Journal of Cleaner Production 416 (2023) 137846

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Integrating carbon capture and utilization into the glass industry: Economic
analysis of emissions reduction through CO2 mineralization
Benjamin Caudle, Satoshi Taniguchi, Thuy T.H. Nguyen, Sho Kataoka *
National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, 1-1-1 Higashi, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8565, Japan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Kathleen Aviso Glass production contributes significantly to global CO2 emissions due to high thermal energy requirements and
raw material consumption. As a difficult-to-abate industry, carbon capture and utilization or storage (CCU/CCS)
Keywords: will be necessary to achieve emission targets. Among various options, CO2 mineralization shows promise to
CO2 capture simultaneously capture CO2 and convert it to valuable products. When caustic (NaOH) is used as the absorbent, a
CO2 mineralization
portion of the resulting sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) can be fed back to the glass process to replace soda ash, a
Glass manufacturing
major component of glass and a large source of indirect emissions. Although a combination of glass
Detailed process model
CO2 reduction manufacturing and CO2 mineralization presents a novel opportunity for drastic CO2 emissions reduction, such a
Economic analysis process has yet to be studied. This work uses detailed, optimized process models to perform economic and CO2
emission analyses of three cases for such a highly integrated CCU system. In each case, CO2 is captured and
directly converted to NaHCO3 and/or Na2CO3 by absorption into a NaOH solution. The NaOH is produced via the
electrolysis of sodium chloride, which generates the valuable byproducts chlorine and hydrogen. The results are
compared to glass production with amine-based CCS. The mineralization cases are shown to have net negative
CO2 emissions, between − 152 and − 528 kg CO2/ton glass, relative to the unabated glass process and Solvay
process for Na2CO3. The discounted payback periods for the mineralization cases range from 3.8 to 6.0 years,
while the CCS case has reduced emissions of 353 kg CO2/ton glass and a negative net present value at the end of
20 years.

1. Introduction when high-temperature heat energy (>4 GJ/ton at 800–1650 ◦ C) is used

It is widely accepted that limiting the global mean temperature in­
crease from pre-industrial levels to 1.5 ◦ C is necessary to mitigate the
worst effects of anthropogenic climate change (UNFCCC, 2015). This
requires action across all sectors of society (de Kleijne et al., 2022) and,
in recent years, significant efforts have been made to decarbonize the
energy sector (Cozzi and Gul, 2021) and large-scale industrial emitters
(Osman et al., 2021). Beyond the largest emitters, however, there are a
myriad of smaller sources that contribute significantly to CO2 emissions
on aggregate (Gerres et al., 2019). Among these are energy-intensive
industries (EII) that, because of characteristics such as high process
temperatures or CO2-releasing reactions, are practically impossible to
make carbon neutral without implementing carbon-capture technology
(Santos and Hanak, 2022).
The glass industry is an established EII that, while only accounting
for about 1% of global industrial emissions (Rissman et al., 2020), has
limited emission abatement options. Large amounts of CO2 are released
to melt the raw materials to form the glass (U.S. DOE, 2015) and when
carbonate raw materials are calcined to oxides (Carter and Norton,
2013). The distribution of CO2 emissions varies depending on the choice
of fuel, heating efficiency, and chemical makeup of the glass. In this
work, the sources are divided about 1.3:1 between the combustion of
natural gas and glass formation (calcination) reactions. Energy effi­
ciency improvements to glass furnaces are reaching a limit after cen­
turies of gradual progress and are projected to have little further impact
(Furszyfer Del Rio et al., 2022). Providing heat via electricity (Gonter­
man and Weinstein, 2006) or pure hydrogen (Gärtner et al., 2021) are
two possible solutions that are yet to be demonstrated for large-scale
glass production, while the real emissions reductions are limited by
the source of electricity or hydrogen. A major component of soda-lime
glass, the most commonly produced glass in the world, is sodium
oxide (Na2O), derived from the calcination of soda ash (Na2CO3) (Scalet
et al., 2013). The majority of global Na2CO3 production is carried out via
the Solvay process (Bolen, 2022), which is itself an EII that generates

