CO2 capture. Science 2009,
and high cost of pilot and demonstration scale processes  325:1652-1654 [Link]
move large-scale application to long-term horizons. A Review main aspects of amine-based CO2 capture and concludes for
scenario-changer is carbon pricing. Anticipating technol- their leading role as CO2 capture technology.
ogy costs and carbon price escalations determines when 5. Breeze P: Coping with carbon: a near-term strategy to limit
carbon dioxide emissions from power stations. Philos. Trans.
and whether to adopt CCS. CO2 transport costs do not R. Soc. A 2008, 36:3891-3900 [Link]
limit penetration of CCS, but impact site choice. CO2 rsta.2008.0113.

Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering 2017, 17:22–34 [Link]

 CCS technologies Araújo and de Medeiros 31

6. IRGC: Power Plant CO2 Capture Technologies. Risks and Risk 20. Boot-Handford ME, Abanades JC, Anthony EJ, Blunt MJ,
Governance Deficits. Geneva: Concept Note, International Risk  Brandani S, Mac Dowell N, Fernandez JR, Ferrari MC, Gross R,
Governance Council; 2009. ISBN 978-2-9700672-2-1. Available Hallett JP, Haszeldine RS, Heptonstall P, Lyngfelt A, Makuch Z,
at: [Link] Mangano E, Porter RTJ, Pourkashanian M, Rochelle GT, Shah N,
pdf. Yao JG, Fennell PS: Carbon capture and storage update. Energy
Environ. Sci. 2014, 7:130-189 [Link]
7. Moazzem S, Rasul MG, Khan MMK: A Review on Technologies c3ee42350f.
for Reducing CO2 Emission from Coal Fired Power Plants, Review the leading CO2 capture technologies, available in the short and
Chapter 11. In Thermal Power Plants. Edited by Rasul M. InTech; long term, and their technological maturity, before discussing CO2
2012:227-254 [Link] 266 pp. ISBN transport and storage. Current pilot plants and demonstrations are high-
978-953-307-952-3. Available from: [Link] lighted, as is the importance of optimizing the CCS system as a whole.
books/thermal-power-plants/a-review-on-technologies-
forreducing-co2-emission-from-coal-fired-power-plants. 21. Maitland GC: Carbon capture and storage: concluding
remarks. Faraday Discuss. 2016, 192:581-599 [Link]
8. Marion J, Nsakala N, Griffin T, Bill A: Controlling power plant CO2 10.1039/C6FD00182C.
emissions: a long range view. First National Conference on
Carbon Sequestration. NETL Publications; 2001. Available at 22. Khalilpour R, Milani D, Qadir A, Chiesa M, Abbas A: A novel
[Link] process for direct solvent regeneration via solar thermal
carbon_seq/[Link]. energy for carbon capture. Renew. Energy 2017, 104:60-75
[Link]
9. Porter RTJ, Fairweather M, Kolster C, Mac Dowell N, Shah N,
Woolley RM: Cost and performance of some carbon capture 23. Sanchez Fernandes SE, Sanchez del Rio M, Chalmers H,
technology options for producing different quality CO2 Khakharia P, Goetheer ELV, Gibbins J, Lucquiaud J: Operational
product streams. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2017, 57:185-195 flexibility options in power plants with integrated post-
[Link] combustion capture. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2016, 48:275-
289 [Link]
10. Rubin ES, Chen C, Rao AB: Cost and performance of fossil fuel
power plants with CO2 capture and storage. Energy Policy 24. Mac Dowell N, Shah N: Optimisation of post-combustion CO2
2007, 35:4444-4454 [Link] capture for flexible operation. Energy Procedia 2014, 63:1525-
enpol.2007.03.009. 1535 [Link]

