Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorVoldsund, Mari
dc.contributor.authorGardarsdottir, Stafania Osk
dc.contributor.authorde Lena, Edoardo
dc.contributor.authorPrez-Calvo, José-Francisco
dc.contributor.authorJamali, Armin
dc.contributor.authorBerstad, David Olsson
dc.contributor.authorFu, Chao
dc.contributor.authorRomano, Matteo
dc.contributor.authorRoussanaly, Simon
dc.contributor.authorAnantharaman, Rahul
dc.contributor.authorHoppe, Helmut
dc.contributor.authorSutter, Daniel
dc.contributor.authorMazzotti, Marco
dc.contributor.authorGazzani, Matteo
dc.contributor.authorCinti, Giovanni
dc.contributor.authorJordal, Aina Benedikte Kristin
dc.date.accessioned2019-03-22T11:54:56Z
dc.date.available2019-03-22T11:54:56Z
dc.date.created2019-02-15T08:01:34Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.issn1996-1073
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11250/2591298
dc.description.abstractA technical evaluation of CO2 capture technologies when retrofitted to a cement plant is performed. The investigated technologies are the oxyfuel process, the chilled ammonia process, membrane-assisted CO2 liquefaction, and the calcium looping process with tail-end and integrated configurations. For comparison, absorption with monoethanolamine (MEA) is used as reference technology. The focus of the evaluation is on emission abatement, energy performance, and retrofitability. All the investigated technologies perform better than the reference both in terms of emission abatement and energy consumption. The equivalent CO2 avoided are 73–90%, while it is 64% for MEA, considering the average EU-28 electricity mix. The specific primary energy consumption for CO2 avoided is 1.63–4.07 MJ/kg CO2, compared to 7.08 MJ/kg CO2 for MEA. The calcium looping technologies have the highest emission abatement potential, while the oxyfuel process has the best energy performance. When it comes to retrofitability, the post-combustion technologies show significant advantages compared to the oxyfuel and to the integrated calcium looping technologies. Furthermore, the performance of the individual technologies shows strong dependencies on site-specific and plant-specific factors. Therefore, rather than identifying one single best technology, it is emphasized that CO2 capture in the cement industry should be performed with a portfolio of capture technologies, where the preferred choice for each specific plant depends on local factorsnb_NO
dc.description.abstractComparison of Technologies for CO2 Capture from Cement Production—Part 1: Technical Evaluationnb_NO
dc.language.isoengnb_NO
dc.publisherMDPInb_NO
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no*
dc.titleComparison of Technologies for CO2 Capture from Cement Production—Part 1: Technical Evaluationnb_NO
dc.typeJournal articlenb_NO
dc.typePeer reviewednb_NO
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionnb_NO
dc.rights.holderThe Authorsnb_NO
dc.source.volume12nb_NO
dc.source.journalEnergiesnb_NO
dc.source.issue3nb_NO
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/en12030559
dc.identifier.cristin1677500
dc.relation.projectEC/H2020/641185nb_NO
cristin.unitcode7548,60,0,0
cristin.unitnameGassteknologi
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Med mindre annet er angitt, så er denne innførselen lisensiert som Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal