Techno-economic and carbon footprint

assessment of advanced waste-to-energy

with CO2 capture and storage for East
Coast Cluster
Final report

Prepared by Prof Hanak

[Link]@[Link]

16 September 2024
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This work was supported by the UK Carbon Capture and Storage Research
Community Flexible Funding [2023]. The UKCCSRC is supported by the EPSRC as
part of the UKRI Energy Programme.
NET ZERO INDUSTRY INNOVATION CENTRE
The Net Zero Industry Innovation Centre (NZIIC), Teesside University, is an innovative
new £13.1m facility and a key component of Tees Valley Combined Authority's
regional innovation strategy, which will position Teesside firmly at the heart of the UK's
green industrial revolution.

Supporting the ongoing drive for clean energy and sustainability, the NZIIC is the latest
development at the expanding Net Zero Innovation Hub, spearheaded by Teesside
University and based on the Tees Advanced Manufacturing Park (TeesAMP) in
Middlesbrough.

The Net Zero Innovation Hub brings together expert insight, resources, and
partnerships to grow net zero capabilities and opportunities, placing the region at the
forefront of the clean energy agenda and helping to create hundreds more clean
energy jobs. The NZIIC is industry-led and industry-focused in its approach, working
with business partners and key organisations and will focus on developing new
approaches to tackle the impact of waste and pollution on the environment, utilising
expertise around industrial decarbonisation, sustainability, and the circular economy.

Our core areas of expertise include:

• Hydrogen and decarbonisation - Adapting hydrogen applications, optimising

industrial processes and developing alternatives to current chemicals and
overcoming the challenges of hydrogen storage and carbon capture.

• Circular economy - Investigating applications of thermal and chemical

processing and recycling to optimise, reduce costs and bring new technology
to market.

• Intelligent energy and industrial systems - Supporting product and service

innovation to drive forward the smart energy and smart grid agenda.

• Digital modelling and simulation - Providing support for the maintenance and
operation of industrial assets, including virtual and artificial reality and remote
operations.
PROJECT CONTEXT
The UK Government has committed to enhancing UK’s hydrogen and carbon capture,
utilisation and storage (CCUS) capacity in the Ten Point Plan. These technologies are
expected to play a major role in the decarbonisation of industrial clusters. East Coast
Cluster, one of the Track-1 clusters, aspires to deliver CCUS infrastructure that will
remove almost 50% of the UK industrial emissions. The considered projects focus on
low-carbon hydrogen production and power generation. They will result in the
development of the strategic transport and storage infrastructure necessary for
ramping up the CCUS capacity. The vision for decarbonising the East Coast Cluster
also includes delivery of negative emission power and fuels via CCUS retrofits to
waste-to-energy (WtE) plants, such as Suez Tees Valley WtEs and Lighthouse Green
Fuels in Tees Valley, respectively. Notably, the WtE emitters have been forecasted to
account for 18% of the total CO2 emissions in the Teesside Cluster. Overall, WtE is
expected to contribute up to 20 MtCO2e annually in the UK by mid-2020 [1]. Such a
figure is higher than 11 MtCO2e annually reported in 2021 for industrial processes in
the UK [2]. The preliminary work on WtE and CCS integration by the Energy Systems
Catapult [1] showed that the specific CO2 emissions from WtE are 600 gCO2/kWh
(excluding biogenic carbon), and flue gas contains up to 12%vol CO2. As a result, their
ESME model demonstrated that unabated WtEs must be phased out by 2040 due to
reduced carbon budgets, indicating the need to develop low-carbon alternatives.

Despite high energy and economic penalties, advanced amine scrubbing is now
considered the technology of choice for industrial decarbonisation due to its high
maturity. Yet, this technology may not be viable for decarbonising the WtE plants. It is
because amine solvents require steam for regeneration, while the WtEs in the UK are
often contracted to supply heat for district heating and industry and/or electricity. The
study by AECOM [3] indicated that the amine-based capture unit could require up to
66% of the total thermal input to the steam turbine at the combustion-based WtE plant.
A study by Magnanelli et al. [4] demonstrated that the integration of amine scrubbing
could result in up to a 30% reduction in power output and a 12% reduction in the heat
output from a typical combustion-based WtE plant. Supplying such an amount of steam
will not only be limited by technical considerations but will also substantially impair the
economic viability of the WtE plant. There is also no public information on using post-
combustion CO2 capture for the gasification-based WtE plants. Consequently,
alternative CCUS processes are required for WtE.

Our previous work demonstrated that solid sorbent technology, such as calcium
looping (CaL), can reduce the cost of CO2 capture. For example, Hanak et al. [5]
showed that the post-combustion CaL retrofit to a coal-fired power plant would result
in a competitive cost of CO2 avoided (~40 £/tCO2) to that of amine scrubbing (i.e. 73–
173 £/tCO2 reported by Wood [6]), and a lower efficiency penalty (i.e. 7.5% points
versus >8% points reported by UKCCSRC [7]). Hanak et al. [8] also proposed calcium
looping combustion (CaLC; Fig 1) that can replace conventional combustors. As it uses
indirect heat transfer in the calciner, the efficiency penalty was reduced to <3%
points with the cost of CO2 avoided of <35 £/tCO2.

We hypothesise that CaLC can improve WtE competitiveness in energy and waste
management sectors by enabling affordable negative emission heat and power supply
to industrial clusters.

The primary and secondary aims for this project were:

1. to perform a techno-economic and carbon footprint assessment of an advanced

WtE plant based on CaLC that will enable efficient negative carbon production
of energy from waste.

2. The secondary aim is to build relationships with the CCUS and the WtE
industries in the East Coas Cluster to demonstrate the CaLC concept.
PART #1: TECHNO-ECONOMIC AND CARBON
FOOTPRINT ASSESSMENT OF ADVANCED WtE
PROCESSES BASED ON CARBONATE LOOPING
METHODS
Host waste-to-energy plant
This study considered the 46 MWth Cleveland WtE plant by Hitachi Zosen Inova [9],
currently used as line 3 at the Suez Tees Valley WtE as the reference system. Due to
limited process design information available for this unit, the process model was first
developed in Aspen Plus® for a generic 60 MWth WtE plant based on the work of Haaf
et al. [10]. It was then adapted to represent the considered reference that is
representative of the East Coast Cluster.

Table 1: Summary of municipal solid waste composition

Municipal solid waste
Parameter
[10,11]
Proximate analysis
Moisture content (%ar) 25.00
Fixed carbon (%db) 45.00
Volatile matter (%db) 29.93
Ash (%db) 25.07
Ultimate analysis
Ash (%db) 25.07
Carbon (%db) 38.53
Hydrogen (%db) 4.27
Nitrogen (%db) 0.67
Chlorine (%db) 0.53
Sulphur (%db) 0.13
Oxygen (%db) 30.80
Higher heating value (MJ/kg) 10.19
The generic 60 MWth WtE plant comprises a moving-grate MSW incinerator, which
was modelled as a combination of the yield reactor to represent solid fuel
devolatilization and the Gibbs reactor to represent the incineration process. The MSW
was defined as the non-conventional component in Aspen Plus®, following the ultimate
and proximate composition shown in Table 1. Dulong correlation was used to estimate
the higher heating value of MSW. It is also assumed that 65% of the MSW content is
biogenic [10]. The excess air in the incinerator was adjusted to arrive at the O2
concentration of 6.07%vol in the flue gas leaving the reactor [10]. The standard
emission control equipment was considered, including selective-catalytic NOx removal
(ηNOX=70%), SOx removal (ηSOX=99.8%), and bag filter for particulate matter removal
(ηPM=99.9%).

The heat from MSW incineration was used in the boiler to produce the steam for the
power cycle operating in subcritical steam conditions. The steam generated in the
boiler left heat transfer sections at a temperature of 400°C and a pressure of 40 bar.
It was then fed to the steam turbine section that comprised high- (HP), intermediate-
(IP) and low-pressure (LP) extraction condensing steam turbines. In the considered
steam cycle, a part of the steam leaving the HP turbine at 10.0 bar (~6%) was
extracted to preheat the incineration air to 150°C. Moreover, a part of the steam was
extracted from the IP turbine at 4.5 bar (~10%) and 1.0 bar (~5%) to heat the feedwater
in the deaerator, a mixed feedwater heater, and an LP feedwater heater, respectively.
The remaining steam was expanded in the LP turbine to the condenser pressure of
0.15 bar. The condensate was collected, initially pressurised to 4 bar in the LP pump,
and preheated in the LP feedwater heater, before being fed to the deaerator at the
pressure of 3.8 bar. The pressure of the feedwater is then increased in the HP pump
to 60 bar to account for the pressure drop in the boiler. The summary of the key
process model assumptions for the generic WtE plant is presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Summary of the key process model assumptions for generic WtE plant [10]

Parameter Generic WtE

Incinerator Thermal energy input (MWth) 60.0
Desired O2 concentration in flue gas (%vol) 6.07
Incineration air temperature (°C) 150
Flue gas temperature at stack (°C) 135
Steam cycle Design steam temperature (°C) 400
Design steam pressure (bar) 40
Final feedwater temperature (°C) 289.0
Feedwater heater minimum temperature approach (°C) 10.0
Isentropic efficiency of compressors (%) 80.0
Isentropic efficiency of steam turbine (%) 75.0
Mechanical efficiency of steam turbine 94.0
Isentropic efficiency of pumps (%) 80.0
Flue gas SO2 removal efficiency (%) 98.0
treatment Fly ash removal efficiency (%) 99.9
NOx removal efficiency (%) 70.0
The accuracy of the prediction of the process model for the generic WtE plant has
been validated with the work of Haaf et al. [10]. The process model developed in this
work has been shown to fairly accurately represent the key performance indicators of
the generic WtE plant, as the relative error fell within the ±5% margin (Table 3). The
main error was observed in the MSW processing rate and the steam flow rate, which
were overestimated in this work by 11.1% and 12.1%, respectively. It is worth to point
out, however, that the MSW processing rate for the generic WtE model was estimated
based on the provided thermal input to the boiler and the MSW heating value.
Moreover, the work by Haaf et al. [10] did not specify the enthalpy model used for
MSW, which could contribute to the deviation. Similarly, no details on the enthalpy
model were provided for the steam cycle. Nevertheless, given this work is performed
at ACEE Class 4 [12], the accuracy of the generic WtE model was deemed sufficient.