11. D’Alessandro DM, Smit B, Long JR: Carbon dioxide capture: 25. Ho MT, Wiley DE: Flexible strategies to facilitate carbon
 prospects for new materials. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2010, capture deployment at pulverised coal power plants. Int. J.
49:6058-6082 [Link] Greenh. Gas Control 2016, 48:290-299 [Link]
Highlights the challenges for capture technologies which have the great- ijggc.2015.12.010.
est likelihood of reducing CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, namely 26. Craig MT, Jaramillo P, Zhai H, Klima K: The economic merits of
precombustion, postcombustion and natural gas sweetening. flexible carbon capture and sequestration as a compliance
12. Cousins A, Wardhaugh LT, Feron PHM: A survey of process flow strategy with the clean power plan. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017,
 sheet modifications for energy efficient CO2 capture from flue 51:1102-1109 [Link]
gases using chemical absorption. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 27. Dutta R, Nord LO, Bolland O: Selection and design of post-
2011, 5:605-619 [Link] combustion CO2 capture process for 600 MW natural gas
Fifteen process flowsheet modifications for chemical based CO2 absorp- fueled thermal power plant based on operability. Energy 2017,
tion processes are reviewed, with a particular focus on the patent 121:643-656 [Link]
literature.
28. Le Moullec Y, Neveux T, Azkib AA, Chikukwa A, Hoff KA: Process
13. Carter LD: Retrofitting Carbon Capture Systems on Existing Coal-  modifications for solvent-based post-combustion CO2
fired Power Plants. A White Paper for the American Public Power capture. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2014, 31:96-112 [Link]
Association (APPA). American Public Power Association; 2007. org/10.1016/[Link].2014.09.024.
Available at: [Link] A comprehensive review of process modifications for post-combustion
legacy/CO2/files/[Link]. CO2 capture in amine solvent by investigating 26 articles and 80 patents.
14. Narula RG, Wen H, Himes K: Incremental cost of CO2 reduction 29. Rochelle GT: Thermal degradation of amines for CO2 capture.
in power Plants. ASME Turbo Expo 2002: Power for Land, Sea,  Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng. 2012, 1:183-190 [Link]
and Air. Volume 4: Turbo Expo 2002, Parts A and B, Amsterdam, 10.1016/[Link].2012.02.004.
The Netherlands, June 3–6, 2002, Conference Sponsors: Review work published from 2009 to 2011 on the thermal degradation of
International Gas Turbine Institute, ISBN: 0-7918-3609-6. http:// amines in this CO2 capture from coal-fired plants.
[Link]/10.1115/GT2002-30259.
30. Heyn RH, Aronu UE, Vevelstad SJ, Hoff KA, Didriksen T, Arstad B,
15. IEA: Power Generation from Coal. Measuring and Reporting Blom R: Use of metal-organics based solvents for CO2 capture.
Efficiency Performance and CO2 Emissions. International Energy Energy Procedia 2014, 63:1805-1810 [Link]
Agency Coal Industry Advisory Board; 2010. [Link] egypro.2014.11.187.
ciab/papers/power_generation_from_coal.pdf.
31. Adderley B, Carey J, Gibbins J, Lucquiaud M, Smith R: Post-
16. Chappin EJ, Dijkema GPJ: On the impact of CO2 emission- combustion carbon dioxide capture cost reductionto 2030 and
trading on power generation emissions. Technol. Forecast. beyond. Faraday Discuss. 2016, 192:27-35 [Link]
Soc. Change 2009, 76:358-370 [Link] 10.1039/c6fd00046k.
techfore.2008.08.004.
32. Zahid U, Rowaili FNA, Ayodeji MK, Ahmed U: Simulation and
17. Fosbøl PL, Gaspar J, Ehlers S, Kather A, Briot P, Nienoord M, parametric analysis of CO2 capture from natural gas using
Khakharia P, Le Moullec Y, Berglihn OT, Kvamsdal H: diglycolamine. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2017, 57:42-51 http://
Benchmarking and comparing first and second generation [Link]/10.1016/[Link].2016.12.016.
post combustion CO2 capture technologies. Energy Procedia
2014, 63:27-44 [Link] 33. Petrobras: Nossa produção de petróleo no pré-sal ultrapassa
1 milhão de barris por dia. 2016. [Link]
18. Versteeg P, Rubin ES: A technical and economic assessment of fatos-e-dados/nossa-producao-de-petroleo-no-pre-sal-
ammonia-based post-combustion CO2 capture at coal-fired [Link].
power plants. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2011, 5:1596-1605
[Link] 34. Baker RW, Lokhandwala K: Natural gas processing with
 membranes: an overview. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2008, 47:2109-
19. van der Spek M, Fernandez ES, Eldrup NH, Skagestad R, 2121 [Link]
Ramirez A, Faaij A: Unravelling uncertainty and variability in This paper gives an overview of the membrane technology in current use
early stagetechno-economic assessments of carbon capture for natural gas treatment and outlines the future prospects, forecasting
technologies. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 2017, 56:221-236 membrane-based removal of natural gas contaminants as a faster grow-
[Link] ing technology.