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: s-kataoka@aist.go.jp (S. Kataoka).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137846
Received 27 February 2023; Received in revised form 29 May 2023; Accepted 17 June 2023
Available online 25 June 2023
0959-6526/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
B. Caudle et al.
significant amounts of aqueous and solid waste (Steinhauser, 2008) in
addition to CO2 emissions (Cichosz et al., 2022). Recycling decreases the
carbon emissions from the production of raw materials and calcination,
but the portion of a batch that may be made up of recycled materials is
limited (Testa et al., 2017).
The production of glass will continue to be a source of CO2 emissions
for the foreseeable future, and thus a method of mitigation should be put
forth that complements the specific characteristics of this process. Post-
combustion capture of CO2 has been a well-studied topic in recent de­
cades, reducing the cost and increasing the efficiency of CO2 capture
processes (Garcia-Garcia et al., 2021). However, captured CO2 itself has
little inherent value and, without subsidies, CO2 capture and storage
(CCS) is a cost to the host processes no matter how efficiently the CO2 is
captured. CO2 capture and utilization (CCU) is thus an economic ne­
cessity, but most schemes suffer from two consistent drawbacks. Chief
among these is the high thermodynamic stability of CO2, which means
that a large amount of energy must be supplied to upgrade molecular
CO2 to a desirable product (Song, 2006). A second major concern is the
need to supply H2 to upgrade CO2 to any petroleum-like feedstock
(methane, methanol, alkanes, etc.), which is only beneficial if the H2 is
obtained from emission-free sources. As of 2019, about 96% of the
world’s hydrogen was produced from fossil feedstocks through energy-
and emission-intensive processes (Parkinson et al., 2019). Gärtner et al.
recently calculated that a carbon capture system using amine absorption
attached to a glass process would be relatively cost-effective, mainly due
to the availability of waste heat (Gärtner et al., 2023). They did not,
however, analyze the disposition of the captured CO2, which would have
a large impact on process economics and emissions whether it is stored
or converted to methane, as they suggest.
CO2 mineralization avoids the drawbacks of most CCU schemes,
shifting CO2 to a lower energy state by converting it to HCO−3 and/or
CO2−3 (Chen et al., 2008). This can be achieved through adsorption onto
a solid (Ruiz et al., 2020), or into an alkaline solution. The mineral
carbonates can sold without further modification (Shim et al., 2016) or
heated to release CO2 as a pure gas (Keith et al., 2018). However, the
former is preferred, as the latter requires additional energy input and
only produces molecular CO2, the downsides of which have already been
discussed. In recent years, mineralization to useful products, such as
sodium or calcium carbonate (NaHCO3 or CaCO3) has been demon­
strated experimentally (Goharrizi and Abolpour, 2013) and imple­
mented in industrial settings at Twence, NLD (Huttenhuis et al., 2016)
and San Antonio, USA (Walters, 2016). Carvela et al. experimented with
the absorption of CO2 with electrochemically produced NaOH, but only
deemed it worthwhile to explore further without performing an eco­
nomic analysis or scale-up predictions from their bench-scale process
(Carvela et al., 2021). Lee et al. thoroughly investigated the economics
of capturing CO2 from power plants via mineralization to NaHCO3, a
valuable commodity with a variety of uses from animal feed to leather
processing to fire extinguishing powder (Bureau of Integrated Pollution
Prevention and Control (IPPC), 2007). They determined that it is
economically feasible, but analyzed mineralization of CO2 from a
coal-fired power plant, a technology that must soon be phased out, using
Na2CO3, a raw material with large indirect emissions from production
(Lee et al., 2019). Hungaro Yoshi et al. analyzed the economics and CO2
emissions of three different routes to produce NaHCO3 from CO2, but did
not consider the source of the CO2, which has a large effect on the overall
emissions of the process (Hungaro Yoshi et al., 2022). Medina-Martos
et al. compared different methods of CO2 mineralization to NaHCO3
but did not consider direct conversion of aqueous NaOH to NaHCO3
(Medina-Martos et al., 2022).
The current state of research suggests that there is potential for a
novel process that integrates glass production with CO2 mineralization
to drastically reduce net emissions. Producing NaHCO3 from the CO2 in
glass furnace flue gas would reduce net emissions, reverse the release of
CO2 from the glass melting reactions and return it to a mineral form
where it can be permanently stored or utilized. The NaOH needed for
2
Journal of Cleaner Production 416 (2023) 137846
mineralization can be produced from NaCl using electrolysis, co-
generating the useful byproducts Cl2 and H2. Addition of NaCl to a so­
lution of NaHCO3 and Na2CO3 induces precipitation of a mixture that
can be adjusted to contain over 90 wt% Na2CO3 (the balance being
NaHCO3) by manipulating the temperature and concentration of NaCl
(Chen et al., 2022). The Na2CO3 may be recycled to the glass furnace to
eliminate the large indirect emissions that glass production incurs by
using Na2CO3 produced via the Solvay process. This work demonstrates
that, by combining the currently available technologies described
above, it is both possible and profitable to significantly reduce CO2
emissions of both glass and NaHCO3 production. To provide insight into
the economic and environmental viability of the proposed process, three
alternative scenarios were constructed, evaluated and compared against
the current best practice for CO2 capture and storage.
2. Modeling cases
The process boundary for modeling includes the glass process, which
remains unchanged, and the CO2 capture cases as illustrated in Fig. 1.
The glass factory and CCU/S process are located adjacent to one another
and share common utilities. Case A represents CCS via absorption with
monoethanolamine (MEA), the current industry best practice. Through
absorption and desorption, heat energy is used to separate CO2 from the
furnace flue gas while electricity is used to compress the CO2 into a
liquid for shipping to a storage site. The mineralization processes of
Cases B and C utilize electricity to convert NaCl and CO2 into NaHCO3,
Cl2, and H2. Process conditions can be manipulated to adjust the product
distribution between NaHCO3 and Na2CO3, while the byproduct H2 can
be exported or recycled within the process for CO2-emission-free
heating.
The CCU cases produce the valuable byproducts Cl2 and H2, of which
Cl2 has more value on a volume basis. The current method for produc­
tion of Cl2 is the chlor-alkali process, which produces Cl2 and NaOH in
equal amounts. Over 80% of the Cl2 produced in Japan is consumed
internally, compared to just over 20% of the NaOH, indicating that there
is room for increased chlorine production relative to caustic soda in the
local market (Research and Statistics Department, 2020). While the
price of H2 is high on a mass basis, the small amount produced by this
process is worth significantly less in total than either NaHCO3 or Cl2.
Cases B2 and C forgo the export of H2, instead routing it to the glass
furnace to partially replace natural gas as a source of heat energy. Case C
utilizes the solubility characteristics of sodium salts to selectively pre­
cipitate a separate stream of >90 wt% Na2CO3 that is fed back to the
glass furnace, replacing soda ash with a low-emission alternative. The
chemical reactions occurring in each block are described in Section S1 of
the Supporting Information. Sections 2.1 through 2.5 describe each case
in detail.
2.1. Case 0
The reference case is a 500 ton/day glass furnace with no form of CO2
mitigation in place, which is not modeled directly. Raw materials are fed
into a furnace and directly heated by burning natural gas, producing
glass and CO2-rich flue gas (see Fig. 2). Soda-lime glass is mainly
composed of silicon oxide (SiO2), with major fractions of sodium oxide
(Na2O), and calcium oxide (CaO) (Scalet et al., 2013). Other species such
as magnesium (MgO), potassium (K2O), and aluminum (Al2O3) oxides
may be added to give the glass desired properties (Carter and Norton,
2013). Table 1 gives the composition of glass used in this study, in terms
of both the raw material carbonates and final oxide species, presented by
Carter and Norton (2013) as representative of typical soda-lime glass.
The raw glass is supplemented with 20 wt% recycled glass, or cullet,
which is assumed to be on hand from within the glass factory as tailings,
cuttings, etc. The column “Released CO2” tabulates the amount of CO2
released when the mineral carbonates in the feed are heated to form the
corresponding oxides. The energy requirement is 4216 MJ/ton glass,
B. Caudle et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 416 (2023) 137846

Fig. 1. Diagram of the process flow of CCS (Case A) and CCU (Cases B, C) cases. The stream from the absorber labeled “NaXCO3(aq)” is an aqueous mixture of Na2CO3
and NaHCO3.

et al., 2022), but the content of alumina in the glass is very small (<1%)
and so the large emission factor has a low impact on the total emissions.

2.2. Case A

As seen in Fig. 3, this case consists of a glass process with carbon

Fig. 2. Flowchart of glass process (Case 0).
including thermal inefficiencies, in line with other recent works dis­
cussing glass production (Yazawa et al., 2017). The energy is provided
by the burning of natural gas fed with 15% excess air, and the furnace is
assumed to have an additional 10% air infiltration due to incomplete
sealing (Díaz-Ibarra et al., 2013).
In addition to the emissions associated with glass production itself,
the glass making process has significant indirect emissions from the
production of raw materials (PRé Sustainability B.V., 2019). These
emission factors, in units of kg CO2-equivalent/kg material, are included
in the “CO2 Factor” column of Table 1. The production of soda ash has a
high emission factor which, combined with the large concentration of
Na2O in the glass, makes it the largest source of indirect emissions in this
process. The mined species – silica sand, limestone, and dolomite – have
significantly lower emissions from their production. The production of
alumina from bauxite also incurs high CO2-equivalent emissions (Ma
capture via absorption. The glass process itself is unchanged, with the
carbon capture unit attached to the furnace gas outlet (stream 1). The
carbon capture unit consists of an absorption column and a stripping
column with all associated equipment, with heat recovery between the
feeds of each column. The flue gas is first brought up to 112 kPa and
cooled to 40 ◦ C (stream 2) to feed the 10-stage absorber (T1), where it is
contacted with a 30 wt% MEA solution, also at 40 ◦ C (stream 3). The
MEA solution goes from a lean loading of 6 wt% CO2 up to a rich loading
of 10 wt% CO2 to recover 98% of the CO2 from the gas. The gas exiting
the absorber contains less than 1% CO2 after cooling to 36 ◦ C to recover
evaporated H2O (stream 10). The rich amine solution (stream 4) is
brought up to 190 kPa, pre-heated with the absorber bottoms from the
stripper reboiler and fed (stream 5) into the 6-stage stripping column
(T2). The reboiler (RB) is temperature-controlled, using process steam,
to achieve a CO2 product with 96 vol% purity after cooling to 40 ◦ C in
the following condenser (stream 6). The lean amine solution from the
reboiler (stream 7), at about 120 ◦ C, is partially cooled by pre-heating
the rich amine solution before being further cooled to 40 ◦ C and fed to
the absorber (stream 3). A small amount of make-up water and MEA is
added at this point (stream 8). Due to the geography and legal re­
quirements of Japan, pipelines are difficult to permit and expensive to
build and thus the CO2 captured will most likely need to be transported
in liquid form via truck or ship (Motohashi et al., 2011). Accordingly,
the product is compressed to 700 kPa and cooled to − 50 ◦ C, reaching a
purity of 99.8% before leaving the plant boundary for sequestration

Table 1
Raw materials for glass production, based on a 500 ton/day soda-lime glass furnace (Carter and Norton, 2013). Raw materials on the left are converted into glass
components on the right by melting and calcination (when appropriate).
Raw Material Feed Rate (kg/hr) Pricea ($/ton) CO2 Factorb (kg CO2/kg) Released CO2 (kg CO2/kg) Glass Component Mass Fraction in Glassc

Recycled Glass 4167 – – – Cullet 0.200

Silica (SiO2) 12,000 53 0.0252 – SiO2 0.576
Soda Ash (Na2CO3) 3990 327 0.461 0.415 Na2O 0.112
Limestone (CaCO3) 975 63 0.0643 0.440 CaO 0.072
Dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2) 3050 34 0.0463 0.477 MgO 0.032
Alumina (Al2O3) 167 750 2.87 – Al2O3 0.008
a
Prices from UN Comtrade database (United Nations, 2022).
b
CO2-equivalent emission factors from SimaPro database (PRé Sustainability B.V., 2019).
c
Glass composition from Carter and Norton (2013)

3
B. Caudle et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 416 (2023) 137846

Fig. 3. Process flow diagram of CCS via amine absorption, Case A. Pieces of equipment are labeled with E for heat exchangers (elongated shapes indicate attached
condensers), C for compressors, T for towers with internal trays, P for pumps, and RB for the stripper reboiler. Stream 11, not mentioned in the text, is the condensate
(wastewater) line.

