Burcin Temel McKenna, Global Head of Carbon Capture
October 22, 2024
Add heat, reduce risk
While a range of carbon capture (CC) technologies are available to the cement industry, the costs and risks involved are significant. We caught up with Burcin Temel Mckenna, Global Head of Carbon Capture, to discuss the benefits of an integrated amine-based solution. For more detailed insights, download our technical paper.
Carbon capture is an energy demanding technology, whether we use cryogenics, amines, or hot potassium carbonate. In the case of amines, to separate CO2 from the amine solution, you need to be able to heat it until the CO2 gas stream and the liquid solvent can be recovered. The overall amount of energy needed to strip CO2 from the solvent is very large.
Depending on the facility, there might be available energy present. Being able to integrate that existing excess energy from the facility into the capture unit improves the capital expenditure (CAPEX) and operating expenditure (OPEX) of the project, as well as being significant from a sustainability perspective.
That's right. If you were establishing a carbon capture plant on, for example, a biomass or waste-to-energy power plant, you would instantly have access to high temperature steam that could be used as a heat source for the carbon capture unit. At a cement plant, there are other streams at a lower temperature. That is where innovative technologies such as a waste heat recovery unit can help collect the energy from that low temperature stream so it can be used in the carbon capture process.
There are widely used amine types, like MEA, that have been used for many years, but now there are new advanced types available that include more complex chemicals to capture more CO2 per unit volume. They have a lower degradation rate, meaning that the carbon capture is more effective while less amines are lost during operation. Usually, the amine solution needs to be replenished continuously, meaning that the new types of amines can help reduce the operational expenditure even though they might cost more initially. Many of these are proprietary amines, so independent testing is not always possible, and it is necessary to rely on the data sheets provided by the manufacturers.
“Being able to integrate existing excess energy from the facility into the capture unit improves the CAPEX and OPEX of the project, as well as being significant from a sustainability perspective.”
There are many different technologies that can be used to make efficiency improvements, but these often involve an initial CAPEX investment. So, it is up to the client to decide how they want to balance their CAPEX and OPEX. We discuss some of the very technical step changes that can be made in our paper, so I recommend anyone interested in the technical details to download it. Innovative technologies, like heat pumps, can help recover energy from low temperature streams, and this heat can in turn be used to power the carbon capture process. It is a proven technology but is still new when it comes to use in industrial operations.
The cooling systems are needed at different stages of the carbon captured process. Water-based cooling is more effective, but it depends on the environmental permits that the plant has. Otherwise, air coolers can be a feasible option.
There are different types of risks. One is the technology risk, where you need to assess which to choose. As we discussed, it could be choosing an air cooler system over a water one, or deciding which heat pump better suits the specific system. Next, is the risk around how to execute the project. For a cement plant, the carbon capture technology and EPC providers originate from the oil and gas industries where there is a very particular way of working. So, it is about bringing experience from very different industries and configuring it at the standards, quality, and cost that fits the cement industry.
The biggest risk is, of course, the financial risk. It is difficult to predict unforeseen engineering or supply chain related costs, as well as market expectations. With EPC companies and technology providers, there are ways to structure the project so that each party can minimise the risk on their own part so that risk for the whole plant is reduced.
In all, there are a lot of structural and financial risk considerations while executing the carbon capture plant. I really recommend accessing the more detailed paper to learn much more!
Want to know more?
Burçin Temel McKenna
Global Head of Carbon Capture
+45 51 61 40 19