The analysis of the vendor data for the Cleveland WtE has indicated that the main
variation from the generic WtE design assumptions shown in Table 2 are [9]:

A. the thermal energy input of 45.8 MWth;

B. the steam pressure at the boiler exit of 43 bar; and

C. the flue gas outlet temperature at the stack of 150°C.

Table 3: Validation of the generic WtE process model

Generic
This Error
Parameter WtE
work (%)
[10]
MSW processing rate (t/h) 21.6 24.0 11.1
Steam flow rate (kg/s) 20.2 22.6 11.9
Gross power output (MWel) 15.7 15.4 -1.9
Gross electrical efficiency (power cycle only) (%) 26.2 25.7 -1.9
Net power output (MWel) 13.6 13.7 0.4
Net electrical efficiency (power cycle only) (%) 22.4 22.8 1.6
Flue gas mass flow (kg/s) 41.7 39.7 -4.9
Flue gas temperature at stack (°C) 135.0 134.3 -0.5
Given that the vendor has not provided the full design of the incinerator and the steam
cycle, only variations A and C have been implemented in the model. The process
model analysis has been performed and shown that such assumption would only
marginally influence the process efficiency. An increase in the steam pressure from
40 bar to 43 bar and subsequent proportional increase in the feedwater pressure from
60 bar to 64.5 bar, which assumed constant pressure drop fraction across the
incinerator heat transfer sections, resulted in the net efficiency increase from 25.7%
to 25.9%.

Table 4: Validation of the Cleveland WtE process model

Cleveland This Error
Parameter
WtE [9] work (%)
MSW processing rate (t/h) 17.9 18.4 3.0
Steam flow rate (kg/s) 15.0 17.3 15.3
Net power output (MWel) 13.6 13.7 0.4
Net electrical efficiency (power cycle only) (%) 22.4 22.8 0.6
Flue gas volumetric flow rate (Nm3/h) 95000.0 86099.6 -9.4
Flue gas temperature at stack (°C) 150.0 150.6 0.4
The validation of the Cleveland WtE process model (Table 4) revealed that its
prediction was in a good agreement with that of the nominal conditions reported by the
vendor [9]. Similarly to the generic WtE process model, the largest deviation was
observed in the steam flow rate (15.3%), whereas the MSW processing rate was within
the ±5% error. Notably, the flue gas volumetric flow rate was underestimated by 9.4%
by the process model, but the reference conditions were not provided by the vendor.
This is still within the ACEE Class 4 specification and, therefore, the Cleveland WtE
process model was used as the host plant in the techno-economic assessment.

Post-combustion carbonate looping

The typical layout of CaL includes an interconnected carbonator and calciner, as
shown in Figure 2. CaL was modelled in Aspen Plus® based on the work by Hanak et
al. [13], who has performed a comprehensive validation of the model with the 1.7 MW th
La Pereda demonstration unit. In this process, CO2 is removed from the flue gas on
contact with CaO in the carbonator at 650°C. The formed CaCO 3 is then regenerated
at 900°C in the calciner. The former was modelled as a stoichiometric reactor to
account for the sorbent deactivation. The latter was represented similarly to the
incinerator, as a combination of the Yield reactor and Gibbs reactor. This was done to
represent both combustion of MSW (and sorbent calcination.
Figure 2. Typical process flow diagram for post-combustion carbonate looping
The average sorbent conversion in the carbonator was accounted for using the semi-
empirical correlation proposed by Rodríguez et al. [14]. As defined in Eq. (1), the
maximum value of the average sorbent conversion in the carbonator (Xave) depends
on the calcination (fcalc) and carbonation (fcarb) extents, fitting parameters (a1, a2, f1, f2,
b), and the amount of fresh limestone make-up (F0), sorbent looping rate (FR) and the
fraction of limestone that was never calcined (r0). The last variable is defined in Eq.
(2). The fitting parameters for the considered semi-empirical correlation were derived
based on the experimental data from the 1.7 MWth la Pereda pilot plant [15].

𝑎1 𝑓12 𝑎2 𝑓22 𝑏
X 𝑎𝑣𝑒 = (𝐹0 + 𝐹𝑅 𝑟0 )𝑓𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐 [ + + ] (1)
𝐹0 + 𝐹𝑅 𝑓𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑏 𝑓𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐 (1 − 𝑓1 ) 𝐹0 + 𝐹𝑅 𝑓𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑏 𝑓𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐 (1 − 𝑓2 ) 𝐹0

𝐹0 (1 − 𝑓𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐 )
𝑟0 = (2)
𝐹0 + 𝐹R 𝑓𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐

The calcination reaction is endothermic and, therefore, high-grade heat needs to be

added to sustain the desired operating temperature of the calciner. To avoid dilution
of CO2, this is usually achieved via oxy-fuel combustion directly in the calciner. In this
study, MSW is considered as fuel in the calciner, as waste-derived fuels were shown
a viable option for CaL [16,17]. This is represented in two stages. First, the
decomposition of the solid fuel is represented using a yield reactor. The component
yields are adjusted to accurately represent the ultimate analysis of solid fuel, as
presented in Table 1. Second, the decomposed fuel is combusted in an O2/CO2
mixture directly in the calciner that, as already mentioned, was modelled as a Gibbs
reactor. The complete combustion of solid fuel was achieved by ensuring that an
excess amount of oxygen was maintained in the reactor, which was reflected by the
O2 content of 2.0%vol in the vapour stream leaving the calciner. Due to a high-
temperature operation, high-grade heat can be recovered from the carbonator and the
process streams, such as the clean flue gas and high-purity CO2 streams. This high-
grade heat has been used to generate steam for the secondary steam cycle, which
had the same steam conditions as the primary steam cycle in the host WtE plant, and
pre-heat flue gas and high-purity O2 streams. Finally, the high-purity CO2 was
compressed to the desired transport and storage pressure of 110 bar in a 5-stage
intercooled CO2 compression unit. The summary of the key process model
assumptions for CaL are presented in Table 5.

Table 5: Summary of the key process model assumptions for post-combustion

carbonate looping
Parameter Value
Carbonator Temperature (°C) 650
Carbonation extent (-) 0.70
CO2 capture level (%) 90.0
Pressure drop (mbar) 150
Calciner Temperature (°C) 900
Calcination extent (-) 0.95
Relative make-up (fresh limestone/sorbent 0.05
circulation rate) (-)
O2 excess (%vol,dry) 2.0
Pressure drop (mbar) 150
Secondary steam cycle Design steam temperature (°C) 400
Design live/reheat steam pressure (bar) 40
CO2 compression unit Isentropic efficiency of CO2 compressors (%) 72.0
Isentropic efficiency of CO2 pump (%) 80.0
Intercooling temperature (°C) 40.0
CO2 final pressure (bar) 110.0
CO2 final temperature (°C) 30.0
Air separation unit O2 purity (%vol,dry) 95.0
Specific energy consumption (kWh/tO2) 200
Carbonate looping combustion
A core of the CaLC process (Figure 3) is the CaL process that was proposed by
Shimizu et al. [18] as a post-combustion CO2 capture system for fossil fuel power
plants, for which the process model was defined in the previous section. The CaLC
process comprises two interconnected fluidised bed reactors – a carbonator and a
calciner – and a circulating fluidised bed combustor, all operating at atmospheric
pressure. As opposed to the state-of-the-art CaL configuration, in which the heat for
sorbent regeneration is provided via oxy-combustion of fuel [19,20], the CaLC process
utilises indirect heat transfer from the combustor to the calciner that can be facilitated
via either a heat transfer wall [21] or heat pipes [22,23]. In this work (Table 6), the
operating temperature of the combustor is maintained by burning MSW in an excess
amount of air to ensure a complete combustion. To maximise combustion efficiency,
the combustion air is preheated by the flue gas stream leaving the combustor,
assuming the minimum temperature difference of 30°C. To further reduce the amount
of heat required to be transferred from the combustor to the calciner, heat carried by
the purge stream is recovered by the cooling air and is then used to preheat the fresh
limestone make-up stream. The flue gas leaving the combustor is then cooled and,
without being desulphurised, is fed directly to the carbonator for CO2 and SOx removal.
Importantly, due to high affinity of the sorbent to SOx and the high Ca:S ratios in the
system, the SOx capture level is nearly 100% [15,24–26]. It needs to be noted that to
maintain the energy and mass balance of the process, the CO 2 capture level in the
carbonator needed to be restricted to 70% for the given MSW composition and
consumption rate.

The high-grade heat available in the carbonator, as well as in the clean gas and CO 2
gas streams, was utilised to raise live steam for, and for feedwater heating in, the
subcritical steam cycle. The same power cycle characteristics were considered as for
the Cleveland WtE and the CaL process. The summary of the key process model
assumptions for CaL are presented in Table 6.
Figure 3: Schematic of calcium looping combustion
Table 6: Summary of the key process model assumptions for post-combustion
carbonate looping

Parameter Value

Carbonator Temperature (°C) 650

Carbonation extent (-) 0.70
CO2 capture level (%) 70.0
Pressure drop (mbar) 100
Calciner Temperature (°C) 900
Calcination extent (-) 0.95
Relative make-up (fresh limestone/sorbent circulation rate) 0.05
(-)
Pressure drop (mbar) 100
Combustor Temperature (°C) 1000
Pressure drop (mbar) 100
Desired O2 concentration in flue gas (%vol) 6.07
Thermal energy input (MWth) 60.0
Flue gas temperature at stack (°C) 145
Secondary steam cycle Design steam temperature (°C) 400
Design live/reheat steam pressure (bar) 40
CO2 compression unit Isentropic efficiency of CO2 compressors (%) 72
Isentropic efficiency of CO2 pump (%) 80.0
Intercooling temperature (°C) 40.0
CO2 final pressure (bar) 110.0
CO2 final temperature (°C) 30.0
Heat exchanger network Sorbent cooler and heater minimum temperature approach 25.0
(°C)
Air preheater minimum temperature approach (°C) 30.0
Feasibility assessment method

Technical assessment
The technical key performance indicators included waste processing rate, net
efficiency, net efficiency penalty, and the specific CO2 emissions. The net efficiency
for the host WtE plant and the CaLC process was defined in Eq. (3), whereas that for
the post-combustion CaL retrofit was defined in Eq. (4). Overall, the net efficiency is
defined as a ratio of the net power output (Wnet) and the chemical energy input from
fuel combustion (Qfuel). Notably the post-combustion CaL retrofit, the chemical energy
input considers to both the host plant and CaL. The net efficiency penalty is defined in
Eq. (5) as the difference between the net efficiency of the host WtE plant (ηth,host) and
that of either post combustion CaL (ηth,CaL) or CaLC (ηth,CaLC).