(stream 9).
2.3. Case B1
As seen in Fig. 4, this case consists of a glass process with CO2 capture
and mineralization to NaHCO3 using NaOH. The glass process itself is
unchanged, with the carbon capture unit attached to the furnace gas
outlet (stream 1). The carbon capture unit is based on the experimental
unit of Lee et al. (2018), using a single absorber column as described by
other sources (Knuutila et al., 2009). It consists of an absorption bubble
column (B1), a solids separation section, and an electrolysis cell stack
(EC). The flue gas is first brought up to 160 kPa and passed through the
indirect solids drying unit (D1) before being cooled to 40 ◦ C and fed
(stream 2) to the bubble column. In the bubble column, the gas is con­
tacted with a 12.5 mol% NaOH + Na2CO3 (5:4 mol ratio) solution
(stream 3) to recover 98% of the CO2. The gas exiting the bubble column
contains less than 1% CO2 after cooling to 36 ◦ C (stream 16). The main
product of the bubble column is NaHCO3, which partially precipitates
and is removed from the column along with the liquid phase as a sus­
pension (stream 4). The suspension is cooled to 40 ◦ C before entering a
two-stage solid separation section that first separates the solids with
10% liquid entrainment (stream 5) and then further dries the solids to
1% moisture (stream 6). The NaHCO3 product obtained this way is
approximately 99.5 wt% pure. The remaining solution contains about 5
mol% Na2CO3 and NaHCO3 at a ratio of about 4:1 (stream 8), of which
the majority is directly recycled to the absorber while a portion is used to
dilute the NaCl solution fed to the electrolysis system.
Recycled sodium carbonate solution is mixed with some condensate
and NaCl (stream 9) while being heated to 80 ◦ C to create the feed to the
anode of the electrolysis cell (stream 10). Condensate and additional
fresh water (stream 11) are heated to 80 ◦ C and fed to the cathode
(stream 12). Chloride is oxidized to chlorine gas at the anode while
water is reduced to hydroxide and hydrogen gas at the cathode, with
sodium ions passing through an ion-selective membrane. The liquid ef­
fluents of both cells are combined (stream 15), cooled back to 40 ◦ C, and
returned to the bubble column (stream 3). The major product from this
carbon capture process is solid NaHCO3 (stream 6), with separate
streams of 99.9% pure Cl2 (stream 13) and 99.9% pure H2 (stream 14)
from the electrolysis cell as valuable byproducts.
2.4. Case B2
This case, also illustrated by Fig. 4, is a slight modification of Case B1
in which the H2 produced in the electrolysis cell (stream 14) is utilized to
supply steam to the carbon capture process and fed back to the glass
furnace to replace a portion of the natural gas used for heating. The H2
provides about 20% of the energy of glass melting, with the furnace fed
hydrogen and natural gas at a volumetric ratio of approximately 1:1. It is
often asserted that a modern glass furnace can handle a mixture of up to
50% H2 in natural gas without modification (Ireson et al., 2019),
although the numbers vary from 0% to 100% depending on the refer­
enced work (Furszyfer Del Rio et al., 2022). The main effect of this

Fig. 4. Process flow diagram for CO2 mineralization Case B (1 & 2). Aside from the pieces of equipment named in the caption of Fig. 3, this figure includes a bubble
column, B, a filtering centrifuge, F, an indirect screw dryer, D, and an electrolysis cell stack, EC. Stream 7, not mentioned in the text, consists of moist air exiting
the dryer.

4
B. Caudle et al.
modification to Case B1 is the reduction in capital and operating ex­
penses due to a reduction in CO2 fed to the carbon capture process, a
result of burning less natural gas for heating. Reducing the amount of
CO2 captured reduces the amount of NaOH required, reducing the
amount of electricity used for electrolysis, with the tradeoff of producing
less NaHCO3 and Cl2 in addition to the loss of revenue from exporting
H2.
2.5. Case C
As seen in Fig. 5, this case is similar to Case B in that it consists of a
glass process with carbon capture via NaOH. The main difference is the
addition of a second precipitation section. In this case, sodium chloride
(stream 9) is added directly to the heated retentate from the first pre­
cipitator (stream 8), causing the precipitation of Na2CO3 and NaHCO3 at
an approximately 10:1 M ratio (unit F2). The NaCl solution (stream 10)
is fed to the anode cell as in Case B. Once dried, the Na2CO3 from the
second precipitation stage (stream 18) is fed back to the glass process,
eliminating the cost and indirect emissions of supplying Na2CO3 from
external sources. A side effect of optimization for two-stage precipitation
is that the solution throughout the bubble column maintains a higher
ratio of Na2CO3 to NaHCO3 than in Case B. As Na2CO3 also acts as a CO2
absorbent, the column recovers 100% of the CO2 from the flue gas and
indeed has difficulty recovering any less. As in Case B2, the H2 produced
at the cathode (stream 14) is used for steam production and to supple­
ment natural gas in the glass melting process.
3. Evaluation methodology
3.1. Process design and simulation
Each case was simulated in AVEVA PRO/II Simulation 2020 (AVEVA
Group plc, 2020) using built-in unit operation blocks. The thermody­
namic package for CO2 absorption with MEA, used for Case A, is well
documented and has been used in previous models to great effect. The
OLI aqueous electrolyte thermodynamic model is automatically gener­
ated for the sodium carbonate and chloride chemistry used in Cases B
and C. While the parameters are hidden from the user, the model is in
good agreement with equilibrium and solubility data compiled along
with the recently published modeling efforts of Chen et al. (2022).
Pump, compressor, and heat exchanger unit operations were imple­
mented without modification. The columns were modeled as distillation
columns, with the number of trays representative of theoretical
Fig. 5. Process flow diagram for CO2 mineralization Case C. Refer to the caption of Fig. 4 for the explanation of equipment labels. Stream 19, not mentioned in the
text, is the moist air exiting the Na2CO3 dryer, D2.
5
Journal of Cleaner Production 416 (2023) 137846
equilibrium stages for the approximate sizing of the absorber and
stripper columns of Case A and bubble columns of Cases B and C. The
solid separation sections were each modeled with a single filtering
centrifuge that removed all solids with 1 wt% liquid entrainment, to
represent both the primary separation device (i.e., liquid cyclone or
rotating drum filter) and the subsequent washing and drying of the solid
product via rotating drum dryer. As a minor cost in terms of both capital
and operating expenses relative to the overall system, modeling of the
exact equipment was not deemed necessary (estimated costs are still
included in the economic analysis). The electrolysis cell system was
based on that described by Lee et al. (2018) in their design of a similar
CO2 mineralization system. It was modeled with a reactor and two
manual separators, assuming sufficient holdup for complete conversion
of Cl− to Cl2 at the anode and production of an equimolar amount of H2
by splitting water at the cathode. The coulombic efficiency was set to
70%, approximately the value observed by Lee et al. (2018) in their
experiments, corresponding to an energy requirement of 168.4
kWh/kmol Cl2 produced.
3.2. CO2 emission evaluation indicators
Table 2 lists the pertinent factors for operational considerations,
namely the price and CO2-equivalent emission factors of the utilities and
raw materials used in the carbon capture processes. The values in col­
umn “CO2 Factor” represent indirect CO2-equivalent emissions that
occur off-site, including electricity used to produce utilities, while the
column “Direct CO2 Emissions” contains emissions from burning natural
gas for direct heating and for steam generation. To determine the CO2
emissions per ton glass, simply multiply the emission factor (Tables 1
and 2) of given process input/output by the amount of that input/output
consumed/produced per ton glass.
Three types of net emissions are defined to summarize and compare
the cases. The net direct emissions (NDE, kg CO2/ton glass) are the total
CO2 emissions that occur at the site of operation less the CO2 captured,
defined as
NDE = ENG + Eglass + Esteam − Ecap (1)
where ENG is the CO2 emitted from burning natural gas, Eglass is the CO2
emitted from calcination reactions in the glass process, Esteam is the CO2
emitted by steam generation, and Ecap is the CO2 captured by the CC
process. Net real emissions (NRE, kg CO2/ton glass) occur both on-site
and off-site but can be measured in theory. They are defined as
B. Caudle et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 416 (2023) 137846

