Cost of Capturing Co From Industrial Sources: July 15, 2022

COST OF CAPTURING CO2
FROM INDUSTRIAL SOURCES

SYDNEY HUGHES, ALEXANDER ZOELLE
July 15, 2022

Disclaimer
This project was funded by the United States Department of Energy, National Energy
Technology Laboratory, in part, through a site support contract. Neither the United
States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, nor the
support contractor, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied,
or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or
usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents
that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific
commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or
otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or
favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and
opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the
United States Government or any agency thereof.
All images in this report were created by NETL, unless otherwise noted.
COST OF CAPTURING CO2 FROM INDUSTRIAL SOURCES
Sydney Hughes1,2: Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal Analysis, Writing –

Original Draft, Writing – Review & Editing, Visualization, Supervision; Alex Zoelle1,2:
Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft,
Writing – Review & Editing, Visualization, Supervision; Mark Woods1,2:
Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing, Supervision; Sam Henry1,2: Software,
Formal Analysis, Writing – Review & Editing; Sally Homsy1,2: Formal Analysis,
Supervision; Sandeep Pidaparti1,2: Formal Analysis; Norma Kuehn1,2: Formal
Analysis; Hannah Hoffman1,2: Writing – Review & Editing; Katie Forrest1,2: Writing –
Review & Editing; Alana Sheriff1,2: Writing – Review & Editing; Tim Fout2*:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing, Supervision; W.
Morgan Summers2: Writing – Original Draft, Conceptualization; Steve Herron2,3:
Writing – Original Draft, Conceptualization
*Corresponding contact: [email protected], 304-285-1341

1National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) Support Contractor
2NETL
3Former NETL support contractor
This report was peer reviewed by three independent peer reviewers with various
affiliations and from relevant scientific disciplines to ensure that information presented is
based on sound and credible science and considered technically adequate,
competently performed, properly documented, and in compliance with established
quality requirements. As a step beyond standard internal quality assurance and quality
control procedures, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Fossil Energy and
Carbon Management (FECM)/NETL are committed to rigorous peer review of key work
products to meet the quality standards of the research community. The following
individuals served on the peer review panel:
Richard Bohan, Portland Cement Association
Michael Matuszewski, AristoSys, LLC
Technical expert (anonymity requested)
Suggested Citation:
S. Hughes and A. Zoelle, "Cost of Capturing CO2 from Industrial Sources," National
Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, July 15, 2022.
The authors wish to acknowledge the excellent guidance, contributions, and

cooperation of the NETL staff, particularly:
Timothy Fout, Technical Lead, Energy Process Analysis Team

Travis Shultz, Supervisor, Energy Process Analysis Team
This page intentionally left blank.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Exhibits ................................................................................................................ vi
List of Equations ............................................................................................................. x
Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................... xi
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 1
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 9
1.1 Assumptions ...................................................................................................... 9
2 Plant Sites and CO2 End-Use ............................................................................... 11
3 Economic Analysis Overview .............................................................................. 20
3.1 Cost Estimating Methodology ...................................................................... 20
3.1.1 Capital Costs ........................................................................................... 21
3.1.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs ...................................................... 24
3.2 Capital Charge Factors ................................................................................ 25
3.3 Retrofit Factors ............................................................................................... 27
4 Equipment ............................................................................................................. 28
4.1 Compression................................................................................................... 28
4.1.1 Reciprocating Compressor .................................................................... 28
4.1.2 Centrifugal Compressor.......................................................................... 28
4.2 CO2 Capture and Purification ...................................................................... 29
4.2.1 Cansolv Post-Combustion Capture ....................................................... 30
4.2.2 ADIP-Ultra Pre-Combustion Capture ..................................................... 32
4.3 Industrial Boiler ................................................................................................ 33
4.4 Cooling Water Unit......................................................................................... 33
4.5 Heat Exchangers ............................................................................................ 34
4.6 Ancillary Equipment, Buildings, and Structures ........................................... 34
5 Cost and Performance: High Purity Sources ...................................................... 35
5.1 Ammonia ........................................................................................................ 35
5.1.1 Size Range................................................................................................ 35
5.1.2 CO2 Point Sources ................................................................................... 35
5.1.3 Design Input and Assumptions ............................................................... 36
5.1.4 CO2 Capture System............................................................................... 37
5.1.5 BFD, Stream Table, and Performance Summary .................................. 37
5.1.6 Capture Integration ................................................................................ 38
5.1.7 Power Source ........................................................................................... 38
5.1.8 Economic Analysis Results ...................................................................... 39
i
5.1.9 Plant Capacity Sensitivity Analysis ......................................................... 42