𝑊𝑛𝑒𝑡,𝑖
𝜂𝑡ℎ,𝑖 = | (3)
𝐻𝐻𝑉𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝑚𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙,𝑖 𝑖=ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑡;𝐶𝑎𝐿𝐶

𝑊𝑛𝑒𝑡,ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑡 + 𝑊𝑛𝑒𝑡,𝐶𝑎𝐿
𝜂𝑡ℎ,𝐶𝑎𝐿 = (4)
𝐻𝐻𝑉𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 (𝑚𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙,ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑡 + 𝑚𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙,𝐶𝑎𝐿 )

𝜂𝑡ℎ,ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑡 − 𝜂𝑡ℎ,𝐶𝑎𝐿
∆𝜂𝑡ℎ = { (5)
𝜂𝑡ℎ,ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑡 − 𝜂𝑡ℎ,𝐶𝑎𝐿𝐶

The environmental performance of the considered cases has been evaluated using
the specific CO2 emissions (eCO2), as defined in Eq. (6). This environmental
performance indicator was defined as the ratio of the net CO2 mass flow rate emitted
into the atmosphere and the net power output. The net mass flow rate of CO2 was
determined as the difference between the mass flow rate of fossil CO2 leaving the
process and the mass flow rate of captured biogenic CO2 from MSW combustion. In
case of the unabated host WtE plant, the former is the amount of fossil CO2 in the flue
gas (mCO2,fossil,host) and the latter is equal to zero since no CO2 capture takes place.
For the post-combustion CaL retrofit, the former is the amount of fossil CO2 in the
clean gas leaving the carbonator (mCO2,fossil,carb), determined using the design CO2
capture level (CCL). The latter is the sum of the biogenic CO2 captured in the
carbonator (mCO2,bio,host·CCL) and the amount of biogenic CO2 produced from
combustion of MSW in the calciner (mCO2,bio,calciner). For the CaLC process, the former
is the amount of fossil CO2 in the clean gas leaving the carbonator (mCO2,fossil,carb) and
the latter is the amount of biogenic CO2 that was removed in the carbonator from the
external combustor flue gas (mCO2,bio,comb·CCL). Due to the nearly carbon-neutral
character of biogenic carbon, permanent storage of that CO2 will result in negative
CO2 emissions that can be used to partially offset the fossil CO 2 still present in the
clean gas.
𝑚𝐶𝑂2,𝑓𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑙,ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑡
for host WtE plant
𝑊𝑛𝑒𝑡,ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑡
𝑚𝐶𝑂2,𝑓𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑙,𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑏 − 𝑚𝐶𝑂2,𝑏𝑖𝑜,ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑡 ∙ 𝐶𝐶𝐿 − 𝑚𝐶𝑂2,𝑏𝑖𝑜,𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟
𝑒𝐶𝑂2 = for CaL (6)
𝑊𝑛𝑒𝑡,ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑡 + 𝑊𝑛𝑒𝑡,𝐶𝑎𝐿
𝑚𝐶𝑂2,𝑓𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑙,𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑏 − 𝑚𝐶𝑂2,𝑏𝑖𝑜,𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑏 ∙ 𝐶𝐶𝐿
for CaLC
{ 𝑊𝑛𝑒𝑡,𝐶𝑎𝐿𝐶

Economic assessment
This work uses the net present value approach to the economic analysis, building on
the authors past work [27]. That approach uses the break-even electricity price (BEPel)
as the key economic performance indicator for the considered processes. The BEPel
is estimated via an iterative process to arrive at the electricity price that will result in
the NPV of zero. Notably, as defined in defined in Eq. (7), the NPV depends on the
discounted annual cash flows (𝐶𝐹𝑡 ), the current project year (𝑡), discount rate (𝑟), and
total number of project years (𝑛), which considers both building and operation phases
of the project.
𝑡=𝑛
𝐶𝐹𝑡
𝑁𝑃𝑉 = ∑ (7)
(1 + 𝑟)𝑡
𝑡=1

The annual cash flows, defined in Eq. (8), depend on the annual investment cost (Cinv),
income from electricity sales (Iel), income from waste processing (IMSW), variable
operating cost (Cop,var), fixed operating cost (Cop,fix), and CO2 emission cost (CCO2).
The impact of tax, depreciation and salvage value was not considered in this work.

𝐶𝐹𝑡 = [−𝐶𝑖𝑛𝑣 + 𝐼𝑒𝑙 + 𝐼𝑀𝑆𝑊 − (𝐶𝑜𝑝,𝑣𝑎𝑟 + 𝐶𝑜𝑝,𝑓𝑖𝑥 + 𝐶𝐶𝑂2 )]𝑡 (8)

The variable operating cost considers the cost of fresh sorbent make-up, cost of CO2
transport and storage, and variable maintenance that was assumed to be 2% of the
total equipment cost per year. The fixed variable operating cost was assumed to be
1% the total equipment cost per year. The remaining assumptions for economic
analysis are presented in Error! Reference source not found..

Table 6: Economic analysis assumptions

Parameter Value

Project characteristics
Project duration (years) 25
Project construction (years) 3
Capacity factor (%) 80
Project discount rate (%) 8.78
Operating cost
Gate fee (£/tMSW) 100
CO2 emission unit cost (£/tCO2) 50
CO2 transport and storage unit cost (£/tCO2) 11
Sorbent unit cost (£/t) 20
Variable operating and maintenance cost (%/year) 0.02·EC
Fixed operating and maintenance cost (%/year) 0.01·EC
Capital cost escalation
Direct and indirect labour (DIL) 0.15·EC
Bare erected cost (BEC) EC+DIL
Engineering, Construction Management, Home Office & Fees 0.07·BEC
(ECMHOF)
Process contingency (ProcC) 0.07·BEC
Project contingency (ProjC) 0.15·(BEC+ECMHOF+ProcC)
Total plant cost (TPC) BEC+ECMHHOF+ProjC+ProcC
Start-up cost (SC) 0.02·TPC + 0.083·Cop,var
Inventory capital (IC) 0.167·( Cop,var + Cop,fix + CCO2)
Financing cost (FC) 0.005·TPC
Other owner’s costs (OOC) 0.15·TPC
Total overnight cost (TOC) TPC+SC+IC+FC+OOC
Capital investment distribution
Construction Year 1 0.60·TOC
Construction Year 2 0.30·TOC
Construction Year 3 0.10·TOC
Initial production rate in Operation Year 1 0.30·Income / 0.30·Variable Cost
Shake-down of plant in Operation Year 2 0.75·Income / 0.75·Variable Cost

Investment cost estimation method based on the work by NETL/ACEE [28,29] was
used. The total overnight cost (TOC) was defined in Eq. (9) depends on the equipment
cost (EC), direct and indirect labour cost (DIL), engineering, construction
management, and home office and fees cost (ECMHOF), process contingency
(ProcC), project contingency (ProjC), as well as start-up (SC), inventory capital (IC),
financial, and other owner’s costs (OOC). Detailed definitions and factors were
included in Table 6, based on the NETL/ACEE cost escalation method [28,29].
 𝐶𝐼𝑛𝑣 = 𝐸𝐶 + 𝐷𝐼𝐿 + 𝐸𝐶𝑀𝐻𝑂𝐹 + 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑗𝐶 + 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑐𝐶 + 𝑆𝐶 + 𝐼𝐶 + 𝐹𝐶 + 𝑂𝑂𝐶 (9)

For the estimation of the EC, the bottom-up approach was taken that considers the
sum of capital cost of all components of the considered process. The cost estimation
methodology of individual pieces of equipment has been summarised in Table 7. The
post-combustion CaL and CaLC correlations were taken from Michalski et al. [27] and
the cost correlation for the Cleveland WtE plant was based on Asim et al. [30],
assuming the specific capital cost of $600/tMSW, All cost data was harmonised to £2022.

Table 7: Cost correlations for capital investment estimation

Equipment (scaling parameter) Correlation [€]

0.67
Calciner (Calciner heat flux, 𝑄̇𝐶𝑎𝑙 , kW) [27] 𝐶𝐶𝑎𝑙 = 13,140 ∙ 𝑄̇𝐶𝑎𝑙
0.67
Carbonator (Carbonator heat flux, 𝑄̇𝐶𝑎𝑟 , kW) [27] 𝐶𝐶𝑎𝑟 = 16,591 ∙ 𝑄̇𝐶𝑎𝑟
𝑚̇𝑂2 0.7
Air separation unit (O2 production rate, 𝑚̇𝑂2 , kg/s) [31] 𝐶𝐴𝑆𝑈 = 2.926 ∙ 107 ∙ ( )
28.9
0.67
CO2 compression unit (Break power requirement, 𝑊̇𝐶𝐶𝑈 , kW) 𝑊̇𝐶𝐶𝑈
[32] 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑈 = 1.22914𝑒7 ( )
13,000
3
Pumps (Break power requirement, 𝑊̇𝑝 , kW; Isentropic 0.71 1 − 0.8
𝐶𝑃 = 3,531.4 ∙ 𝑊̇𝑝 ∙ [1 + ( ) ]
efficiency, 𝜂𝑖,𝑃 , -) [33] 1 − 𝜂𝑖,𝑃
0.67
𝑊̇𝑇,𝑖
Steam turbine (Break power output, 𝑊̇𝑇,𝑖 , kW) [34] 𝐶𝑇,𝑖 = 33.7𝑒6 ( )
200,000
Cooling tower (Cooler heat flux, 𝑄̇𝐶𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑟 , kW) 𝐶𝐶𝑇 = 32.3 ∙ 𝑄̇𝐶𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑟
0.95
Electric generator (Gross power output, 𝑊̇𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 , kW) [35] 𝐶𝐸𝐺 = 26.18 ∙ 𝑊̇𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠
0.67
𝑊̇𝑓
Fan (Break power requirement, 𝑊̇𝑓 , kW) [36–38] 𝐶𝐹𝑎𝑛 = 103,193 ∙ ( )
445
Heat exchanger (AHE, surface area in m 2; pHE, operating
𝐶𝐻𝐸 = 2,546.9 ∙ 𝐴𝐻𝐸 0.67 ∙ 𝑝𝐻𝐸 0.28
pressure in bar) [33]
RESULTS
Technical assessment
To understand the benefits of retrofitting CaL to the existing Cleveland WtE or
developing a novel CaLC-WtE plant, a comparative analysis of the material and
energy flows for the considered cases has been performed. The material and energy
flows, along with the key technical and economic indicators, have been summarised
in Table 8.