Table 2 (Ukita et al., 2022).

Summary of cost, CO2-equivalent emission factors for calculating indirect The emission factors for direct heating, steam, and cooling water
emissions, and direct emissions from burning natural gas for materials used in were calculated based on the material and energy contributions to their
the carbon capture processes. generation. The CO2 emitted directly from burning natural gas, as
Price CO2 Factor Direct CO2 Emissions opposed to indirect emissions from its production and transport, was
Input/Output (unit) ($/unit) (kg CO2/unit) (kg CO2/unit) calculated based on the CO2 produced by complete combustion of
methane (2.744 kg CO2/kg CH4). The CO2 emissions for low pressure
Electricity (kWh) 0.12a 0.439f
Natural Gas (GJ) 8.93b 21.4g 51.7
steam were calculated from the emissions of burning natural gas, with
Steam (GJ) 10.82 27.1 57.4 90% thermal efficiency, and an additional 7.5 kWh electricity per GJ
Cooling water (GJ) 0.354c 1.3 steam used to run the steam distribution system. The almost-negligible
MEA (ton) 1300d emissions associated with cooling water were calculated from the
Water (ton) 0.177c 0.49g
emissions of electricity by assuming that the cost of running the cooling
NaCl (ton) 52b 137g
NaHCO3 (ton) 358b 1360g water system came from the electricity used to run the system
Cl2 (ton) 373e 234g equipment.
H2 (ton) 3600e 13,240h
Wastewater (ton) 41c
3.3. Economic evaluation indicators
a
From METI (Agency for Natural Resources and Energy, 2022).
b
From UN Comtrade database (United Nations, 2022). The economic comparison of the three cases is based on the net
c
From Turton et al. (2012) present value, NPV, which considers both capital and operating ex­
d
From Kohl and Nielson (Kohl and Nielsen, 1997). penses over the lifetime of a process. The detailed equations for calcu­
e
From METI (Research and Statistics Department, 2020). lating NPV and intermediate variables can be found in Section II of
f
From JEPIC (Ukita et al., 2022).
g Turton et al. (2012) and included in Section S2 of the Supporting In­
From SimaPro database (PRé Sustainability B.V., 2019).
h formation, but factors unique to this process are discussed in this section.
From Parkinson et al. (2019)
The capital expenses are calculated based on the sizing information
for each piece of major equipment (heat exchangers, pumps, compres­
NRE = NDE + ERM + ECW + Eelec (2)
sors, and columns) using data from the simulations. To maintain con­
sistency between different factors, and particularly the electrolysis
where ERM is the indirect emissions from production and transportation
system of Lee et al. (2018), a Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index
of raw materials, ECW is the indirect emissions from cooling water, and
(CEPCI) value of 603 was selected. This corresponds to the average value
Eelec is the indirect emissions from electricity. Net avoided emissions
for 2018 but is approximately valid for 2018–2020, the period over
(NAE, kg CO2/ton glass) include purely hypothetical emissions from
which the most recent raw materials price data is consistently available.
replacing products that would otherwise be produced by conventional
With a dearth of specific information available in the literature, the cost
processes, defined as
of the membrane and cell stack for electrolysis are scaled up linearly
NAE = NRE − Eavoid (3) with membrane area for a given Cl2 production rate, based on the prices
reported by Lee et al. (2018).
where Eavoid is the avoided emissions: the CO2 that would be released It is postulated that the glass factory is located in Japan for the
through conventional production of an equal amount of NaHCO3, CL2, calculation of operating expenses. The price of raw materials is esti­
and/or H2. The three types of emissions are summarized in Fig. 6. mated based on information in the UN Comtrade Database (United
The CO2-equivalent emission factor for the production and trans­ Nations, 2022), based on the average value per unit of imports from the
portation of each raw material was sourced from SimaPro lifecycle four trade partners with the largest contributions of each material over
assessment software (PRé Sustainability B.V., 2019) unless otherwise the years 2019–2021. As there is insufficient data for the price of chlo­
noted. The emission factor for H2 is the central estimate of Parkinson rine and hydrogen gas in Comtrade, these values are estimated over the
et al. (2019) for steam methane reforming (SMR), currently the most same time period from the most recent industry statistics published by
common method for industrial production of H2. The amounts of MEA the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) (Research and
consumed and wastewater generated are so small that finding precise Statistics Department, 2020). The cost of direct heat from natural gas is
emission factors while maintaining consistency with the other values based on the import cost of LNG divided by the lower heating value
used in this study was determined to be impractical for these two given by Turton et al. (2012). The cost of low pressure steam is calcu­
components. The emission factor for electricity is taken from the data lated based on burning natural gas to provi de the heat energy and a
published by the Japan Electric Power Information Center (JEPIC), Inc. small amount of electricity for running pumps, etc. The cost of cooling
water is taken from Turton et al. (2012). The price of MEA and cooling
water were not updated, since the amount of MEA consumed and cost of
cooling water are very low and the prices have not changed drastically
enough for an accurate adjustment to be deemed worthwhile. The cost of
electricity is the nationwide average from the most recent data pub­
lished by METI (Agency for Natural Resources and Energy, 2022). The
solids drying equipment is sized and its energy requirements estimated
from publicly available data (FEECO International, 2022).
Based on the number of large pieces of equipment and solid handling
sections, Case A requires 3 operators per shift, Case B (1/2) requires 5
operators per shift, and Case C requires 7. All of these are in addition to
the operators of the glass furnace, the number of which is assumed to
remain constant. For consistency with the fundamental unit of one ton of
glass, the boundary was placed at the plant gate. The analysis thus ex­
cludes the costs of transport and storage of products and emissions from
their transport, storage, and use. Large glass furnaces are typically ex­
Fig. 6. Summary of emissions sources classifications. pected to operate over 20 years, so this is set as the payback period for