[Link] Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering 2017, 17:22–34

32 Energy and environmental engineering

35. Holmes AS, Ryan JM: Cryogenic distillation separation of acid Geological Survey Open-File Report 2015–1071, 19 p., 2015.
gases from methane, US patent US4318723 A, 1982. [Link]
36. Eklund T, Høgmoen K, Paulsen G: Ormen lange pipelines 53. Meltzer J: A carbon tax as a driver of green technology
installation and seabed preparation. Offshore Technology innovation and the implications for international trade. Energy
Conference; Houston, Texas, U.S.A.: 2007 [Link] Law J. 2014, 35:45-69 Available at: [Link]
10.4043/18967-MS. OTC-18967-MS. [Link]?abstract_id=2446179.
37. Almeida JSC, de Medeiros JL, Araújo OQF: Analysis of natural 54. Kypreos S, Turton H: Climate change scenarios and technology
gas production in pre-salt via pipelines with MEG and onshore transfer protocols. Energy Policy 2011, 39:844-853 [Link]
processing. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2016, 830:85-92 [Link] org/10.1016/[Link].2010.11.003.
org/10.4028/[Link]/AMM.830.85.
55. IEA: Carbon Capture and Storage: Legal and Regulatory Review.
38. Kwak DH, Yun D, Binns M, Yeo YK, Yeo JK: Conceptual process 4th ed. OECD/International Energy Agency; 2014.
design of CO2 recovery plants for enhanced oil recovery
applications. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2014, 53:14385-14396 http:// 56. Pereira AM, Pereira RM, Rodrigues PG: A new carbon tax in
[Link]/10.1021/ie502110q. Portugal: a missed opportunity to achieve the triple dividend?
Energy Policy 2016, 93:110-118 [Link]
39. Rubin ES: CO2 capture and transport. Elements 2008, 4:311-317 enpol.2016.03.002.
[Link]
57. Dissou Y, Siddiqui MS: Can carbon taxes be progressive?
40. Selosse S, Ricci O: Carbon capture and storage: lessons from a Energy Econ. 2004, 42:88-100 [Link]
 storage potential and localization analysis. Appl. Energy 2017, eneco.2013.11.010.
188:32-44 [Link]
An analysis based on a wide review of geological storage potential and 58. van Kooten GC, Lynch R, Duan J: Carbon Taxes and Feed-in
various data discussing the impact of this potential on the development of Tariffs: Using Screening Curves and Load Duration to Determine
the CCS. the Optimal Mix of Generation Assets. Working Paper 2016-02.
Resource Economics & Policy Analysis Research Group,
41. DOE, EPA: Report of the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Department of Economics University of Victoria; 2016.
Capture and Storage. August, 2010. [Link]
prod/files/2013/04/f0/CCSTaskForceReport2010_0.pdf. 59. Nykvist B: Ten times more difficult: quantifying the carbon
capture and storage challenge. Energy Policy 2013, 55:683-689
42. Han C, Zahid U, An J, Kim K, Kim C: CO2 transport: design [Link]
 considerations and project outlook. Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng.
2015, 10:42-48 [Link] 60. Andersen HS: Innovation in Statoil. 2011. Available at: [Link]
Aspects associated with the performance and safety of CO2 transporta- [Link]/en/Protected%20Library/Workshop%20-%20Innovativ
tion are reviewed and discussed, and status on the current and future CO2 %20CO2-fangst/7_innovasjon.pdf.
transport projects has been presented.
61. IEA: Legal aspects of storing CO2: Update and
43. Katzer JR: The future of coal-based power generation. UN Recommendations. IEA Publications 9, rue de la Fédération
Sustainable Development and CCS Meeting; September 10–11: 75739 Paris Cedex 15, France, 61 2007 231 1P1 – ISBN: 978-92-