Table 8: Summary of the material and energy flows for the considered cases
Cleveland
Parameter CaL Retrofit CaLC-WtE
WtE
Mass flows
MSW consumption in incinerator (kg/s) 5.05 5.05 -
MSW consumption in calciner/external incinerator (kg/s) 0 4.29 5.05
Steam flow rage in WtE steam cycle (kg/s) 17.29 17.29 -
Steam flow rage in carbonate looping steam cycle (kg/s) - 14.99 14.16
CO2 emissions in flue gas (kg/s) 4.63 0.464 1.39
Biogenic CO2 emissions in flue gas 3.01 0.302 0.48
Fossil CO2 emissions in flue gas 1.62 0.162 0.90
Net CO2 emissions, excl. biogenic (kg/s) 4.63 -5.10 -1.62
Sorbent looping rate (kg/s) - 48.73 24.08
Sorbent make-up rate (kg/s) - 2.84 2.21
O2 requirement (kg/s) - 3.77 -
CO2 to transport and storage (kg/s) - 9.79 4.20

Energy flows
Chemical energy of MSW to incinerator (MW) 53.42 53.42 -
Chemical energy of MSW to calciner (MW) - 45.37 53.42
Gross power output (MW) 11.79 22.46 10.069
Auxiliary power requirement in host plant (MW) 1.39 1.39 -
Power requirement of air separation unit (MW) - 2.72 -
Power requirement of CO2 compression unit (MW) - 3.93 1.60
Power requirement of carbonate looping steam cycle (MW) - 0.12 0.11
Power requirement in incineration air compressor (MW) - - 0.25

Key performance indicators

Net power output (MW) 10.40 14.31 8.11
Net efficiency (%HHV) 19.47 14.49 15.18
Net specific CO2 emissions, excl. biogenic (gCO2/kWh) 559.83 -1284.30 -721.12
Total specific CO2 emissions, incl. biogenic (gCO2/kWh) 1601.89 116.73 615.50

In the Cleveland WtE plant, 5.05 kg/s of MSW is processed solely within the
incinerator, functioning as the baseline for comparison. On integration of CaL, an
additional 4.29 kg/s of MSW is required in the calciner. This results in a total MSW
consumption of 9.34 kg/s, representing an 84.94% increase in waste processing
capacity compared to the baseline Cleveland WtE plant, potentially bringing economic
benefits with the retrofit. Notably, it was assumed that the CaLC-WtE plant would
consume the same amount of MSW as the Cleveland WtE plant; hence 5.05 kg/s of
MSW was fed into an external incinerator that then provided a sufficient amount of
energy to sustain the calcination process.

The Clevland WtE plant delivered a gross power output of 11.79 MW, with a net output
of 10.40 MW after accounting for the power requirement of the auxiliary equipment.
Retrofit of CaL to the Cleveland WtE plant was shown to increase the gross power
output to 22.46 MW, primarily due to the additional MSW processed in the calciner
that, in turn, increases the amount of high-grade heat available for steam generation.
Notably, this corresponds to a 90.44% improvement in gross power output compared
to the reference plant. After accounting for auxiliary requirements, the net power output
of the CaL retrofit was 14.31 MW, still reflecting a 37.55% increase relative to the
Cleveland WtE. The majority of the auxiliary power requirement in CaL came from the
CO2 compression unit (58.02%) and the air separation unit (40.21%). The retrofit of
CaL was shown to result in an efficiency penalty of 4.98%HHV points, which is at the
lower end of data reported in the literature for the CaL retrofits [39]. The CaLC-WtE
plant generated lower gross power output (10.07 MW), indicating lower heat recovery
efficiency than that of the Cleveland WtE plant. After accounting for the auxiliary power
requirement, which mostly stems from the CO2 compression unit (81.71%), the net
power output of the CaLC-WtE plant was 8.11 MW. This corresponds to a 22.02%
reduction in the net power output compared to the Cleveland WtE plant. Given equal
waste processing capacity could deteriorate the economic viability of this technology.
Nevertheless, the CaLC-WtE plant was shown to result in a net efficiency of
15.18%HHV, which was 4.28%HHV points lower than that of the Cleveland WtE plant,
but 0.7%HHV points higher than that of the CaL retrofit. This indicates that this process
may be more viable than the conventional CaL retrofit, which could be mostly due to
no requirement for the air separation unit.

Considering the carbon footprint, the Cleveland WtE system emits 4.63 kg/s of CO2,
which can be divided into biogenic (3.01 kg/s) and fossil (1.62 kg/s) CO2. Excluding
the biogenic emissions, the reference process was characterised by the net specific
CO2 emissions of 559.83 gCO2/kWh. The total specific CO2 emissions, considering both
biogenic and fossil CO2, were 1602.89 gCO2/kWh. Retrofitting the Cleveland WtE plant
with CaL significantly reduces the total CO2 emissions in the flue gas to 0.46 kg/s, with
0.302 kg/s of biogenic CO2 and 0.162 kg/s of fossil-based CO2. However, considering
the carbon neutral character of the biogenic fraction of MSW used both in the
incinerator and the calciner, the net CO2 emissions were estimated to be -5.10 kg/s.
This indicates that the process will result in net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere
at the process level. Further research should consider cradle-to-grave life cycle
assessment. Nevertheless, this corresponds to the net specific CO2 emissions of -
1284.30 gCO2/kWh and total specific CO2 emissions of 116.73 gCO2/kWh. Notably, even
if the biogenic fraction is not considered carbon neutral, the CaL retrofit results in a
total CO2 capture rate of 92.71%. Finally, the CaLC-WtE plant, while operating with a
lower CO2 capture level than the CaL retrofit, still achieves a notable reduction in CO2
mass flow rate, leaving the process in the flue gas (1.39 kg/s). This corresponds to
0.90 kg/s of biogenic CO2 and 0.48 kg/s of fossil CO2. Accounting for the biogenic CO2
in MSW, the process would result in a net removal of CO2 at -1.62 kg/s. This
corresponds to -721.12 gCO2/kWh, indicating a -2.3-fold reduction in net specific CO2
emissions relative to the reference process. For total specific CO2 emissions, the
CaLC-WtE process was shown to result in 615.50 gCO2/kWh. Although this is less
efficient from the CaL retrofit, mostly because in the latter, the CO2 capture happens
both in the carbonator (CCL=90%) and calciner (CCL=100%), it still achieves a
61.58% reduction in total emissions with respect to the Cleveland WtE plant.

It's also pertinent to indicate that the solid looping rate in the CaLC-WtE plant was
about half of that in the CaL retrofit, even though the fresh sorbent make-up rates were
comparable. This can be associated with higher ash accumulation and sulphation of
sorbent in the CaL retrofit, where these components stem from both the incinerator
and the calciner as reflected in the highest MSW processing rate among all considered
cases.
Economic assessment
The techno-economic analysis of the considered process cases has been performed
under conservative and optimistic scenarios. The former assumed that the biogenic
carbon in MSW is not considered as climate neutral, meaning that its emission does
contribute to global warming. The latter assumed that the biogenic carbon in MSW can
be considered as climate neutral, and therefore its capture could lead to negative CO 2
emissions. This analysis was performed because the approach taken to accounting
for the biogenic carbon would dictate whether it is considered as a source of
expenditure or revenue in the NPV analysis, influencing the BEPel.

Conservative scenario: Biogenic carbon in MSW not considered as climate

neutral
The breakdown of the expenditures for the Cleveland WtE plant, the CaL retrofit, and
the CaLC-WtE plant are presented in Figure 3. The analysis was conducted assuming
that the biogenic carbon in MSW is not considered carbon-neutral. This implies that
the process is carbon positive, as per the total specific CO2 emissions shown in Table
8, and therefore, the CO2 emissions are considered as the expenditure component in
the NPV analysis. In this vein, the CO2 emission cost for the unabated Cleveland WtE
plant, was estimated to be £2,334,134 at a carbon tax of 100 £/tCO2. In contrast, the
retrofit of CaL resulted in a 90% reduction in the CO2 emissions costs, down to
£233,940. In contrast, due to a lower CO2 capture level of 70% in the carbonator, the
CaLC-WtE plant incurred a CO2 emissions cost of £699,724. This corresponded to a
70% reduction relative to Cleveland WtE plant, but a 66.6% increase than the CaL
retrofit. Notably, the CO2 emission cost accounts for 45% of the total expenditure for
the Cleveland WtE plant, which reduces to 3% and 14% for the CaL retrofit and the
WtE-CaLC plant, respectively.

Variable and fixed operational and maintenance (O&M) expenditure account for a
substantial part of the total expenditure for all considered cases. Notably the variable
O&M cost accounted for 37%, 33% and 29% of the total expenditure for the Cleveland
WtE plant, the CaL retrofit, and the WtE-CaLC plant, respectively. The variable O&M
costs for the Cleveland WtE plant amounted to £1,909,632, while for the CaL retrofit
system these were substantially higher at £2,969,760, marking a 55.44% increase due
to the added complexity of the CaL process. However, the CaLC-WtE plant resulted
in a lower variable O&M cost of £1,494,327, a reduction of 96.44% compared to the
CaL retrofit system. The fixed O&M cost accounted for 18%, 17% and 14% of the total
expenditure for the Cleveland WtE plant, the CaL retrofit, and the WtE-CaLC plant,
respectively. In terms of fixed O&M costs, the Cleveland WtE plant expenditure was
£954,816. It increased in the CaL retrofit system to £1,484,880, an increase of 55.47%,
while it reduced in the CaLC-WtE plant to £747,163, a 21.74% reduction compared to
the Cleveland WtE system and a 49.69% reduction compared to the CaL retrofit.

Considering the expenditure components related directly to the CO2 capture, the CaL
retrofit incurred a significant cost of £2,715,525 for CO2 transport and storage (31% of
total expenditure). In contrast, the CaLC-WtE plant incurred £1,165,828 (31% of total
expenditure). This was a reduction of 57.07% relative to the CaL retrofit, achieved
mostly related to a substantially smaller volume of CO2 that was captured and sent for
storage to the CaL retrofit (Table 8). The costs associated with sorbent make-up in the
CaL retrofit system were £1,433,186 for sorbent make-up, compared to £1,115,951
estimated for the CaLC-WtE plant. This indicated a 22.12% reduction compared to the
CaL retrofit process, mostly due to lower accumulation of inert materials (i.e. ash,
CaSO4) in the system.

Overall, the total expenditure for the Cleveland WtE plant was estimated to be
£5,198,583. The CaL retrofit, despite added costs associated with the sorbent make-
up and CO2 transport, resulted in the total expenditure of £8,837,291, representing a
70% increase in total expenditure compared to Cleveland WtE. The CaLC-WtE plant
had the lowest total expenditure of £5,222,994, a 0.47% increase relative to the
Cleveland WtE system. Such an increase in the total expenditure compared to the
CaL retrofit can be directly associated with reduced power, sorbent and CO2 transport
and storage requirements.
 Fixed O&M
18% CO2
emissions
45%

Variable
O&M
37%

a)

Fixed O&M CO2

17% transport
and storage
31%

Sorbent
Variable make up
O&M 16%
33% CO2
emissions
3%

b)

CO2
Fixed O&M
transport
14%
and storage
22%

Sorbent
make up
21%
Variable
O&M
29% CO2
emissions
14%

c)

Figure 3: Breakdown of expenditure for a) Cleveland WtE plant; b) CaL retrofit; and c)
CaLC-WtE plant
 100%
90%
Revenue distribution (%)

80%
51%
70% 58% 57%
60%
50%
40%
30%
49%
20% 42% 43%
10%
0%
Cleveland WtE CaL Retrofit CaLC-WtE

Electricity Waste processing

Figure 4: Breakdown of revenue streams for a) Cleveland WtE plant; b) CaL retrofit; and
c) CaLC-WtE plant
The revenue streams for the Cleveland WtE plant, CaL retrofit, and CaLC-WtE plant,
under the assumption that biogenic carbon in MSW is not considered carbon-neutral,
are presented in Figure 4. The primary sources of revenue across all systems stem
from electricity generation and waste processing fees. As expected, differences in the
operational efficiencies and power outputs between the considered processes
significantly affect the distribution of the revenue streams. For the purpose of fair
analysis, the gate fee and the cost of electricity were fixed at 100 £/t MSW and 170
£/MWelh, respectively.