5.1.10 Ammonia Conclusion .......................................................................... 42
5.2 Ethylene Oxide ............................................................................................... 43
5.2.1 Size Range................................................................................................ 43
5.2.2 CO2 Point Sources ................................................................................... 44
5.2.7 Power Source ........................................................................................... 46
5.2.10 Ethylene Oxide Conclusion ................................................................. 50
5.3 Ethanol ............................................................................................................ 51
5.3.1 Size Range................................................................................................ 51
5.3.2 CO2 Point Sources ................................................................................... 51
5.3.7 Power Source ........................................................................................... 56
5.3.10 Ethanol Conclusion .............................................................................. 59
5.4 Natural Gas Processing ................................................................................. 60
5.4.1 Size Range................................................................................................ 60
5.4.2 CO2 Point Sources ................................................................................... 61
5.4.7 Power Source ........................................................................................... 63
5.4.10 Natural Gas Processing Conclusion ................................................... 67
5.5 Coal-to-Liquids ............................................................................................... 68
ii
5.5.1 Size Range................................................................................................ 68

5.5.2 CO2 Point Sources ................................................................................... 68
5.5.7 Power Source ........................................................................................... 71
5.5.10 Coal-to-Liquids Conclusion ................................................................. 74
5.6 Gas-to-Liquids ................................................................................................. 74
5.6.1 Size Range................................................................................................ 75
5.6.2 CO2 Point Sources ................................................................................... 75
5.6.7 Power Source ........................................................................................... 77
5.6.10 Gas-to-Liquids Conclusion................................................................... 81
6 Cost and Performance: Low Purity Sources ...................................................... 82
6.1 Refinery Hydrogen ......................................................................................... 82
6.1.1 Size Range................................................................................................ 82
6.1.2 CO2 Point Sources ................................................................................... 82
6.1.7 Power Source ........................................................................................... 87
6.1.10 Refinery Hydrogen Conclusion ........................................................... 95
6.2 Cement ........................................................................................................... 96
6.2.1 Size Range................................................................................................ 98
6.2.2 CO2 Point Sources ................................................................................... 98
iii

6.2.6 Capture Integration .............................................................................. 102
6.2.7 Power Source ......................................................................................... 102
6.2.8 Economic Analysis Results .................................................................... 102
6.2.9 Plant Capacity Sensitivity Analysis ....................................................... 109
6.2.10 FGD + SCR Sensitivity Case................................................................ 110
6.2.11 Cement Conclusion ........................................................................... 119
6.3 Iron/Steel ....................................................................................................... 120
6.3.1 Size Range.............................................................................................. 120
6.3.2 CO2 Point Sources ................................................................................. 120
6.3.3 Design Input and Assumptions ............................................................. 121
6.3.4 CO2 Capture System............................................................................. 122
6.3.5 BFD, Stream Table, and Performance Summary ................................ 122
6.3.6 Capture Integration .............................................................................. 128
6.3.7 Power Source ......................................................................................... 128
6.3.8 Economic Analysis Results .................................................................... 128
6.3.9 Plant Capacity Sensitivity Analysis ....................................................... 138
6.3.10 Iron/Steel Conclusion......................................................................... 139
7 Economic Analysis .............................................................................................. 140
7.1 Economic Results ......................................................................................... 140
7.1.1 Cost and Performance Summaries ..................................................... 141
7.2 Sensitivity Analyses ....................................................................................... 144
7.2.1 Capital Charge Factor ......................................................................... 144
7.2.2 Retrofit Factor ........................................................................................ 145
7.2.3 Purchased Power Price ......................................................................... 146
7.2.4 Natural Gas Price .................................................................................. 147
7.2.5 Capacity Factor .................................................................................... 148
8 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 150
9 Future Work ......................................................................................................... 152
9.1 In-depth Process Analysis ............................................................................ 152
9.2 Multiple Process Scenario ........................................................................... 152
9.3 Additional Processes.................................................................................... 153
9.4 Techno-economic Analysis of CO2 Distribution to EOR Fields ................. 153
9.5 Life Extension Costs for Existing Facilities .................................................... 153
iv
10 References .......................................................................................................... 154