2007. Available at: [Link] 64-03408-2. Printed in France by Actis, June 2007. [Link]
content/documents/1485katzer_future_of_coal.pdf. [Link]/publications/freepublications/publication/legal_aspects.
pdf.
44. Tan Y, Nookuea W, Li H, Thorin E, Yan J: Property impacts on
carbon capture and storage (CCS) processes: a review. Energy 62. Muratori M, Kheshgi H, Mignone B, Clarke L, McJeon H,
Convers. Manage. 2016, 118:204-222 [Link] Edmonds J: Carbon capture and storage across fuels and
enconman.2016.03.079. sectors in energy system transformation pathways. Int. J.
Greenh. Gas Control 2017, 56:34-41 [Link]
45. Global CCS Institute: The Global Status of CCS—Summary
ijggc.2016.11.026.
Report. Global CCS Institute; 2016. Available at: [Link]
[Link]/sites/default/files/publications/201158/ 63. Fridahl M: Socio-political prioritization of bioenergy with
[Link]. carbon capture and storage. Energy Policy 2017, 104:89-99
46. NPD: CO2 Storage Atlas of the Norwegian Sea. The Norwegian [Link]
Petroleum Directorate; 2012. Available at: [Link] 64. Figueroa J: U.S. DOE carbon capture program: advancing
Global/Norsk/3-Publikasjoner/Rapporter/ multiple generations of carbon capture solutions laboratory to
[Link]. pilot scale development. CO2 Summit II: Technologies and
47. Kaven JO, Hickman SH, McGarr AF, Ellsworth WL: Surface Opportunities; Holly Krutka, Tri-State Generation & Transmission.
monitoring of microseismicity at the Decatur, Illinois, CO2 Association Inc. Frank Zhu, UOP/Honeywell Eds, ECI Symposium
sequestration demonstration site. Seismol. Res. Lett. 2015, Series: 2016. [Link]
86:1-6 [Link] 65. Global CCS Institute: Large Scale CCS Projects. Global CCS
48. Herzog HH: Scaling up carbon dioxide capture and storage: Institute; 2016. Available at: [Link]
 from megatons to gigatons. Energy Econ. 2011, 33:597-604. projects/.
Presents the challenge for CCS to be considered commercial as the
66. Global CCS Institute: Capturing CO2 from coal to chemical
integrating and scaling up.
process. CCS: A China Perspective, Yanchang Petroleum Report
49. Ampomah W, Balch RS, Grigg RB, McPherson B, Will RA, Lee SY, 1. Shaanxi Yanchang Petroleum (Group) Co., Ltd.; 2015. Available
Dai Z, Pan F: Co-optimization of CO2-EOR and storage at: [Link]
processes in mature oil reservoirs. Greenh. Gas Sci. Technol. publications/196723/yanchang-petroleum-
2017, 7:128-142 [Link] [Link].

50. Luu MT, Milani D, Abbas A: Analysis of CO2 utilization for 67. IEA: Technology Roadmap. Carbon Capture and Storage. IEA;
methanol synthesis integrated with enhanced gas recovery. J. 2013. [Link]
Clean. Prod. 2016, 112:3540-3554 [Link] publication/[Link].
jclepro.2015.10.119.
68. IPCC: IPCC special report on carbon dioxide capture and
51. Gazalpour F, Ren SR, Tohidi B: CO2 EOR and storage in oil  storage. In Prepared by Working Group III of the
reservoirs. Oil Gas Sci. Technol. 2005, 60:537-546. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Edited by Metz B,
Davidson O, de Coninck HC, Loos M, Meyer LA. Cambridge,
52. Verma MK: Fundamentals of carbon dioxide-enhanced oil United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University
recovery (CO2-EOR)—a supporting document of the Press; 2005. 442 pp. [Link]
assessment methodology for hydrocarbon recovery using srccs/srccs_wholereport.pdf.
CO2-EOR associated with carbon sequestration. U.S. An extensive compilation of carbon capture and storage

Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering 2017, 17:22–34 [Link]

 CCS technologies Araújo and de Medeiros 33

71. Luo X, Liu S, Gao H, Liao H, Tontiwachwuthikul P, Liang Z: An 88. Lock SSM, Lau KK, Ahmad F, Shariff AM: Modeling, simulation
improved fast screening method for single and blended and economic analysis of CO2 capture from natural gas using
amine-based solvents for post-combustion CO2 capture. Sep. cocurrent, countercurrent and radial crossflow hollow fiber
Purif. Technol. 2016, 169:279-288 [Link] membrane. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2015, 36:114-134 http://
seppur.2016.06.018. [Link]/10.1016/[Link].2015.02.014.
72. Mankins JC: Technology readiness levels. Advanced Concepts 89. Grasa GS, Abanades JC: CO2 capture capacity of CaO in long
Office, Office of Space Access and Technology. NASA; 1995. series of carbonation/calcination cycles. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
Available at: [Link] 2006, 45:8846-8851 [Link]
2016/01/[Link].
90. Hanak DP, Anthony EJ, Manovic V: A review of developments in
73. Mechleri E, Brown S, Fennell PS, Mac Dowell N: CO2 capture and  pilot-plant testing and modelling of calcium looping process
storage (CCS) cost reduction via infrastructure right-sizing. for CO2 capture from power generation systems. Energy
Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2017, 119:130-139 [Link] Environ. Sci. 2015, 8:2199-2249 [Link]
10.1016/[Link].2017.01.016. c5ee01228g.
Reviews recent developments in calcium looping (CaL) technology,
75. MODEC: FPSO Cidade de Angra dos Reis MV22. MODEC; 2010. approaches for prediction of CaL performance, and evaluates the
[Link] approaches for CaL integration into power generation systems.
76. Raksajati A, Ho MT, Wiley DE: Understanding the impact of 91. Dunstan MT, Jain A, Liu W, Ong SP, Liu T, Lee J, Persson KA,
process design on the cost of CO2 capture for precipitating Scott SA, Dennis JS, Grey SP: Large scale computational
solvent absorption. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2016, 55:1980-1994 screening and experimental discovery of novel materials for
[Link] high temperature CO2 capture. Energy Environ. Sci. 2016,
9:1346-1360 [Link]
77. Zoback MD, Gorelick SM: Earthquake triggering and large-
scale geologic storage of carbon dioxide. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 92. Dong X, Jin W: Mixed conducting ceramic membranes for high
U. S. A. 2012, 109:10164-10168 [Link] efficiency power generation with CO2 capture. Curr. Opin.
pnas.1202473109. Chem. Eng. 2012, 1:163-170 [Link]
coche.2012.03.003.
78. MIT: Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Carbon Capture and
Sequestration Technologies program at MIT. MIT; 2016. Available 93. Rezazadeh F, Gale WF, Lin YJ, Rochelle GT: Energy performance
at: Source: [Link] of advanced reboiled and flash stripper configurations for CO2
storage_only.html. capture using monoethanolamine. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2016,
55:4622-4631 [Link]
79. Ackiewicz M: Update on Status and Progress in the DOE CCS
Program. US Department of Energy—Fossil Fuels; 2014. Available 94. Luo S, Chen S, Chen S, Zhuang L, Ma N, Xu T, Li Q, Hou X:
at: [Link] Preparation and characterization of amine-functionalized
Ackiewicz_Mark.pdf. sugarcane bagasse for CO2 capture. J. Environ. Manage. 2016,
168:142-148 [Link]
80. Goodman WR, Maness, TR: Michigan’s Antrim Gas Shale Play—
A Two-Decade Template for Successful Devonian Gas Shale 95. Gervasi J, Dubois L, Thomas D: Screening tests of new hybrid
Development. Search and Discovery Article #10158, solvents for the post-combustion CO2 capture process by