Regarding electricity generation, the Cleveland WtE plant resulted in revenue of

£12,385,474, consistent with its baseline electricity production from 5.05 kg/s of MSW.
The CaL retrofit, benefiting from the additional energy recovery from 4.29 kg/s of MSW
processed in the calciner, produces £17,045,069 in electricity revenue, reflecting a
37.62% increase compared to the Cleveland WtE plant. This can be attributed to the
increased thermal output achieved through the integration of the CaL process, which
increased the net power output despite the added complexity of CO2 capture. In
contrast, the CaLC-WtE plant was shown to generate significantly less revenue from
electricity, amounting to £9,563,115. This represents a 21.98% reduction compared to
the Cleveland WtE plant and a 52.01% decrease compared to the CaL retrofit. The
reduction in power generation revenue for the CaLC-WtE plant is primarily due to lower
net power output (8.11 MWel) compared to the reference WtE (10.4 MW el), which
results from lower net efficiency of the novel unit.

Waste processing revenue, a crucial component for the WtE plants, was consistent
between the Cleveland WtE and CaLC-WtE systems, both generating £12,730,882.
This stability in waste processing revenue was expected, as the mass flow of MSW
processed in both systems remained unchanged at 5.05 kg/s. The CaL retrofit, on the
other hand, processed a higher volume of MSW due to the additional feedstock
required for the calciner (4.29 kg/s), resulting in £23,543,917 in waste processing
revenue. This represents an 84.93% increase compared to the Cleveland WtE and
CaLC-WtE plants. The higher revenue was a direct reflection of the larger waste
processing capacity in the CaL retrofit, which translates into more significant financial
returns from waste handling fees.

The analysis of the total revenue revealed a clear contrast between the considered
processes. The Cleveland WtE plant, which serves as the baseline, generated
£25,116,357 in total revenue. The CaL retrofit, benefiting from both increased
electricity generation and significantly higher waste processing capacity, achieved
£40,589,013 in total revenue, marking a substantial 61.60% increase compared to the
Cleveland WtE plant. This demonstrates the financial advantage of integrating the CaL
process, which not only captures CO2 but also enhances overall system profitability.
In contrast, the CaLC-WtE system generated only £22,394,027 in total revenue,
representing a 10.84% decrease compared to the Cleveland WtE plant and a 44.82%
reduction relative to the CaL retrofit. The lower revenue for the CaLC-WtE plant can
be attributed to its reduced net power output and the absence of additional waste
processing capability.

Finally, the break-even cost of electricity for the Cleveland WtE plant, CaL retrofit, and
CaLC-WtE plant was evaluated (Table 9). In this analysis, two electricity prices are
considered for each system: the price including the gate fee and the price excluding
the gate fee.
Table 9: Summary of the key performance indicators for the considered cases
Parameter Host WtE WtE+CaL WtE-CaLC
Key performance indicators
Electrical output (MWe) 10.4 14.3 8.1
Electrical efficiency (%HHV) 22.6 14.5 15.2
Waste processing rate (t/h) 18.2 33.6 18.2
Net CO2 emissions (g/kWh) 1601.9 116.7 615.5
Net CO2 emission rate (kg/s) 4.6 0.5 1.4

Conservative case (Not considering biogenic content)

CAPEX (£m) 163.6 271.4 136.7
OPEX (£m/a) 5.2 8.8 5.2
Electricity price, incl. gate fee (£/MWh) 154.4 164.6 142.1
Electricity price, excl. gate fee (£/MWh) 329.1 399.4 366.1

Optimistic case (Considering biogenic content)

CAPEX (£m) 163.6 271.8 136.3
OPEX (£m/a) 3.7 8.6 4.5
Electricity price, incl. gate fee (£/MWh) 132.9 136.3 96.8
Electricity price, excl. gate fee (£/MWh) 307.7 371.1 320.7

For the Cleveland WtE plant, the break-even electricity price including the gate fee
was 154.4 £/MWh. When excluding the gate fee, however, the break-even electricity
price rises substantially to 329.1 £/MWh. This substantial increase indicates the plant’s
reliance on waste processing revenue to maintain profitability. Without this income,
the Cleveland WtE plant would need to sell electricity at a considerably higher price to
break even, emphasising the importance of integrating multiple revenue streams. For
the CaL retrofit, the break-even electricity price, including the gate fee, was slightly
higher at 164.6 £/MWh, representing only 6.6% increase. This reflects the additional
costs incurred by the calciner and CO2 capture components. However, the CaL retrofit
system benefits from increased waste processing capacity, which helps offset
additional costs usually associated with CO2 capture. When excluding the gate fee,
the break-even electricity price for the CaL retrofit increased substantially to 399.4
£/MWh, representing a 21.37% increase compared to the Cleveland WtE plant. This
higher break-even price is driven by the increased energy requirements and
operational costs associated with the calciner and CO2 capture units, which demand
more substantial electricity revenue to balance the process expenditure. This also
indicated that the CaL retrofit could become a viable option for MSW processing if gate
fee is considered.

Finally, the CaLC-WtE plant had the lowest break-even electricity price, including the
gate fee, at 142.1 £/MWh. This corresponds to lower CAPEX and OPEX for the
proposed process, especially as it captures CO2 while maintaining a relatively low
overall expenditure. However, excluding the gate fee, the break-even electricity price
for the CaLC-WtE system rises to 366.1 £/MWh, an 11.23% increase compared to the
Cleveland WtE plant but still lower than the CaL retrofit system. This lower price can
be attributed to reduced OPEX and CAPEX of the CaLC-WtE plant compared to the
CaL retrofit.

Comparing the considered cases holistically, it is evident that the CaL retrofit system
incurred the highest break-even electricity price, notably when excluding the gate fee,
largely due to the added energy demands and operational costs associated with the
calciner and CO2 capture processes. In contrast, the CaLC-WtE system, despite lower
power output, maintained a more competitive break-even price, benefiting from a
balanced integration of waste processing revenue and more efficient CO 2 capture. The
Cleveland WtE plant, while the most straightforward in design and operation, heavily
relies on gate fee revenue to remain economically viable, as its break-even electricity
price, excluding the gate fee, is relatively high.

Optimistic scenario: Biogenic carbon in MSW considered as climate neutral

The expenditure breakdown for the Cleveland WtE plant, the CaL retrofit, and the
CaLC-WtE plant, under the assumption that biogenic carbon in MSW is considered
carbon-neutral, is presented in Figure 5. This assumption significantly influences the
CO2 emissions costs, as only fossil-derived carbon emissions are counted as part of
the expenditure. Notably, the CO2 emissions cost for the Cleveland WtE plant,
therefore, was estimated to be £815,736, based on a carbon tax of £100/tCO 2. It
corresponded to 22% of the total expenditure, compared to 45% in the previous
scenario. In contrast, both the CaL retrofit and the CaLC-WtE plant achieve zero fossil
CO2 emissions, eliminating the expenditure associated with CO2 emissions. Notably,
these processes become net negative carbon emitters (Table 8) and can leverage this
to generate an additional revenue stream associated with offering CO2 offsets, for
example, to the voluntary carbon market. This substantial shift in CO2 emissions costs
represents a notable difference compared to the earlier scenario where biogenic
carbon was not considered neutral.

Variable and fixed O&M expenditures still substantially contribute to the total
expenditure for all considered cases, and the absolute values remained at the same
level to those in the previous scenario. Notably, the variable O&M cost accounted for
52%, 34% and 33% of the total expenditure for the Cleveland WtE plant, the CaL
retrofit, and the CaLC-WtE plant, respectively. The fixed O&M cost accounted for 26%,
17% and 16% of the total expenditure for the Cleveland WtE plant, the CaL retrofit,
and the CaLC-WtE plant, respectively. The costs associated with CO2 transport and
storage, as well as the sorbent make up are unchanged from the previous analysis.

The reduced cost associated with CO2 emissions influenced the total expenditure in
the considered processes. Namely, the unabated Cleveland WtE plant incurred a total
expenditure of £3,680,184. The CaL retrofit resulted in a total expenditure of
£8,603,351, representing a 2.34-fold increase compared to the Cleveland WtE plant.
This increase is driven primarily by the additional costs of CO2 transport and storage,
sorbent make-up, and higher O&M costs. The CaLC-WtE plant, resulted in a total
expenditure of £4,523,841. Although higher than the Cleveland WtE, this process
provides a more balanced trade-off between reduced emissions and manageable
expenditure components.
 Fixed O&M
26%

CO2
emissions
Variable 22%
O&M
52%

a)

Fixed O&M CO2

17% transport
and storage
32%

Variable
O&M
Sorbent
34%
make up
17%

b)

Fixed O&M
16% CO2 transport
and storage
26%

Variable O&M
33% Sorbent make
up
25%

c)

Figure 5: Breakdown of expenditure for a) Cleveland WtE plant; b) CaL retrofit; and c)
CaLC-WtE plant
In the scenario where biogenic emissions from MSW were considered climate neutral,
the total revenue across the Cleveland WtE plant, CaL retrofit, and CaLC-WtE plant
reflected the electricity generation and waste processing capacities, along with the
added revenue stream from carbon offsets for the CaL-based systems. For the
purpose of fair analysis, the gate fee and the cost of electricity were fixed at 100 £/tMSW
and 170 £/MWelh, respectively. The distribution of the revenue in the considered cases
is shown in Figure 6.

