Carbon Capture and Utilisation for

Decarbonisation of Industrial Clusters

Prof. Dawid Hanak
Net Zero Industry Innovation Centre
Background
Background
CCUS is an emerging sector:
• Support 50,000 jobs by 2030
• Deliver £4.3 bn GVA by 2050
• Deliver up to 5 GW of low
carbon hydrogen production.
• Store ~30 MtCO2/a by 2030
 Industrial clusters across
GRANGEMOUTH
the UK are the largest
4.3 MtCO2
emitters of CO2
TEESSIDE
3.1 MtCO2 Chemicals Power Hydrogen Oil refining
MERSEYSIDE EAST COAST CLUSTER
2.6 MtCO2 15.5 MtCO2
HUMBERSIDE
12.4 MtCO2

Steel & iron Ceramics Food & drink Cement

SOUTH WALES
8.2 MtCO2

SOUTHAMPTON
2.6 MtCO2
Background
Subheadings: Main body text
Subheadings: Main body text
CCUS for industrial
decarbonisation
CCUS at Teesside
Net Zero Teesside Power
↳ 860 MWe NGCC
↳ 2 million tonnes of CO2
H2Teesside
↳ 1.2 GW blue hydrogen
↳ 2 million tonnes of CO2
Teesside Hydrogen CO2 capture
↳ 0.2 million tonnes of CO2
Source: BP
Industries beyond power generation & hydrogen
production will also need CCUS.
CCUS for Waste-to-Energy
CCUS for waste-to-energy
Role of waste-to-energy processes:
• 18% of total CO2 emissions in the Teesside Cluster

• 20 MtCO2e/a in the UK

• 600 gCO2/kWh (coal-fired power plants ~700-800 gCO2/kWh)

ESME shows that unabated WtEs will be phased out by 2040

 CCUS for waste-to-energy Conventional solvent
scrubbing is not fit for
WtE process:
• Solvent regeneration
takes up to 66% of total
thermal input

• 30% reduction in power

output

• 12% reduction in heat

AECOM (2020), Next Generation Capture Technology
output
Carbonate looping
Reaction
CO2 + CaO → CaCO3

Operating conditions

Carbonator: 650°C, 1.05 bar

Calciner: >900°C, 1.05 bar

Average sorbent conversion: 18%

Carbonate looping
Key benefits of carbonate looping:

• High-temperature operation allows

for high-grade heat recovery

• Increased heat and power output

• Increased waste processing rate

Carbonate looping
Key challenges of carbonate
looping:

• large added footprint to the

existing plant
• need for energy-intensive air
separation unit
• sorbent deactivation (sulfation,
sintering)
Cleveland WtE plant
Case Study
Reference host plant
Cleveland WtE plant by Hitachi Zosen Inova @ Suez Tees Valley
• Thermal output: 46 MWth
• Electrical output: 10.4 MWe
• Electrical efficiency: 22.6%HHV
• Waste processing rate: 18.2 t/h
• CO2 emissions: 659.8 g/kWh

Source: Hitachi-Inova
Reference host plant
Assuming UK ETS 50 £/t and gate fee 100 £/t:
• Investment cost: £163m
• Operating cost: £2.9m/a
• Break even electricity price: £154/MWh
(in line with BEIS when no ETS & at hurdle rate 6.5% considered)

Source: Hitachi-Inova
CaL retrofit to WtE
Cleveland WtE plant by Hitachi Zosen Inova with CaL as post-
combustion capture
• Electrical output: 14.3 MWe (host 10.4 MWe + CaL 3.9 MWe)
• Electrical efficiency: 14.5%HHV
• Efficiency penalty: 8.1% points
• Waste processing rate: 33.6 t/h
(host 18.2 t/h + CaL 15.4 t/h)
CaL retrofit to WtE
Assuming UK ETS 50 £/t and gate fee 100 £/t:
• Investment cost: £254m
• Operating cost: £4.6m/a
• Break even electricity price: £101/MWh
WtE case study overview
Parameter Host WtE WtE+CaL 𝞓 (%)
Electrical output (MW e) 10.4 14.3 +37.5%
Electrical efficiency (% HHV) 22.6 14.5 -8.1% points
Waste processing rate (t/h) 18.2 33.6 +84.6%
CO2 emissions (g/kWh) 659.8 -1284 -
CAPEX (£m) 163 254 +55.8%
OPEX (£m/a) 2.9 4.6 +58.6%
Electricity price (£/MWh) 154 101 -34.4%
CCUS for Food Manufacturing
CCUS for food manufacturing
How to decarbonise smaller emitters?
• Quorn fermentation emits about 13 ktCO2/year

• Quorn consumes about 6 ktCO2/year (~100-350 £/t; up to 3,000 £/t in Aug ‘22)

• Too small to connect to T&S network?

QuornTMmycoprotein
Case Study
Quorn mycoprotein process
Key operating characteristics: (open source – to be validated)

• CO2 in vent gas: 429-580 kg/h

• CO2 concentration: 3-4%vol

• ”Clean” vent gas – no SOx/NOx

Controlled Mold, Quorn: A story about Single Cell Protein
https://controlledmold.com/quorn-a-story-about-single-cell-protein/
Amine solvent scrubbing
• Commercial technology

• Needs steam @ >130°C for

solvent regeneration
(2.28 kg/kgCO2)

• Solvent scrubbing would add

to current steam & electricity
demand

Hanak et al. (2015), International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 34, 52-52
Amine solvent scrubbing
Compressors

Economic analysis & fans

28%

• Steam requirement: +170%

• Power requirement: +8.6% Solvent
scrubbing
Fixed cost
8%
72%
• CO2 emissions: -90%
Variable
cost Steam
4% 18%
• Lifecycle Cost: £128/tCO2
Electricity
Solvent 18%
31%
ETS
13%
CO2 T&S
8%
Carbonate looping

• Needs energy for sorbent

regeneration (gas @ 0.1 kg/kgCO2 or
electricity @ 1.56 MWh/tCO2)

• Carbonate looping can reduce energy

requirement (heat or power)

Hanak et al. (2015), Energy and Environmental Science, 8(8), 2199-2249

Carbonate looping (power)
Heat

• Gas requirement: 0.1 t/tCO2

exchanger
Air separation 19% Pumps
unit 2%
27%

• Power requirement: -26.4% Compressors

& fans
Variable Fixed cost
22%
Reactors cost 4%
• CO2 emissions: -90%
20%
9%

Sorbent
Steam cycle

• Lifecycle Cost: £112.7/tCO2 10% 10% Gas

49%
CO2 T&S
15%

ETS
13%
Carbonate looping (methanation)
Heat Pumps Compressor
exchanger 1% s & fans
8% 1%
Air
• Gas produced: 0.6 t/tCO2
Steam
separation cycle
unit 6%
18%

• Steam requirement: -34%*

• Power requirement: -3.3%* Reactors Sorbent Fixed cost Variable
66%
2% 1% cost
ETS
• CO2 emissions: -90%
Gas 2%
5% 8%

• Lifecycle Cost:
£261/tCO2-£378.00/tCO2*
H2
82%
Key takeaways
1. Carbonate looping can be a promising post-combustion option for CO2 removal from WtE
offering
• Increased waste processing rates by >85%
• Increased electricity production by >35%
• Opportunity for carbon-negative generation (*if verified by full LCA)
2. Amine scrubbing can be a good option for small emitters if:
• Process steam is available at a low cost
• No gas connection available
• No site available for CaL
3. Integration of CO2 use with small emitters may not be viable:
• CCU equipment accounts for >66% of CAPEX
• Hydrogen accounts for >82% of OPEX, even at £2/kg
• Potential for centralised CO2 use yet to be explored
R&D challenges and needs
• Sorbent performance improvements

• Reactor design for improved mass transfer

• Integrated processes – polygeneration

• Technology development to TRL6/7 & beyond

Thank you for your time!
Prof. Dawid Hanak

www.nziic.co.uk
netzero@tees.ac.uk
d.hanak@tees.ac.uk
01642 342059
Net Zero Industry Innovation Centre
@TU_NZIIC
Find me on LinkedIn