2008. Adapted from oral presentation at AAPG Annual Convention, chemical absorption. Energy Procedia 2014, 63:1854-1862
San Antonio, Texas. Available at: [Link] [Link]
com/pdfz/documents/2008/08126goodman/ndx_goodman.pdf. 96. Park Y, Lin KYA, Park AHA, Petit C: Recent advances in
html.
 anhydrous solvents for CO2 capture: ionic liquids, switchable
81. DOE: Industrial Carbon Capture Project Selections. DOE; 2010. solvents, and nanoparticle organic hybrid materials. Front.
Available at: [Link] Energy Res. 2015, 3:1-14 [Link]
iccs_projects_0907101.pdf. fenrg.2015.00042 Article 42.
This paper provides a review of these various anhydrous solvents and
82. DOE: Leucadia Energy. Office of Fossil Energy. DOE; 2016. their potential for CO2 capture.
Available at: [Link]
97. Kim H, Lee KS: Energy analysis of an absorption-based CO2
83. Okajima T: Present status and future challenges of CCS in capture process. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2017, 56:250-260
Japan. 13th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control [Link]
Technologies; Lausanne, Switzerland: 2016. Available at: http://
98. Bara JE, Camper DE, Gin DL, Noble RD: Room-temperature
[Link]/images/GHGT13/2_Takuro_Presentation.pdf.
ionic liquids and composite materials: platform technologies
84. Andrade AMT, Vaz CEM, Ribeiro J, Lopreato LGR, for CO2 capture. Acc. Chem. Res. 2010, 43:152-159 [Link]
Nascimento RFS: Offshore production units for pre-salt org/10.1021/ar9001747.
projects. Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, USA: 2015 99. Brennecke JF, Gurkan BE: Ionic liquids for CO2 capture and
[Link] OTC-25691-MS. emission reduction. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2010, 1:3459-3464
85. Idem R, Wilson M, Tontiwachwuthikul P, Chakma A, Veawab A, [Link]
Aroonwilas A, Gelowitz D: Pilot plant studies of the CO2 capture 100. Gomez A, Briot P, Raynal L, Broutin P, Gimenez M, Soazic M,
performance of aqueous MEA and mixed MEA/MDEA solvents Cessat P, Saysset S: ACACIA project—development of a post-
at the University of Regina CO2 capture technology combustion CO2 capture process. case of the DMXTM
development plant and the Boundary Dam CO2 capture process. Oil Gas Sci. Technol. 2014, 69:1121-1129 [Link]
demonstration plant. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2006, 45:2414-2420 org/10.2516/ogst/2014035.
[Link]
101. Pinto DDD, Zaidy SAH, Hartono A, Svendsen HF: Evaluation of a
86. Olajire AA: CO2 capture and separation technologies for end- phase change solvent for CO2 capture: absorption and
 of-pipe applications—a review. Energy 2010, 35:2610-2628 desorption tests. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 2014, 28:318-327
[Link] [Link]
This article reviews the possible CO2 capture and separation technolo-
gies for end-of-pipe applications. The three main CO2 capture technol- 102. Arshad MW, von Solms N, Thomsen K: Thermodynamic
ogies discussed include post-combustion, pre-combustion and oxyfuel modeling of liquid–liquid phase change solvents for CO2
combustion. capture. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2016, 53:401-424 [Link]
[Link]/10.1016/[Link].2016.08.014 ISSN 1750-5836.
87. Kim S, Lee YM: High performance polymer membranes for CO2
 separation. Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng. 2013, 2:238-244 [Link] 103. Shen S, Bian Y, Zhao Y: Energy-efficient CO2 capture using
org/10.1016/[Link].2013.03.006. potassium prolinate/ethanol solution as a phase-changing
Introduce the research progress on the recent development of high absorbent. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2017, 56:1-11 [Link]
performance gas separation membranes for CO2 separation applications. org/10.1016/[Link].2016.11.011.