For the Cleveland WtE plant, the revenue was solely derived from electricity
generation and waste processing, with no additional income from carbon offsets.
Electricity sales contribute £12,385,474, and waste processing brings in £12,730,882,
resulting in a total revenue of £25,116,357, similarly to the conservative case. For the
CaL retrofit, the revenue benefited from increased electricity generation, enhanced
waste processing capacity, and the additional carbon offset revenue. The revenue
from electricity sales (£17,045,096) and waste processing (£23,543,917) were the
same as in the conservative case. In addition, the CaL retrofit benefited from an
additional revenue of £2,573,338 from carbon offset. The total revenue for the CaL
retrofit system was £43,162,351, a 71.85% increase compared to the Cleveland WtE
plant, highlighting the potential economic advantage. The CaLC-WtE system, though
less energy-intensive than the CaL retrofit system, also showed a diversified revenue
stream. The electricity revenue (£9,663,145) and the waste processing revenue
remains consistent with the conservative case. Additionally, the CaLC-WtE plant
received an extra revenue of £817,413 from carbon offset credits, reflecting its CO2
capture capabilities. The total revenue for the CaLC-WtE system was £23,211,440, a
7.59% decrease compared to the Cleveland WtE plant but with the added benefit of
carbon offsets. Notably, consideration of offsets provided support to balance the
CaLC-WtE plant’s revenue despite its lower energy output.
 100% 4%
6%
90%
Revenue distribution (%)

80%
51%
70% 55%
55%
60%
50%
40%
30%
49%
20% 39% 42%
10%
0%
Cleveland WtE CaL Retrofit CaLC-WtE

Electricity Waste processing Carbon offsets

Figure 6: Breakdown of revenue streams for a) Cleveland WtE plant; b) CaL retrofit; and
c) CaLC-WtE plant

The break-even cost of electricity for the Cleveland WtE plant, CaL retrofit, and CaLC-
WtE plant was evaluated (Table 9). Similarly to the conservative case, two electricity
prices are considered for each system: the price including the gate fee and excluding
the gate fee. For the Cleveland WtE plant, the break-even electricity price, including
the gate fee, was 132.9 £/MWh. However, when excluding the gate fee, the break-
even electricity price rises to 307.7 £/MWh. This sharp increase indicates that, without
the revenue from waste processing, the Cleveland WtE plant would need to sell
electricity at a considerably higher price to remain economically viable. In the case of
the CaL retrofit, the break-even electricity price, including the gate fee, is slightly higher
at 136.3 £/MWh. Despite the added complexities of the CaL retrofit, it only results in a
2.6% increase in the break-even cost of electricity compared to the Cleveland WtE
plant. However, when excluding the gate fee, the break-even electricity price for the
CaL retrofit increased to 371.1 £/MWh, representing a 20.6% increase compared to
the Cleveland WtE plant. This higher break-even price reflects the energy-intensive
nature of the CaL process, as well as the additional operational costs related to CO2
capture and sorbent regeneration.
Finally, the CaLC-WtE plant had the lowest break-even electricity price, including the
gate fee, at 96.8 £/MWh. This lower price demonstrates the system’s more efficient
balance of revenue from CO2 offsets, waste processing, and reduced operational
costs, especially in comparison to the CaL retrofit. However, when excluding the gate
fee, the break-even electricity price for the CaLC-WtE plant increased to 320.7 £/MWh.
Although this price is 4.2% higher than that for the Cleveland WtE plant, it remains
13.6% lower than that of the CaL retrofit.
KEY LEARNING AND CONCLUSIONS
This report has evaluated the techno-economic performance of the Cleveland WtE
plant, the CaL retrofit, and the CaLC-WtE plant, focusing specifically on net efficiency,
specific CO2 emissions, and the break-even cost of electricity. These KPIs are critical
in assessing both the environmental performance and economic viability of each
system.

Net efficiency is a crucial measure of the energy recovery potential from the WtE
plants. The Cleveland WtE plant achieved a net efficiency of 19.47%, which was the
highest among the three configurations. The CaL retrofit, while achieving 90% CO2
capture, reduced the net efficiency to 14.49%. Such a reduction was attributed
primarily to the additional energy requirements for the air separation unit and CO2
compression unit. The CaLC-WtE plant achieved a net efficiency of 15.18%, slightly
higher than the CaL retrofit due to lower energy requirements. Notably, such a net
efficiency was still 4.29% points lower than that for the Cleveland WtE plant.

Considering the environmental performance, the Cleveland WtE plant, which does not
capture CO2, had the highest net specific CO2 emissions at 559.83 gCO2/kWh,
excluding biogenic emissions. The CaL retrofit showed a substantial reduction in CO2
emissions, achieving a negative net specific CO2 emission rate of -1284.30 gCO2/kWh.
Such a negative value highlights the ability of the CaL retrofit to capture more CO2
than it emits, making it highly attractive from a carbon reduction standpoint. The CaLC-
WtE plant also showed notable CO2 capture levels, with a net specific CO2 emission
rate of -721.12 gCO2/kWh. A lower CO2 capture level than that in the CaL retrofit was
driven by the amount of energy available for sorbent regeneration in the MSW fed to
the external combustor, for which the mass flow rate was fixed at the same rate as
that in the Cleveland WtE plant. Nevertheless, both CO2 capture systems represent
an improvement in environmental performance compared to the Cleveland WtE plant.

The break-even cost of electricity was a critical economic indicator for the viability of
the considered processes. When considering gate fee, the Cleveland WtE plant had
a break-even electricity price of 132.9 £/MWh. The CaL retrofit, resulted in a higher
break even cost of electricity at 136.3 £/MWh, although this corresponded only to 2.6%
increase. The CaLC-WtE plant was estimated to result in the lowest break-even
electricity price at 96.8 £/MWh, reflecting its relatively lower operational and capital
costs, as well as improved balance between waste processing and energy generation.
Excluding gate fees, the break-even electricity costs were significantly higher, with the
Cleveland WtE plant at 307.7 £/MWh, the CaL retrofit at 371.1 £/MWh, and the CaLC-
WtE plant at 320.7 £/MWh.

In summary, the Cleveland WtE plant achieved the highest net efficiency but had the
highest CO2 emissions, and relied heavily on waste processing fees to keep its
electricity costs competitive. The CaL Retrofit, while reducing net efficiency,
substantially re the specific CO2 emissions and can achieve negative emissions,
though at a higher break-even electricity cost. The CaLC-WtE plant provided a
balanced option between efficiency and CO2 capture, offering the lowest break-even
electricity price when gate fees were considered. These KPIs indicated that while all
three systems seem viable, the CaL retrofit and CaLC-WtE plant provided significantly
better environmental performance, with the latter being the most economically
competitive option under the current economic conditions.
PART #2: ENGAGEMENT WITH THE WtE INDUSTRY
IN THE EAST COAST CLUSTER

CASE STUDY: FEASIBILITY OF INTEGRATING CO2

CAPTURE, UTILISATION AND STORAGE TECHNOLOGIES
TO WASTE-TO-ENERGY FACILITIES AT CSG
Case study context
The Net Zero Industry Innovation Centre (NZIIC) has recently been awarded funding
by the UK Carbon Capture and Storage Research Community (UKCCSRC) to perform
the “Techno-economic and carbon footprint assessment of advanced waste-to-energy
with carbon capture and storage for East Coast Cluster”. The proposed research aims
to develop and thoroughly examine the feasibility of an advanced waste-to-energy
(WtE) plant based on calcium looping combustion. Such a WtE plant is expected to
enable affordable negative emission heat and power supply to industrial clusters. The
secondary aim of this research is to build relationships with the key stakeholders in
carbon capture, utilisation and storage, and WtE sectors in the East Coast Cluster to
develop a solid industrially-backed consortium to demonstrate and commercialise the
calcium looping combustion technology.

As a part of the outreach activity, the NZIIC team led by Professor Dawid Hanak has
engaged with the Technical Site Coordinator, John-Ross Charlton, and the Regional
Business Manager, Craig Dufferwiel, at CSG. This engagement aims to build on the
ongoing activities within the UKCCSRC project and analyse the feasibility of using
carbon capture, utilisation, and storage technologies to treat the flue gas from the WtE
planned at CSG.

This report presents the initial techno-economic feasibility assessment of two

promising CCUS technologies - Monoethanolamine (MEA) scrubbing and Calcium
Looping (CaL) - specifically tailored to your flue gas composition and operational
context.
Key findings highlighted in this case study include:

• Technical viability: Both MEA and CaL are technically feasible for capturing
CO2 from your flue gas, achieving capture rates exceeding 100 tonnes per day.

• Comparative analysis: While MEA offers a lower initial investment and

operating cost, CaL offers potentially higher revenue due to the generation of
additional electricity.

• Flue gas compatibility: The analysis suggests that CSG flue gas composition
meets most requirements for both technologies, although further testing with
the technology providers is recommended.

• Future considerations: The report acknowledges limitations due to variable

operating conditions and cost estimate assumptions, and emphasises the need
for further research on business models and life cycle assessments.

The process models for the post-combustion CCUS based on the monoethanolamine
(MEA) solvent scrubbing process [40] and the CaL process [13] require the flue gas
composition to be represented as either mass fraction or mole fraction. The
measurement data representing the flue gas conditions and composition provided by
CSG were reconciled. Note the full flue gas composition received from CSG has been
removed from this report to maintain commercial confidentiality. For reference, the flue
gas considered in this case study had a CO2 concentration of 4.7625%vol.

Feasibility analysis
Both technologies demonstrate significant efficacy in mitigating emissions, achieving
high CO2 capture rates exceeding 100 tonnes per day (t/d). CaL retrofit showed a
marginally higher capture rate, reaching 108.30 t/d compared to 107.24 t/d in the case
of MEA retrofit. However, a potential discrepancy requires further investigation due to
the different physical properties being utilised in the process models. This could have
led to potential discrepancies in conversion from volumetric flow rate to mass flow.
Nevertheless, the CO2 capture rate is comparable in both considered retrofit
scenarios.
From the process perspective, the MEA retrofit exhibits a significantly higher power
requirement, consuming 12.30 MWh/d, compared to the net amount of power
generated by the CaL retrofit of 48.37 MWh/d. This indicated that the CaL retrofit
generates power as a byproduct, offsetting its own needs and contributing to the net
power output of the WtE. Furthermore, the MEA retrofit utilises 8.5 t/d of steam that
would need to be supplied from the WtE steam cycle, additional gas boilers or external
steam supply network. The CaL retrofit requires 20.92 t/d of natural gas that can be
potentially substituted by waste. It is also important to highlight that the MEA retrofit
requires 2.14 t/d of solvent make-up, significantly lower than in the CaL retrofit, which
needs 73.66 t/d of fresh material. This difference needs further experimental
investigation, considering the potential impact of flue gas composition on CO 2 capture
material composition and degradation. Further development of the process design and
optimisation of the operational conditions is necessary to minimise the energy
requirement and deterioration of the CO2 capture material.

From a financial perspective, MEA retrofit emerges as a more prudent option. Its initial
investment (TOC) is £8.03m, significantly lower than that for the CaL retrofit's
£18.68m. The additional TOC in the latter case can be associated with the need for
the waste heat recovery systems and steam cycles, as well as the air separation unit
to produce high-purity O2 for oxy-calcination. Moreover, the annual operating cost for
the MEA retrofit is expected to be lower (£2.93m) than that for the CaL retrofit
(£3.53m). This was mostly due to the additional natural gas requirement in the
considered CaL retrofit case. It is worth noting, however, that it could be possible to
directly process an additional amount of waste in the calciner, which would result in
more favourable financial performance, as demonstrated in the Part #1 of this report.