6
B. Caudle et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 416 (2023) 137846

calculation of NPV. The initial investment period is set to 3 years, and ton glass is captured in the absorber. Low pressure steam is used to
capital expenses were depreciated linearly over the first 5 years of supply 5.82 MW of heat to the reboiler, resulting in direct emissions of
operation. Additional financial considerations for base case evaluation 85 kg CO2/ton glass from the production of steam with natural gas. The
are a discount rate of 10%, an annual tax rate of 40%, and an operating flue gas compressor, CO2 product compressors, and refrigerant com­
time of 8400 h/year. pressors use a combined 856 kW of electricity, resulting in indirect
emissions of 27 kg CO2/ton glass. In the final step of the CO2 product
4. Model results liquification process, a small amount of CO2 remains uncondensed,
releasing an additional 8 kg CO2/ton glass. The disposition of the
The following subsections deal with the detailed results of the captured CO2 is not modeled in order to maintain a “cradle to gate”
modeling process. Table 3 summarizes major results of the CO2 capture boundary consistent with the analysis of the glass process and miner­
process models to aid in comparison. Detailed reports for the streams alization cases, which benefits this case by ignoring the cost of trans­
named in Figs. 3–5, as well as sizing information for the process portation and sequestration of the liquified CO2.
equipment, are included in Section S3 of the Supporting Information.
4.3. Case B1
4.1. Case 0
The capital expenses of the three mineralization cases are dominated
The burning of natural gas, air ingress to the furnace, and CO2 by the cost of the electrolysis cell stack, which accounts for 93% of the
released from the glass melting reactions result in a flue gas flowing at bare module cost. On the other hand, the total cost of all other equip­
1411.5 kmol/h containing 13.0 mol% CO2, 14.6 mol% H2O, 3.7 mol% ment (columns, compressors, pumps, and heat exchangers) is less than
O2, and 68.7 mol% N2. This results in unabated direct emissions of 388 half that of Case A. Case B1 also captures 380 kg CO2/ton glass, pro­
kg CO2/ton glass. To simplify subsequent comparisons, the economics of ducing 127.0 kton/year NaHCO3 that can be sold without further pro­
the glass melting process are not calculated in detail, assuming that it is cessing. This requires a feed of 88 kton/year of NaCl with associated
profitable enough to absorb the costs of running Case A. The price of raw indirect emissions of 76 kg CO2/ton glass. The byproducts of 53.6 kton/
materials is considered when substituting an output of a CCU case (H2 or year Cl2 and 1.5 kton/year H2 provide additional revenue. The main
Na2CO3) as an input to the glass process. Thus, from an economic energy requirements are 703 kW of electricity to run the flue gas
standpoint, the standard glass process is the ‘zero line’ against which the compressor, 625 kW of steam for heating the electrolysis system, and
following cases are compared. 15.16 MW of electricity for the electrolysis itself. The electricity used
causes indirect emissions of 334 kg CO2/ton glass, while the steam re­
sults in emissions of 9 kg CO2/ton glass.
4.2. Case A
4.4. Case B2
The largest source of capital expenditure associated with this case is
the heat exchangers, of which almost half of the cost is the stripper
With the partial substitution of natural gas with H2, the glass process
reboiler alone. Compressors for the flue gas and CO2 liquification also
produces 338 kg CO2 per ton glass, a reduction of 13% from the Case 0.
contribute significantly. The columns and other vessels together make
This reduction in the amount of CO2 needing to be captured results in
up less than 20% of the bare module cost, while the initial charge of MEA
lower capital and operating expenses, as well as a reduction in pro­
to the system is insignificant. With a recovery rate of 98%, 380 kg CO2/
duction to 110.6 kton/year NaHCO3 and 46.7 kton/year Cl2. This re­
quires a feed of 76.9 kton/year NaCl with associated indirect emissions
Table 3 of 60 kg CO2/ton glass. The energy requirements are reduced to 672 kW
Summary of select results from CO2 capture process modeling.
of electricity to run the flue gas compressor and 13.20 MW of electricity
Category Parameter (units) Case Case Case Case C for electrolysis. A portion of the H2 is used to provide process steam with
A B1 B2
no additional cost or CO2 emissions. The electricity used in the elec­
Capital Expenses Stripper Reboiler 2.0 trolysis system results in indirect emissions of 278 kg CO2/ton glass.
($M)
Electrolysis Cell 56.2 48.9 60.9
Stack ($M)
4.5. Case C
Compressors ($M) 1.9 1.1 1.1 1.1
Total Bare Modulea 7.2 60.6 53.2 65.1 The recycling of Na2CO3 has significant effects on both the distri­
($M) bution of sodium and CO2 in this process. As Na2CO3 captures half as
Operating CO2 Recovery Ratio 0.98 0.98 0.98 1.00 much CO2 per sodium as NaHCO3, additional NaCl must be supplied to
Conditions (kg/kg) the process and electrolyzed. This results in higher costs of electrolysis
Energy Heat Duty – LP 5.82 0.63 0.68 1.01 and higher production of Cl2 and H2. The increase in H2 production
Requirements Steam (MW) results in lower natural gas consumption when H2 is fed back to the glass
Compressor Power 0.86 0.70 0.67 0.67 furnace, which slightly lowers CO2 emissions from the glass process.
(MW)
Since a portion of CO2 is captured as Na2CO3 and “looped” back to the
Electrolysis Power 15.16 13.20 16.43
(MW) glass process, the amount of new CO2 entering the system is reduced and
Total (MW) 6.68 16.49 13.87b 17.10b thus the amount of NaHCO3 produced is reduced further compared to
Raw Materials NaCl (kton/yr) 88.4 76.9 96.7
Cases B1 and B2.
To precipitate the necessary amount of Na2CO3, the liquid leaving
Products NaHCO3 (kton/yr) 127.0 110.6 80.2
the absorber has a higher concentration of CO2− 3 and thus the absorber
Na2CO3 (kton/yr) 35.3c
Cl2 (kton/yr) 53.6 46.7 58.1 runs more efficiently. Because of this, 100% of the CO2 produced in the
H2 (kton/yr) 1.5 1.3c 1.7c glass process, 334 kg CO2/ton glass, is captured.
a
Includes the cost of other equipment (vessels, pumps, etc.) but not contin­
gency and fees.
b
Excludes LP steam produced with H2 generated via electrolysis.
c
Products of the CO2 capture process that are used within the glass or CCU
process.

7
B. Caudle et al.
5. Evaluation and discussion
5.1. CO2 emission evaluation
Fig. 7 compares the emissions of the five cases. The bars above the
ordinal axis represent the CO2 emitted, either indirectly through raw
material production or electricity generation, or directly through natu­
ral gas burning or glass melting reactions. The bars beneath the ordinal
axis represent CO2 captured and “avoided emissions”, which are emis­
sions that would normally be attributed to the production of an equiv­
alent mass of the given product (PRé Sustainability B.V., 2019). The
points represent net direct emissions, net real emissions and net avoided
emissions as defined in Section 3.2. Since Cases 0 and A have no avoided
emissions, the net real emissions and net avoided emissions of these
cases are identical.
When comparing CO2 emissions, the optimum process is highly
dependent on the choice of emissions accounting method. When looking
at net real emissions, which include those generated off-site, the con­
ventional amine process in Case A shows the largest reduction. Cases B
and C have relatively large indirect emissions as a result of the electricity
needed to run the electrolysis system. By this measure, Case B1 emits
more CO2 than the unmitigated glass process, which is to be expected
when energy is being used to simultaneously capture CO2 and to pro­
duce additional products (NaHCO3, Cl2, and H2). In fact, it is noteworthy
that Cases B2 and C are effectively three processes combined into one
process that still generates lower CO2 emissions than the baseline glass
process alone.
When avoided CO2 emissions are included (in net avoided
Fig. 7. Summary of positive and negative emissions for the glass process and four alternative carbon capture processes. Since Cases 0 and A have no avoided
emissions, their net real emissions and net avoided emissions are identical.
8
Journal of Cleaner Production 416 (2023) 137846
emissions), Cases B and C show net negative emissions by eliminating
the large CO2 emissions associated with conventional production of
NaHCO3, Cl2, and H2. This represents a case where these processes are
looked at in a more wholistic manner, with the carbon capture unit
acting as a replacement for NaHCO3 production via the Solvay process,
the chlorine-producing half of the chlor-alkali process, and H2 produced
via SMR. By this measure, Case B1 becomes the optimum by producing
the most additional products with minimal increase in CO2 emissions
relative to conventional glass production.
When only direct emissions are considered (in net direct emissions),
Case C is the optimum, as the more efficient absorber completely cap­
tures CO2 with only electrical energy. Case B2 is very close, but the
recovery rate of 98% allows a small amount of CO2 to escape. Case B1
has the same recovery rate as Case B2, but using natural gas to produce
steam for the carbon capture process increases the direct emissions
slightly. Case A has the lowest emissions reduction, as the heat energy
required by the stripper is provided by steam generated by burning
natural gas. This relative ranking would apply to net real emissions as
well in a situation where the electricity grid is completely decarbonized.
The energy performance of each Case is summarized in Fig. 8. The
amount of direct heating required by the glass process is unchanged, but
Cases B2 and C supply a significant portion of that energy via burning of
H2. Case A has higher cooling requirements than Cases B and C due to
the requirements of the stripper condenser and the CO2 liquification
process. Excluding the emission-free energy supplied by H2, Cases A, B2,
and C all have energy requirements of around 40 MW.
As the CO2 emissions from electricity generation are a major
component in the net emissions of Cases B and C, the CO2 emission
B. Caudle et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 416 (2023) 137846

