Adsorption - Introduction to Carbon Capture and Sequestration - page 274

Parameter Units GHG mitigation costs ($ per t CO 2 avoided)
55 60 65 70 75 80

Capture/regeneration cycle time
Mass ratio, solvent/MOF
Solvent recycling rate
Life span of MOF material
MOF regeneration equavalent energy
Capital cost of capture systems, MOF/MEA
Solvent production costs
MOF working capacity
Learning rate, capital cost, CO2 capture
Coal transport distance
Average lenght of feeder pipeline
Capital costs of flue gas cleaning, MOF/MEA
Average length of trunk pipeline
CO2 transport cost
Metal production cost
O&M cost of flue gas cleaning, MOF/MEA
CO2 injection costst
Depth of injection well
Learning rate, maximum installed capacity
Re-compression needed
MOF synthesis cost
Learning rate, minimum installed capacity
Learning rate, O&M cost, CO2 capture
MOF reaction yield
Learning rate, CO2 transport
Learning rate, CO2 injection
Auxilliary load of capture system, MOF/MEA
Bed utilization factor
Solvent production GHG
O&M cost of capture system, MOF/MEA
Learning rate, captical cost, CO2 compression
Organic ligand production cost
Metal production GHG

minutes
ration(mass/mass)
percent recycled
number of cycles
MJe/tCO2
ration ($/$)
$/t
weight
-
Skm
km
ratio ($/$)
km
$/tCO2
$/t
ratio ($/$)
$/tCO2
m
GW
yes or no
$/t
GW
-
percent
-
-
ration MJ/MJ
percent
tCO2e/t
ratio ($/$)
-
$/t
tCO2e/t

30 90
0 200

98 75

12000 4000

200 600
1.0

2.0

400 1300

14 24

0.17 0.06

400 1600

50 150

1.0 1.5

100 300

4.5 7.6

260 1000

1.0 1.5

4.0 6.6

800 2000

150 50

no yes

400 3240

5 10

0.3 0.1

100 70
0.09 0.03
0.09 0.03
1.0 1.5
100 90
1.2 4.0
1.0 1.5
0.1 0
1000 1800
0.1 3.0

Figure 6.6.2 Tornado plot of the costs
Change in estimated GHG mitigation cost due to variation of individual parameters
between low and high estimates. Figure adapted from Sathre and Masanet [6.39].

Question 6.6.1 MEA, MOF and coal price

Table 6.6.3 shows that the amine technology is cheaper for the reference
coal price but the MOF technology is cheaper for the higher coal price.
Explain why.

operation, as was assumed in these calculations? Or, is there an optimal
combination of the temperature and pressure swing?
Another important process parameter is the life span of the MOF mate-
rial. How many adsorption/regeneration cycles can be carried out before
the material degenerates? These calculations show that if we would be
able to expand the life span from 8,000 to 12,000 cycles, the cost would
decrease signifi cantly. If, on the other hand, contaminants in fl ue gas would
decrease this to 4,000 cycles, the cost would increase signifi cantly.