While both technologies generate positive annual benefit, the CaL retrofit is expected
to result in more than double the benefit of its counterpart. Notably, the CaL retrofit
generates £1.44m annually compared to £0.63m estimated for the MEA retrofit.
However, such a financial benefit requires careful consideration against its significantly
higher cost burden. Interestingly, the cost per tonne of captured CO2 remains
comparable for both technologies, hovering around £113/tCO 2. This emphasises the
critical importance of evaluating the balance between capture cost and benefit
achieved from integrating the CO2 capture to the WtE, focusing on the available
business models where the UK Government may subsidise CAPEX and OPEX.

Table 2: Summary of the retrofit cases

Parameter MEA Retrofit CaL Retrofit
CO2 in the flue gas (t/d) 118.22 120.21^
CO2 in the clean gas (t/d) 10.98 11.92
CO2 capture rate (t/d) 107.24 108.30
CO2 to storage (t/d) 107.24 207.21
Power requirement (MWh/d) 12.30 -48.37
Steam requirement (t/d) 8.5 0
Gas requirement (t/d) 0 20.92
Capture material make up (t/d) 2.14 73.66
Total overnight cost (£m,2022) 8.029 18.68
Annual operating cost (£m/a,2022) 2.932 3.53
#
Annual benefit/revenue (£m/a, 2022) 0.63 1.44
Cost of CO2 captured (£/t, 2022)* 113.6 112.3
*Further optimisation required
^Different property package used for flue gas composition resulted in different conversion
from volumetric flow rate to mass flow rate
#
For MEA retrofit, the annual benefit stems from reduced UK ETS cost. For CaL retrofit,
the annual benefit stems from reduced UK ETS cost and additional electricity generation.
Impact of flue gas impurities
Impact of flue gas impurities on MEA solvent
MEA solvent remains a popular choice for capturing CO2 from flue gas streams due
to its relatively high CO2 absorption capacity and moderate regeneration costs.
However, the presence of various impurities in flue gas can significantly impact the
performance and lifespan of the MEA retrofit. The overview below examines the key
flue gas impurities present in the CSG flue gas and their interactions with MEA,
highlighting their potential consequences on the efficiency and sustainability of the
capture process.

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx): NO2, a prominent NOx component, can react with MEA to
form secondary amines, notably diethanolamine (DEA). These secondary amines can
further react with NOx to generate nitrosamines, known for their carcinogenic and
mutagenic properties. Limiting NOx exposure is crucial to minimise MEA degradation
and ensure the environmental safety of the capture process.
Particulate Matter (PM): Uncontrolled PM poses a significant challenge by clogging
packing materials in the absorption tower, reducing the effective contact area between
the flue gas and the solvent. Consequently, CO2 capture efficiency may decline.
Maintaining strict PM removal standards (e.g., <5 mg/Nm 3) is essential for optimal
system performance. The CSG currently meets this requirement.

Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) and Hydrogen Chloride (HCl): Both SO2 and HCl can react
with MEA to form heat-stable salts, leading to solvent degradation and corrosion of
equipment. Strict control of SO2 concentration (3-30 mg/Nm3) and effective removal
of HCl are crucial to prevent these adverse effects and ensure the long-term integrity
of the capture system.

The SO/HCl content in the CSG flue gas should not pose a significant solvent
degradation, although experimental trials are recommended to verify this.

Hydrogen Fluoride (HF): Limited research exists on the specific impact of HF on

MEA-based capture. However, considering its potential to react with amines and form
harmful salts, further investigation is warranted to fully understand its potential risks
and mitigation strategies.

Oxygen (O2): The presence of O2 can trigger oxidative degradation of MEA,

converting it to ammonia (NH3) and reducing its CO2 capture capacity. This can
significantly increase operating costs due to the need to replace lost solvent. Blending
MEA with other solvents (e.g., MDEA) or employing oxygen removal techniques offer
promising avenues for mitigating this issue.

Moisture: Moderate moisture content in the flue gas can enhance CO2 absorption by
MEA. However, excessive moisture can dilute the solvent, necessitating additional
energy for solvent regeneration, thereby impacting overall system efficiency.
Optimising the moisture content is crucial for balancing CO2 capture enhancement and
energy consumption.

Impact of flue gas impurities on Ca-based sorbent

Ca-based sorbents, mostly calcium oxide (CaO), are considered as an emerging
material for to capture CO2 from flue gas streams. While offering several advantages,
such as high CO2 capture capacity, the presence of various flue gas impurities can
influence its performance and cyclic performance. Similarly to the MEA solvent, a brief
overview of the impurities present in the CSG WtE flue gas has been performed.

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx): A small fraction of NOx can be adsorbed by CaO particles
and released in the calciner. Furthermore, any N2O present in the flue gas was shown
to be decomposed in the carbonator. This can support mitigation of its negative
environmental impact.

Particulate Matter (PM): PM itself does not directly impact CO2 capture capacity of
CaO. However, high PM levels can lead to agglomeration within the sorbent, reducing
its effective surface area and hindering CO2 capture efficiency.

Sulphur Dioxide (SO2): SO2 exhibits high affinity for Ca-based sorbents. Research
has shown a significant reduction in conversion efficiency over extended cycles (e.g.,
20% to <5% after 10 cycles) with 0.1% SO2 in the flue gas. Effective SO2 removal
strategies are necessary to maintain long-term performance and prevent capacity
degradation. The CSG flue gas contains significantly less SO2 and, therefore, sulfation
is not expected to lead to a substantial sorbent degradation.

Hydrogen Chloride (HCl): While initial studies suggested a negative impact of HCl
on the CO2 carrying capacity of Ca-based under specific conditions, recent research
indicates potential long-term benefits. In realistic settings with steam present during
calcination, HCl might improve the sorbent's cyclic performance over time. Further
investigation is needed to fully understand this complex interaction and its potential
implications.

Hydrogen Fluoride (HF): Limited data exists regarding the impact of HF on Ca-based
capture. Considering its chemical similarities to HCl, it might exhibit similar behaviour.
However, dedicated studies are necessary to confirm this hypothesis and assess the
potential risks and mitigation strategies for HF exposure.
Oxygen (O2): Unlike for MEA-based systems, O2 does not seem to have a known
reaction pathway with CaO and does not appear to impact its CO 2 capture
performance. This presents a significant advantage over other capture technologies
sensitive to oxygen presence.

Moisture: Moisture, in the form of steam, can have a positive impact on the
performance of Ca-based sorbents. During reactivation, steam facilitates hydration,
which improves the CO2 capture capacity of Ca-based sorbent in subsequent cycles.
Optimising steam usage during regeneration is crucial for maintaining optimal
performance and resource efficiency.

Summary of the impact of impurities on CO2 capture material impact

Effective management of the flue gas impurities is critical for the sustainable and long-
term cyclic performance of both MEA and Ca-based materials. Notably, the volume of
impurities in the CSG flue gas appears to be small and in line with the requirements
for the MEA and CAL retrofit. Flue gas tests with the technology provider are highly
recommended.
Table 3: Summary of impurities impact on process performance
Flue gas impurity MEA CaL
NO2 Can react with amines. Small fraction of NOx can be
Potentially contributor to MEA adsorbed by CaO particles and
degradation to secondary released in the calciner. N2O
amines (i.e. DEA). These can would decompose in the
then react with NOx to produce carbonator [43,44].
nitrosamines [41,42].
PM Needs to be restricted as much No direct impact, but high
as possible to reduce packing amounts of PM can lead to
clogging and loss in contact agglomeration in the sorbent.
area. A threshold of <5
mg/Nm3 was reported in the
literature [41].
SO2 Can react with amines to form SOx has high affinity to Ca-based
heat-stable corrosive salts. To sorbents. 0.1% SO2 in the flue
avoid solvent degradation, gas can reduce the conversion
concentration needs to be from 20% after 10 cycles to <5%
restricted to 3-30 mg/Nm3 [41]. after 10 cycles [45].
HCL It can react with an amine in Can influence the carrying
the absorber, resulting in capacity of fresh sorbent for
formation of heat-stable salts calcination under N2
[46]. atmosphere. However, may
improve sorbent performance
over the long-term for calcination
under realistic conditions,
especially in the presence of
steam [47].
HF Effect not commonly studied. Not commonly studied, but
potentially similar impact to HCl.
O2 Can cause oxidative No known effect and reaction
degradation of amines, i.e. pathway with sorbent.
oxidation of MEA to NH3.
Oxidation can consume 0.29-
0.73 kgMEA/tCO2 captured [46].
Blending MDEA with MEA can
reduce oxidation. R&D is
carried out on inhibitors
development [41].
Moisture It can have a positive effect in Can have positive impact on
facilitating the CO2 capture sorbent performance. Steam
dissolution in a solvent. commonly considered for sorbent
Although can cause solvent reactivation via hydration [45,49].
dilution [48].
Limitations and initial conclusions
It is crucial to acknowledge the limitations inherent in this analysis solely based on the
provided data points. The presented performance prediction can deviate from the
actual plant performance due to the presence of diverse operating conditions,
especially in the case of variable feedstock composition. Therefore, further research
is essential to explore how fluctuations in flue gas composition or other parameters
influence the performance of the CCUS retrofits.

Furthermore, the provided cost figures are specific to 2022 and subject to
assumptions. The final cost figures, especially cost of CO2 captured, is highly sensitive
to CAPEX and OPEX. Therefore, the initial techno-economic assumptions will need to
be adjusted for specific project context and variation in the future economic landscape.
Nevertheless, the outputs of this initial feasibility assessment

Finally, a comprehensive life cycle assessment would allow to gather a holistic

understanding of the environmental footprint associated with each CCUS retrofit
considered, as it would include aspects beyond greenhouse gas emissions.
PART #3: THOUGHT LEADERSHIP IN DECARBONISATION

Webinars and conference presentations

Event ID UKCCSRC_P_01

Event name Net Zero Academic with Prof. Hanak

Platform LinkedIn

Presentation title Waste-to-Energy with CO2 capture

Presenter Prof. Dawid Hanak

Link [Link]
Attendees
143
(live)
Unique views
276
(lifetime)
Meeting with CSG & Suez; Invitation to IMechE & FERF
Output
events

Event ID UKCCSRC_P_02
Decarbonising Industrial Clusters, IMechE, 16 April 2024,
Event name
Sedgefield, UK
Platform In person event
Carbon Capture and Utilisation for Decarbonisation of
Presentation title
Industrial Clusters
Presenter Prof. Dawid Hanak

Link [Link]
Attendees
N/A
(live)
Unique views
N/A
(lifetime)
Output N/A
Event ID UKCCSRC_P_03
The Fuel And Energy Research Forum Environment
Interest Group Carbon Capture And Ash Treatment For
Event name
Biomass And Waste Combustion And The FERF 8th
Annual Meeting, 10 April 2024, Sheffield, UK.
Platform In person event

Presentation title Carbon Capture at ERF Plants

Presenter Prof. Kumar Patchigolla

Link N/A
Attendees
N/A
(live)
Unique views
N/A
(lifetime)
Output N/A
Trade articles

Article ID UKCCSRC_T_01

Outlet Illuminem
Beyond landfill: can waste-to-energy and carbon capture
Title
change the game?
Author Prof. Dawid Hanak
[Link]
Link can-wastetoenergy-and-carbon-capture-change-the-
game/
Unique views
Not measured
(lifetime)
Output N/A

Article ID UKCCSRC_T_02

Outlet Transition to Net Zero / LinkedIn

Unlocking the potential of waste-to-energy and CCUS
Title
synergy: Redefining negative emissions in the UK
Author Prof. Dawid Hanak
[Link]
Link
waste-to-energy-ccus-synergy-redefining-hanak-flyee/
Unique views
3,129
(lifetime)
Output N/A
REFERENCES
1. Gammer D, Elks S. Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture. Energy
Systems Catapult; 2020.