Fig. 8. Energy demand of the glass and combined glass-CCU/CCS processes. Values in parentheses indicate the energy demand excluding heat supplied by H2.

factor for electricity is varied to demonstrate the future emissions of the
processes. A typical plant would source their electricity from the avail­
able grid mix, rather than procure a dedicated power generation facility,
and so these emission factors are not associated with a particular energy
source. The emission factor is only considered to decrease, as a rapid
decarbonization of the electric grid is necessary to the goal of achieving
net zero CO2 emissions in any realistic scenario. This sensitivity study
using net real emissions – ignoring avoided emissions for the sake of
comparison – has specific points illustrated in Fig. 9. An emission factor
for electricity of 0.180 kg CO2/kWh would bring the net real emissions
of Case C equal to those of Case A. An emission factor of 0.017 kg CO2/
kWh is required to bring Cases A and B1 to parity. If the factor is set to 0
kg CO2/kWh, representing a future scenario where all electricity comes
from net-zero-emission sources, all mineralization cases have lower
emissions than the conventional CCS case. Under these conditions, Case
C has only indirect emissions from raw material acquisition, at a level
just over half that of Case A.
It is common in some regions to supply sodium carbonate to the glass
process in the form of trona, a mineral consisting mainly of
Na2CO3⋅NaHCO3⋅H2O (Carter and Norton, 2013). Use of trona reduces
indirect emissions from the production of raw materials compared to the
Solvay process, but the oxidation of trona in the glass furnace requires
more heat energy and releases a third more CO2 per mole Na2O relative
to soda ash (approximately pure Na2CO3). The relative strengths of
Cases A and B would be unchanged, as the reduction in indirect emis­
sions from raw materials would affect them all equally. It is likely that

Fig. 9. Net real CO2 emissions (direct + indirect) of the four carbon capture processes and their sensitivity to the CO2 emission factor of electricity. Emission factors
are chosen to illustrate relationships between the cases and do not represent any specific mix of grid electricity sources.

9
B. Caudle et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 416 (2023) 137846

Case C would benefit by comparing it to a process that utilizes trona, as profitable without the need to improve estimations further in their
its ratio of Na2CO3 to NaHCO3 fed to the glass furnace (9:1) is some­ favor.
where between that of soda ash (1:0) and trona (1:1). As a result, the The economic results are another demonstration of the trade-offs
glass formation reactions in the furnace attached to Case C require more associated with each process. Case A has significantly lower capital in­
energy than those in a furnace that uses soda ash and less energy than vestment and operating expenses than Cases B and C, which include the
those in a furnace that uses trona. considerable costs of the electrolysis cell stack and electricity. The
advantage ends there, however, as Case A does not produce anything of
value and so does not have any means of offsetting the cost of CO2
5.2. Economic evaluation
capture beyond avoidance of a hypothetical carbon tax (set to zero for
the baseline comparison to reflect its current value). Furthermore, the
Capital expenses, divided among compressors, columns, the stripper
cost of CO2 sequestration is not accounted for in this analysis and may be
reboiler (for Case A), other heat exchangers, and the electrolysis section
expected to put Case A at further disadvantage. The cost of sequestration
(for Cases B & C) are summarized in Fig. 10. “Other” capital costs
is an additional burden on the CO2 producer, while disposition of
include small peripheral equipment such as flash vessels and pumps.
NaHCO3, Cl2, and H2 are handled in conjunction with the purchasers of
Detailed information for the sizing of process equipment is included in
these products.
Section S3 of the Supporting Information. While Case A has a low
Case B1 has the highest profit margin, with all the captured CO2
amount of various capital costs, the capital costs of Cases B and C are
converted to NaHCO3 and additional value derived from Cl2 and H2.
dominated by the electrolysis cell stack. The differences in cost between
Case B2 is slightly less profitable, as the reduction in CO2 emissions from
the mineralization cases depend on the throughput of the electrolysis
substituting H2 into the glass process reduces the amount of NaHCO3
system, with Case B2 requiring the smallest cell stack due to the
produced while removing the income from sales of H2. Although the lost
reduction in the amount of CO2 captured and Case C requiring the
income from sales of H2 is small, the corresponding savings in natural
largest cell stack to electrolyze additional NaCl for conversion to
gas do not quite make up the difference. Case C is only slightly less
Na2CO3. Reducing the cost of this piece of equipment should be a top
profitable, with the significant reduction in NaHCO3 production mostly
priority, as it has an outsize effect on bare module costs, contingency
offset by eliminating the need to purchase Na2CO3 for the glass process
costs, and maintenance estimates.
and an increase in Cl2 production. The net present value charts in Fig. 12
The operating costs and income for each process are summarized in
reflect these differences, with Case A showing a smaller initial invest­
Fig. 11. Operating costs, appearing as negative bars below the ordinal
ment followed by a continuous loss while the other cases gradually
axis, include the costs of utilities and raw materials as well as peripheral
recoup their larger initial investments. Cases B1, B2, and C show dis­
costs such as maintenance, labor, and miscellaneous expenses. Oper­
counted payback periods of 3.8, 4.4, and 6.0 years, respectively.
ating income includes the income from sales of NaHCO3, Cl2, and H2 as
Dividing the NPV20 by the amount of CO2 captured over the life of the
well as savings in the glass process from replacement of natural gas and
plant, Case A is shown to significantly reduce direct emissions at a
soda ash, where appropriate. Again, the costs of Case A are divided
levelized cost of $48.6/ton CO2. This calculation cannot be applied to
among operating the various pieces of equipment, while Cases B and C
Cases B or C, however, as they generate a profit based on the sales of
are dominated by the cost of electrolysis. This cost includes both the
multiple products, each with its own additional avoided CO2 emissions.
direct cost of electricity and the indirect cost of maintenance, which is
However emissions are calculated, the levelized “costs” of CO2 reduction
proportional to the capital cost of the electrolysis cell stack. Increasing
for Cases B and C are negative.
the efficiency of electrolysis would both improve process economics and
The sensitivity studies illustrated in Fig. 13 demonstrate the effects of
reduce the indirect emissions from electricity. The calculation of capital
two important factors on the economics of the four cases. While the
costs of the full-scale electrolysis cell in Lee et al. (2018) was performed
possibility of a carbon tax or carbon credit is still being debated, the
by a third party, and it is likely that both the cost and efficiency of the
economic effects of a carbon credit on process profitability are simulated
electrolysis section will have improved since their work was published.
here. Avoided emissions from additional products are excluded to
However, public sources with economic analyses of this type of elec­
simplify accounting, as Cases B and C are already clearly profitable
trolysis system are scarce, and the mineralization cases are already

Fig. 10. Summary of capital costs for the four alternative carbon capture processes. The glass process, which is the same in each case, has a baseline cost of 0.