Appendix: Carbon Balances ................................................................................... 159
v
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit ES-1. Industrial sources of CO2 case summary ............................................... 1
Exhibit ES-2. COC from industrial sources.................................................................... 3
Exhibit ES-3. Capture system BEC and amount of CO2 captured versus capture
rate ................................................................................................................................. 4
Exhibit ES-4. COC versus CO2 partial pressure and CO2 concentration ................. 5
Exhibit ES-5. U.S. industrial CO2 emissions by industry ................................................. 7
Exhibit ES-6. Representative plant COC results versus U.S. industrial CO2 emissions
........................................................................................................................................ 7
Exhibit 1-1. Process design assumptions .................................................................... 10
Exhibit 2-1. Existing CO2 pipelines and active EOR injection sites .......................... 12
Exhibit 2-2. Ammonia plant locations and existing CO2 pipelines and EOR
injection sites ............................................................................................................... 13
Exhibit 2-3. EO plant locations and existing CO2 pipelines and EOR injection sites
...................................................................................................................................... 14
Exhibit 2-4. Ethanol plant locations and existing CO2 pipelines and EOR injection
sites ............................................................................................................................... 15
Exhibit 2-5. NGP plant locations and existing CO2 pipelines and EOR injection
sites ............................................................................................................................... 16
Exhibit 2-6. Refinery hydrogen (U.S. refineries) plant locations and existing CO2
pipelines and EOR injection sites ............................................................................... 17
Exhibit 2-7. Cement plant locations and existing CO2 pipelines and EOR injection
sites ............................................................................................................................... 18
Exhibit 2-8. Steel (BOF) plant locations and existing CO2 pipelines and EOR
injection sites ............................................................................................................... 19
Exhibit 3-1. Capital cost levels and their elements .................................................. 22
Exhibit 3-2. Estimated amounts for owner’s costs .................................................... 23
Exhibit 3-3. Financial assumptions for high purity sources ....................................... 26
Exhibit 3-4. Financial assumptions for low purity sources ......................................... 26
Exhibit 4-1. Reciprocating compressor cases specifications .................................. 28
Exhibit 4-2. Integrally geared centrifugal compressor cases specifications ......... 29
Exhibit 4-3. Shell’s Cansolv CO2 capture typical process flow diagram ................ 30
Exhibit 4-4. ADIP-Ultra CO2 capture typical process flow diagram ........................ 32
Exhibit 5-1. Ammonia production via NG reforming ............................................... 36
Exhibit 5-2. Ammonia CO2 capture BFD ................................................................... 37
Exhibit 5-3. Ammonia stream table ........................................................................... 37
Exhibit 5-4. Performance summary ............................................................................ 38
Exhibit 5-5. Owner’s costs for ammonia greenfield site ........................................... 39
Exhibit 5-6. Capital costs for ammonia greenfield site ............................................ 40
Exhibit 5-7. Initial and annual O&M costs for ammonia greenfield site ................. 41
Exhibit 5-8. COC for 394,000 tonnes/year ammonia greenfield and retrofitA ....... 41
Exhibit 5-9. Ammonia plant capacity sensitivity ....................................................... 42
Exhibit 5-10. 2007 U.S. EO production facility capacities......................................... 43
vi
Exhibit 5-11. EO CO2 capture BFD ............................................................................. 45