2. BEIS. 2020 UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Final Figures [Internet].

2022;Available from: [Link]
greenhouse-gas-emissions-national-statistics-1990-to-2020

3. AECOM. Next Generation Carbon Capture Technology. 2022.

4. Magnanelli E, Mosby J, Becidan M. Scenarios for carbon capture integration in a

waste-to-energy plant. Energy 2021;227:120407.

5. Hanak DP, Erans M, Nabavi SA, Jeremias M, Romeo LM, Manovic V. Technical
and economic feasibility evaluation of calcium looping with no CO2 recirculation.
Chem. Eng. J. 2018;335:763–73.

6. WOOD. Assessing the Cost Reduction Potential and Competitiveness of Novel

(Next Generation) UK Carbon Capture Technology - Benchmarking State-of-the-
art and Next Generation Technologies. Department for Business, Energy &
Industrial Strategy; 2018.

7. Gibbins J, Lucquiaud M. BAT Review for New-Build and Retrofit Post-Combustion

Carbon Dioxide Capture Using Amine-Based Technologies for Power and CHP
Plants Fuelled by Gas and Biomass and for Post-Combustion Capture Using
Amine-Based and Hot Potassium Carbonate Technologies on EfW Plants as
Emerging Technologies under the IED for the UK. University of Sheffield; 2022.

8. Hanak DP, Manovic V. Calcium looping combustion for high-efficiency low-

emission power generation. J. Clean. Prod. 2017;161:245–55.

9. Hitachi Zosen INOVA. Cleveland (UK): Energy-from-Waste Plant. 2012.

10. Haaf M, Anantharaman R, Roussanaly S, Ströhle J, Epple B. CO2 capture from

waste-to-energy plants: Techno-economic assessment of novel integration
concepts of calcium looping technology. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
2020;162:104973.

11. ECN. ECN Phyllis classification [Internet]. 2012;Available from:

[Link]

12. Bredehoeft P, Dysert L, Hollmann J, Pickett T. Cost estimate classification

system - as applied in engineering, procurement, and construction for the building
and general construction industries. AACE International; 2020.
13. Hanak DP, Biliyok C, Anthony EJ, Manovic V. Modelling and comparison of
calcium looping and chemical solvent scrubbing retrofits for CO2 capture from
coal-fired power plant. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2015;42:226–36.

14. Rodríguez N, Alonso M, Abanades JC. Average activity of CaO particles in a

calcium looping system. Chem. Eng. J. 2010;156:388–94.

15. Sánchez-Biezma A, Paniagua J, Diaz L, Lorenzo M, Alvarez J, Martínez D, et

al. Testing postcombustion CO2 capture with CaO in a 1.7 MWt pilot facility.
Energy Procedia 2013;37:1–8.

16. Haaf M, Hilz J, Peters J, Unger A, Ströhle J, Epple B. Operation of a 1 MWth

calcium looping pilot plant firing waste-derived fuels in the calciner. Powder
Technol. 2020;372:267–74.

17. Greco-Coppi M, Seufert P, Hofmann C, Rolfe A, Huang Y, Rezvani S, et al.

Efficient CO2 capture from lime plants: Techno-economic assessment of
integrated concepts using indirectly heated carbonate looping technology. Carbon
Capture Sci. Technol. 2024;11:100187.

18. Shimizu T, Hirama T, Hosoda H, Kitano K, Inagaki M, Tejima K. A twin fluid-

bed reactor for removal of CO2 from combustion processes. Chem. Eng. Res. Des.
1999;77:62–8.

19. Hanak DP, Anthony EJ, Manovic V. A review of developments in pilot plant
testing and modelling of calcium looping process for CO2 capture from power
generation systems. Energy Environ. Sci. 2015;8:2199–249.

20. Perejón A, Romeo LM, Lara Y, Lisbona P, Martínez A, Valverde JM. The
Calcium-Looping technology for CO2 capture: On the important roles of energy
integration and sorbent behavior. Appl. Energy 2016;162:787–807.

21. Abanades JC, Anthony EJ, Wang J, Oakey JE. Fluidized bed combustion
systems integrating CO2 capture with CaO. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005;39:2861–
6.

22. Junk M, Reitz M, Ströhle J, Epple B. Thermodynamic evaluation and cold flow
model testing of an indirectly heated carbonate looping process. Chem. Eng.
Technol. 2013;36:1479–87.

23. Junk M, Reitz M, Strohle J, Epple B. Technical and economical assessment of

the indirectly heated carbonate looping process. J. Energy Resour. Technol.
2016;138.

24. Sun P, Grace JR, Lim CJ, Anthony EJ. Removal of CO2 by calcium-based
sorbents in the presence of SO2. Energy Fuels 2007;21:163–70.
25. Grasa GS, Alonso M, Abanades JC. Sulfation of CaO particles in a
carbonation/calcination loop to capture CO2. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2008;47:1630–
5.

26. Wang W, Ramkumar S, Li S, Wong D, Iyer M, Sakadjian BB, et al. Subpilot

demonstration of the carbonation-Calcination reaction (CCR) process: High-
temperature CO2 and sulfur capture from coal-fired power plants . Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res. 2010;49:5094–101.

27. Michalski S, Hanak DP, Manovic V. Techno-economic feasibility assessment

of calcium looping combustion using commercial technology appraisal tools. J.
Clean. Prod. 2019;219:540–51.

28. Black J. Capital Cost Scaling Methodology. National Energy Technology

Laboratory; 2013.

29. NETL. Cost Estimation Methodology for NETL Assessments of Power Plant
Performance. National Energy Technology Laboratory; 2011.

30. Asim M, Kumar R, Kanwal A, Shahzad A, Ahmad A, Farooq M. Techno-

economic assessment of energy and environmental impact of waste-to-energy
electricity generation. Energy Rep. 2023;10:3373–82.

31. Atsonios K, Koumanakos A, Panopoulos KD, Doukelis A, Kakaras E. Techno-

Economic Comparison of CO 2 Capture Technologies Employed With Natural Gas
Derived GTCC [Internet]. In: Volume 2: Aircraft Engine; Coal, Biomass and
Alternative Fuels; Cycle Innovations. 2013. page V002T07A018-
[Link] from:
[Link]
GT2013-95117

32. Kreutz T, Williams R, Consonni S, Chiesa P. Co-production of hydrogen,

electricity and CO2 from coal with commercially ready technology. Part B:
Economic analysis. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2005;30:769–84.

33. Gabbrielli R, Singh R. Economic and Scenario Analyses of New Gas Turbine
Combined Cycles With No Emissions of Carbon Dioxide. J. Eng. Gas Turbines
Power 2005;127:531.

34. Manzolini G, Macchi E, Gazzani M. CO2 capture in natural gas combined cycle
with SEWGS. Part B: Economic assessment. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control
2013;12:502–9.

35. Aminyavari M, Mamaghani AH, Shirazi A, Najafi B, Rinaldi F. Exergetic,

economic, and environmental evaluations and multi-objective optimization of an
internal-reforming SOFC-gas turbine cycle coupled with a Rankine cycle. Appl.
Therm. Eng. 2016;108.
36. Hanak DP, Manovic V. Combined heat and power generation with lime
production for direct air capture. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018;160:455–66.

37. Shirazi A, Aminyavari M, Najafi B, Rinaldi F, Razaghi M. Thermal-economic-

environmental analysis and multi-objective optimization of an internal-reforming
solid oxide fuel cell-gas turbine hybrid system. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy
2012;37:19111–24.

38. Lee YD, Ahn KY, Morosuk T, Tsatsaronis G. Exergetic and exergoeconomic
evaluation of a solid-oxide fuel-cell-based combined heat and power generation
system. Energy Convers. Manag. 2014;85:154–64.

39. Hanak DP, Michalski S, Manovic V. From post-combustion carbon capture to

sorption-enhanced hydrogen production: A state-of-the-art review of carbonate
looping process feasibility. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018;177:428–52.

40. Hanak DP, Biliyok C, Yeung H, Białecki R. Heat integration and exergy analysis
for a high ash supercritical coal-fired power plant integrated with a post-combustion
carbon capture process. Fuel 2014;134:126–39.

41. SEPA. Review of amine emissions from carbon capture systems. Scottish
Environment Protection Agency; 2015.

42. Fostås B, Gangstad A, Nenseter B, Pedersen S, Sjøvoll M, Sørensen AL.

Effects of NOx in the flue gas degradation of MEA. Energy Procedia 2011;4:1566–
73.

43. Shimizu T, Shimoda T, Houshito R, Kato H, Hara O, Li L. N2O Reduction and

NOx Adsorption in Carbonator of Calcium Looping CO2 Capture Process. J. Jpn.
Inst. Energy 2017;96:228–38.

44. Shimizu T, Ito K, Shizuno S, Houshito R, Shimoda T, Tsukahara H, et al.

Reaction Pathways of NOX and N2O over CaO in the Presence of Char under
Carbonator Conditions of Calcium-Looping CO2 Capture Process. J. Jpn. Inst.
Energy 2016;95:1115–24.

45. Chen L, Dai W, Wang C, Wang W, Anthony EJ. The combined effect of SO2
and H2O on CO2 capture performance by calcium looping. J. CO2 Util.
2021;54:101798.

46. Neerup R, Rasmussen VE, Vinjarapu SHB, Larsen AH, Shi M, Andersen C, et
al. Solvent degradation and emissions from a CO2 capture pilot at a waste-to-
energy plant. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2023;11:111411.

47. Symonds RT, Lu DY, Macchi A, Hughes RW, Anthony EJ. The effect of HCl
and steam on cyclic CO2 capture performance in calcium looping systems. Chem.
Eng. Sci. 2021;242:113762.
48. Sun Z, Fan M, Argyle M. Supported Monoethanolamine for CO2 Separation.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011;50:11343–9.

49. Zhang L, Zhang B, Yang Z, Guo M. The Role of Water on the Performance of
Calcium Oxide-Based Sorbents for Carbon Dioxide Capture: A Review. Energy
Technol. 2015;3:10–9.