10
B. Caudle et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 416 (2023) 137846

Fig. 11. Summary of operating income and expenses for the four alternative carbon capture processes. Case 0 is the baseline income of 0, and any savings to the glass
process in other cases are reflected as income.

Fig. 12. Net present values of the four carbon capture processes over a project lifetime of 20 years.

without carbon credits. The carbon credit must be at least 191 $/ton CO2
for Case A to have a positive NPV20, while the same credit would raise
the NPV20 of the other processes well above a hundred million each. The
price of electricity is another important factor, as it is required in large
amounts for Cases B and C. Increasing the price of electricity to 0.177
$/kWh while maintaining all other factors constant would cause Case C
to have a negative NPV20, and the price would have to increase to 0.240
$/kWh for Case B1 to become likewise unprofitable.
Of all the cases, Case B1consistently has a higher NPV20. A 20%
across-the-board decrease in the price of products (NaHCO3, Cl2, H2)
and increase in the price of raw materials (Na2CO3, natural gas) can be
absorbed by all mineralization cases, resulting in mediocre but positive
NPV20 of $27.7 M, $13.7 M, and $15.9 M for Case B1, B2, and C
respectively. In that scenario, the NPV20 of Case A decreases slightly, to
$-50.9 M, due to the increased price of natural gas. Leaving all else
constant, a 35% decrease in the price of NaHCO3 would be enough to
bring the NPV20 of Cases B2 and C to $-0.7 M and $0 M, respectively,
while Case B1 would be left at $19.0 M. If the storage and transportation