[Link] Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering 2017, 17:22–34

34 Energy and environmental engineering

104. Novek EJ, Shaulsky E, Fishman ZS, Pfefferle LD, Elimelech M: CO2 removal with gas–liquid contactors employing aqueous
Low-temperature carbon capture using aqueous ammonia solutions of ethanolamines. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013,
and organic solvents. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2016, 52:7074-7089 [Link]
3:291-296 [Link]
113. Samanta A, Zhao A, Shimizu GKH, Sarkar P, Gupta R: Post-
105. Du N, Park HB, Robertson GP, Dal-Cin MM, Visser T, Scoles L,  combustion CO2 capture using solid sorbents: a review. Ind.
Guiver MD: Polymer nanosieve membranes for CO2-capture Eng. Chem. Res. 2012, 51:1438-1463 [Link]
applications. Nat. Mater. 2011, 10:372-375 [Link] ie200686q.
10.1038/nmat2989. A comprehensive critical review and analysis of solid sorbents, including
a brief review on techno-economic analysis and design aspects of
106. Caro J: Are MOF membranes better in gas separation than sorbent bed contactor configuration.
those made of zeolites? Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng. 2011, 1:77-83
[Link] 114. Wang Q, Luo J, Zhong Z, Borgna A: CO2 capture by solid
 adsorbents and their applications: current status and new
107. Lin Y: Metal organic framework membranes for separation
trends. Energy Environ. Sci. 2011, 4:42-55 [Link]
applications. Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng. 2015, 8:21-28 [Link]
10.1039/c0ee00064g.
org/10.1016/[Link].2015.01.006.
Reviews research activities in solid adsorbents and possible links
108. Lin H: Integrated membrane material and process between fundamental studies and industrial applications.
development for gas separation. Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng. 2014,
4:54-61 [Link] 115. Ho MT, Allinson GW, Wiley DE: Reducing the cost of CO2
capture from flue gases using pressure swing adsorption. Ind.
109. Ramasubramanian K, Ho WSW: Recent developments on Eng. Chem. Res. 2008, 47:4883-4890 [Link]
membranes for post-combustion carbon capture. Curr. Opin. ie070831e.
Chem. Eng. 2011, 1:47-54 [Link]
coche.2011.08.002. 116. Darunte LA, Walton KS, Sholl DS, Jones CW: CO2 capture via
 adsorption in amine-functionalized sorbents. Curr. Opin.
110. Hussain A, Hägg MB: A feasibility study of CO2 capture from Chem. Eng. 2016, 12:82-90.
flue gas by a facilitated transport membrane. J. Membr. Sci. Discusses amine-functionalized solid sorbents and emerging gas-solid
2010, 359:140-148 [Link] contacting strategies for CO2 capture with amine adsorbents.
memsci.2009.11.035.
117. Fujiki J, Chowdhury FA, Yamada H, Yogo K: Highly efficient post-
111. Sreedhar I, Vaidhiswaran R, Kamani BM, Venugopal A: Process combustion CO2 capture by low-temperature steam-aided
 and engineering trends in membrane based carbon capture. vacuum swing adsorption using a novel polyamine-based
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 68:659-684 [Link] solid sorbent. Chem. Eng. J. 2017, 307:273-282 [Link]
10.1016/[Link].2016.10.025. 10.1016/[Link].2016.08.071.
A comprehensive review on membrane technology for CO2 capture
comprehending synthesis, characterization and performance analysis 118. Voleno A, Romano MC, Turi DM, Chiesa P, Ho MT, Wiley DE:
of various membrane materials, contactors and their design aspects, Post-combustion CO2 Capture from Natural Gas Combined
modeling and simulation studies and membrane wetting phenomenon. Cycles by Solvent Supported Membranes. Energy Procedia
2014, 63:7389-7397 [Link]
112. de Medeiros JL, Nakao A, Grava WM, Nascimento JF, Araújo OQF: egypro.2014.11.775.
Simulation of an offshore natural gas purification process for

Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering 2017, 17:22–34 [Link]