11
B. Caudle et al.
Fig. 13. Sensitivity study comparing the effects of a carbon tax or credit (solid lines) or electricity prices (dashed lines) on the NPV20 of the various CO2 capture
scenarios. The baseline is a carbon tax/credit of 0 $/ton CO2 and electricity price of 0.12 $/kWh.
of H2 is cost-prohibitive, giving the H2 produced zero value, Cases B1
and B2 would come closer together, with NPV20 of $72.3 M and $70.1 M,
respectively. Case B1 still barely edges out B2 because, under current
conditions, it is just barely profitable to convert the extra CO2 produced
from burning natural gas into NaHCO3. A simultaneous 7.5% drop in the
price of NaHCO3, however, would reverse this relationship, making B2
the optimum case.
6. Conclusions
This novel arrangement of CO2 mineralization to NaHCO3 demon­
strates how combining two energy intensive processes – glass and
NaHCO3 production – can significantly reduce the net CO2 emissions of
these processes. Case B1 shows the highest profitability (payback period
of 3.8 years) and largest emissions reduction (− 528 kg CO2/ton glass)
once avoided emissions are considered. This emissions reduction is only
expected to grow as the electricity grid decarbonizes, leading to a po­
tential scenario where the co-production of glass and NaHCO3 is com­
mon, with the disposition of chlorine the only factor of concern. The
other cases show various characteristics that might be preferred based
on market conditions: Case A has significantly lower capital costs ($8.4
M) and the lowest net real emissions (353 kg CO2/ton glass) of all the
cases. This case, however, requires CO2 to have a price of $191/ton
before it can be cost-neutral over the lifetime of the glass furnace. Case
B2 has the lowest capital costs of any of the mineralization cases ($62.8
M) and avoids the potential costs of hydrogen export incurred by Case
B1. Case C has higher capital expenses and less operating profits, but
profitably decreases the net real emissions of the glass process by
substituting Na2CO3 produced via mineralization for soda ash produced
via the Solvay process. Sensitivity studies indicate that the relative
profitability of the cases is stable, except in some extreme circumstances
such as a large drop in the value of one or more products.
This work illustrates how a large capital investment can drastically
reduce emissions of two hard-to-abate industries, glass and soda ash,
while maintaining profitability. Due to limits in the demand of NaHCO3,
mineralization cannot be applied universally as a one-size-fits-all solu­
tion to CO2 abatement. However, when applied strategically, it shows
the potential to provide a long-term solution for difficult-to-abate
12
Journal of Cleaner Production 416 (2023) 137846
industries.
Credit Author Statement
B.C: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, and Validation,
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. S.K: Conceptuali­
zation, Writing – review & editing, Supervision. S.T: Investigation,
Methodology, and Validation. T.N: Investigation, Writing – review &
editing. All authors approve the final version of the manuscript.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful to Mm. Terutaka Maehara, Toshiyuki
Tanaka, Tohru Kamihori, and Mio Hidaka of AGC Inc. for fruitful
discussions.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137846.
References
Agency for Natural Resources and Energy, 2022. Trends in Secondary Energy: Electricity.
Annual Report on Energy. Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI, Japan).
AVEVA Group plc, 2020. AVEVA PRO/II Simulation 2020.
Bolen, W.P., 2022. Soda ash. In: U.S. Geological Survey (Ed.), Mineral Commodity
Summaries 2022. U.S. Department of the Interior, pp. 154–155.
B. Caudle et al.
Bureau of Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC), 2007. Soda Ash. In:
Reference Document on Best Available Techniques for the Manufacture of Large
Volume Inorganic Chemicals - Solids and Others industry.
Carter, C.B., Norton, N.G., 2013. Processing Glass and Glass-Ceramics, Ceramic
Materials. Springer, New York, NY, pp. 463–480.
Carvela, M., Mena, I.F., Raschitor, A., Lobato, J., Rodrigo, M.A., 2021. Towards the
electrochemical retention of CO2: is it worth it? Chemelectrochem 8 (20),
3947–3953.
Chen, P.-C., Shi, W., Du, R., Chen, V., 2008. Scrubbing of CO2 greenhouse gases,
accompanied by precipitation in a continuous bubble-column scrubber. Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 47, 6336–6343.
Chen, T., Honarparvar, S., Reible, D., Chen, C.-C., 2022. Thermodynamic modeling of
calcium carbonate scale precipitation: aqueous Na+-Ca2+-Cl–-HCO3–-CO32–-CO2
system. Fluid Phase Equil. 552, 113263–113274.
Cichosz, M., Kielkowska, U., Skowron, K., Kiedzik, L., Lazarski, S., Szkudlarek, M.,
Kowalska, B., Zurawski, D., 2022. Changes in synthetic soda ash production and its
consequences for the environment. Materials 15 (14), 4827–4848.
Cozzi, L., Gul, T., 2021. Net Zero by 2050 - A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector, 4
ed. International Energy Agency.
de Kleijne, K., Hanssen, S.V., van Dinteren, L., Huijbregts, M.A.J., van Zelm, R., de
Coninck, H., 2022. Limits to Paris compatibility of CO2 capture and utilization. One
Earth 5 (2), 168–185.
Díaz-Ibarra, O., Abad, P., Molina, A., 2013. Design of a day tank glass furnace using a
transient model and steady-state computation fluid dynamics. Appl. Therm. Eng. 52
(2), 555–565.
FEECO International, 2022. Rotary Dryers & Coolers. Green Bay, WI.
Furszyfer Del Rio, D.D., Sovacool, B.K., Foley, A.M., Griffiths, S., Bazilian, M., Kim, J.,
Rooney, D., 2022. Decarbonizing the glass industry: a critical and systematic review
of developments, sociotechnical systems and policy options. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 155.
Garcia-Garcia, G., Fernandez, M.C., Armstrong, K., Woolass, S., Styring, P., 2021.
Analytical review of life-cycle environmental impacts of carbon capture and
utilization technologies. ChemSusChem 14 (4), 995–1015.
Gärtner, S., Marx-Schubach, T., Gaderer, M., Schmitz, G., Sterner, M., 2023. Techno-
economic analysis of carbon dioxide separation for an innovative energy concept
towards low-emission glass melting. Energies 16 (5).
Gärtner, S., Rank, D., Heberl, M., Gaderer, M., Dawoud, B., Haumer, A., Sterner, M.,
2021. Simulation and techno-economic analysis of a power-to-hydrogen process for
oxyfuel glass melting. Energies 14 (24).
Gerres, T., Chaves Ávila, J.P., Llamas, P.L., San Román, T.G., 2019. A review of cross-
sector decarbonisation potentials in the European energy intensive industry.
J. Clean. Prod. 210, 585–601.
Goharrizi, R.S., Abolpour, B., 2013. Estimation of nucleation and growth rate of sodium
bicarbonate crystals in a steady-state bubble column reactor. Res. Chem. Intermed.
41 (3), 1459–1471.
Gonterman, J.R., Weinstein, M.A., 2006. High Intensity Plasma Glass Melter Project -
Final DOE Report.
Hungaro Yoshi, H.C.M., Silva, A.B., de Souza, M., Bernardo de Faria, S.H., Bernardo, A.,
Bonfim-Rocha, L., 2022. Multi-criteria assessment of sodium bicarbonate optimized
production through CO2 utilization strategies. J. Clean. Prod. 349.
Huttenhuis, P., Roeloffzen, A., Versteeg, G., 2016. CO2 capture and Re-use at a waste
incinerator. Energy Proc. 86, 47–55.
Ireson, R., Fuller, A., Woods, J., Simon, R., Andrews, G., Bingham, P., Hakes, S.,
Davies, M., 2019. Alternative Fuel Switching Technologies for the Glass Sector.
Department of BusinessEnergy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) Industrial Fuel Switching
Competition Phase 2.
Keith, D.W., Holmes, G., St Angelo, D., Heidel, K., 2018. A process for capturing CO2
from the atmosphere. Joule 2 (8), 1573–1594.
Knuutila, H., Svendsen, H.S., Anttila, M., 2009. CO2 capture from coal-fired power plants
based on sodium carbonate slurry; a systems feasibility and sensitivity study. Int. J.
Greenh. Gas Control 3 (2), 143–151.
Kohl, A.L., Nielsen, R.B., 1997. Chapter 2 - alkanolamines for hydrogen sulfide and
carbon dioxide removal. In: Kohl, A.L., Nielsen, R.B. (Eds.), Gas Purification, fifth ed.
Gulf Professional Publishing, Houston, pp. 40–186.
Lee, J.H., Lee, D.W., Kwak, C., Kang, K., Lee, J.H., 2019. Technoeconomic and
environmental evaluation of sodium bicarbonate production using CO2 from flue gas
of a coal-fired power plant. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 58 (34), 15533–15541.
13
Journal of Cleaner Production 416 (2023) 137846
Lee, J.H., Lee, J.H., Park, I.K., Lee, C.H., 2018. Techno-economic and environmental
evaluation of CO2 mineralization technology based on bench-scale experiments.
J. CO2 Util. 26, 522–536.
Ma, Y., Preveniou, A., Kladis, A., Pettersen, J.B., 2022. Circular economy and life cycle
assessment of alumina production: Simulation-based comparison of Pedersen and
Bayer processes. J. Clean. Prod. 366.
Medina-Martos, E., Gálvez-Martos, J.-L., Almarza, J., Lirio, C., Iribarren, D., Valente, A.,
Dufour, J., 2022. Environmental and economic performance of carbon capture with
sodium hydroxide. J. CO2 Util. 60.
Motohashi, S., Ishino, M., Todaka, N., Hashimoto, S., Sakaguchi, J., 2011. Engineering
consideration of surface facilities for a candidate CCS demonstration project in
Japan. Energy Proc. 4, 5586–5593.
Osman, A.I., Hefny, M., Abdel Maksoud, M.I.A., Elgarahy, A.M., Rooney, D.W., 2021.
Recent advances in carbon capture storage and utilisation technologies: a review.
Environ. Chem. Lett. 19 (2), 797–849.
Parkinson, B., Balcombe, P., Speirs, J.F., Hawkes, A.D., Hellgardt, K., 2019. Levelized
cost of CO2 mitigation from hydrogen production routes. Energy Environ. Sci. 12
(1), 19–40.
Pré Sustainability, B.V., 2019. SimaPro.
Research and Statistics Department, 2020. Yearbook of Current Production Statistics -
Chemical Industry. Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI).
Rissman, J., Bataille, C., Masanet, E., Aden, N., Morrow, W.R., Zhou, N., Elliott, N.,
Dell, R., Heeren, N., Huckestein, B., Cresko, J., Miller, S.A., Roy, J., Fennell, P.,
Cremmins, B., Koch Blank, T., Hone, D., Williams, E.D., de la Rue du Can, S.,
Sisson, B., Williams, M., Katzenberger, J., Burtraw, D., Sethi, G., Ping, H.,
Danielson, D., Lu, H., Lorber, T., Dinkel, J., Helseth, J., 2020. Technologies and
policies to decarbonize global industry: review and assessment of mitigation drivers
through 2070. Appl. Energy 266, 114848–114881.
Ruiz, C., Rincón, L., Contreras, R.R., Sidney, C., Almarza, J., 2020. Sustainable and
negative carbon footprint solid-based NaOH technology for CO2 capture. ACS
Sustain. Chem. Eng. 8 (51), 19003–19012.
Santos, M.P.S., Hanak, D.P., 2022. Carbon capture for decarbonisation of energy-
intensive industries: a comparative review of techno-economic feasibility of solid
looping cycles. Front. Chem. Sci. Eng. 16 (9), 1291–1317.
Scalet, B.M., Garcia Munoz, M., Sissa, A.Q., Roudier, S., Delgado Sencho, L., 2013. In:
Control, I.P.P.a. (Ed.), Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the
Manufacture of Glass, European Comission.
Shim, J.-G., Lee, D.W., Lee, J.H., Kwak, N.-S., 2016. Experimental study on capture of
carbon dioxide and production of sodium bicarbonate from sodium hydroxide.
Environmental Engineering Research 21 (3), 297–303.
Song, C., 2006. Global challenges and strategies for control, conversion and utilization of
CO2 for sustainable development involving energy, catalysis, adsorption and
chemical processing. Catal. Today 115 (1–4), 2–32.
Steinhauser, G., 2008. Cleaner production in the Solvay Process: general strategies and
recent developments. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (7), 833–841.
Testa, M., Malandrino, O., Sessa, M., Supino, S., Sica, D., 2017. Long-term sustainability
from the perspective of cullet recycling in the container glass industry: evidence
from Italy. Sustainability 9 (10), 1752–1770.
Turton, R., Bailie, R.C., Whiting, W.B., Sheaiwitz, J.A., Bhattacharyya, D., 2012.
Analysis, Synthesis, and Design of Chemical Processes, fourth ed. Prentice Hall,
Tokyo.
U.S. DOE, 2015. Innovating clean energy technologies in advanced manufacturing, in:
quadrennial technology review. In: An Assessment of Energy Technologies and
Research Opportunities.
Ukita, D., Sato, R., Nabeshima, M., Hirano, M., Masaki, Y., Sakamoto, S., Watanabe, T.,
Okamura, T., Yamamoto, T., Kodama, K., Takahashi, K., 2022. The Electric Power
Industry in Japan. Japan Electric Power Information Center, Inc.
UNFCCC, 2015. Adoption of the Paris agreement. In: Framework Convention on Climate
Change. United Nations, Paris.
United Nations, 2022. UN Comtrade Database. https://comtradeplus.un.org/. Accessed
December 2022).
Walters, J., 2016. Final Report, Recovery Act: SkyMine Beneficial CO2 Use Project.
United States Department of Energy.
Yazawa, K., Shakouri, A., Hendricks, T.J., 2017. Thermoelectric heat recovery from glass
melt processes. Energy 118, 1035–1043.