Exhibit 5-12. EO stream table ..................................................................................... 45
Exhibit 5-13. Performance summary .......................................................................... 46
Exhibit 5-14. Owner’s costs for EO greenfield site .................................................... 47
Exhibit 5-15. Capital costs for EO greenfield site ...................................................... 48
Exhibit 5-16. Initial and annual O&M costs for EO greenfield site ........................... 49
Exhibit 5-17. COC for 364,500 tonnes/year EO greenfield and retrofit .................. 49
Exhibit 5-18. EO plant capacity sensitivity ................................................................. 50
Exhibit 5-19 U.S. Ethanol plant capacities and quantities ....................................... 51
Exhibit 5-20. U.S. ethanol plant locations .................................................................. 53
Exhibit 5-21. Ethanol CO2 capture BFD ..................................................................... 54
Exhibit 5-22. Ethanol stream table ............................................................................. 54
Exhibit 5-24. Owner’s costs for ethanol greenfield site ............................................ 56
Exhibit 5-25. Capital costs for ethanol greenfield site.............................................. 57
Exhibit 5-26. Initial and annual O&M costs for ethanol greenfield site .................. 58
Exhibit 5-27. COC for 50 M gallons/year ethanol greenfield and retrofit .............. 58
Exhibit 5-28. Ethanol plant capacity sensitivity ......................................................... 59
Exhibit 5-29. Michigan basin producing formation raw gas characteristics ......... 60
Exhibit 5-30. NGP CO2 capture BFD........................................................................... 61
Exhibit 5-31. NGP stream table .................................................................................. 62
Exhibit 5-33. Owner’s costs for NGP greenfield site.................................................. 64
Exhibit 5-34. Capital and costs for NGP greenfield site ........................................... 65
Exhibit 5-35. Initial and annual O&M costs for NGP greenfield site ........................ 66
Exhibit 5-36. COC for 330 MMSCFD NGP greenfield and retrofit............................ 66
Exhibit 5-37. NGP plant capacity sensitivity .............................................................. 67
Exhibit 5-38. CTL CO2 capture BFD ............................................................................ 69
Exhibit 5-39. CTL stream table .................................................................................... 69
Exhibit 5-41. Owner’s costs for CTL greenfield site ................................................... 71
Exhibit 5-42. Capital costs for CTL greenfield site ..................................................... 72
Exhibit 5-43. Initial and annual O&M costs for CTL greenfield site .......................... 73
Exhibit 5-44. COC for 50,000 BPD CTL greenfield ..................................................... 73
Exhibit 5-45. CTL plant capacity sensitivity................................................................ 74
Exhibit 5-46. GTL CO2 capture BFD ............................................................................ 76
Exhibit 5-47. GTL stream table .................................................................................... 76
Exhibit 5-49. Owners’ costs for GTL greenfield site ................................................... 78
Exhibit 5-50. Capital costs for GTL greenfield site..................................................... 79
Exhibit 5-51. Initial and annual O&M costs for GTL greenfield site ......................... 80
Exhibit 5-52. COC for 50,000 BPD GTL greenfield ..................................................... 80
Exhibit 5-53. GTL plant capacity sensitivity ............................................................... 81
Exhibit 6-1. Stream characteristics of raw syngas from SMR ................................... 83
vii
Exhibit 6-2. CO2 capture BFD ..................................................................................... 84

Exhibit 6-3. Refinery hydrogen stream table for 99 percent capture .................... 85
Exhibit 6-4. Refinery hydrogen stream table for 90 percent capture .................... 86
Exhibit 6-5. Refinery hydrogen performance summary ........................................... 87
Exhibit 6-6. Owners’ costs for refinery hydrogen cases ........................................... 88
Exhibit 6-7. Capital costs for refinery hydrogen greenfield site with 99 percent
capture ........................................................................................................................ 89
Exhibit 6-8. Capital costs for refinery hydrogen greenfield site with 90 percent
capture ........................................................................................................................ 90
Exhibit 6-9. Initial and annual O&M costs for refinery hydrogen greenfield site with
99 percent capture .................................................................................................... 92
Exhibit 6-10. Initial and annual O&M costs for refinery hydrogen greenfield site
with 90 percent capture ............................................................................................ 93
Exhibit 6-11. COC for 87,000 tonnes H2/year refinery hydrogen cases .................. 93
Exhibit 6-12. Refinery hydrogen plant capacity sensitivity ...................................... 94
Exhibit 6-13. Refinery H2 capture system BEC and amount of CO2 captured versus
capture rate ................................................................................................................ 95
Exhibit 6-14. USGS cement production trends .......................................................... 96
Exhibit 6-15. 2019 U.S. PC fuel consumption ............................................................. 97
Exhibit 6-16. PC production process .......................................................................... 97
Exhibit 6-17. St. Mary’s cement plant characteristics .............................................. 98
Exhibit 6-18. Cement CO2 capture BFD .................................................................. 100
Exhibit 6-19. Cement stream table for 99 percent capture .................................. 100
Exhibit 6-20. Cement stream table for 90 percent capture .................................. 101
Exhibit 6-21. Performance summary ........................................................................ 102
Exhibit 6-22. Owners’ costs for cement cases ........................................................ 103
Exhibit 6-23. Capital costs for cement greenfield site with 99 percent capture 104
Exhibit 6-24. Capital costs for cement greenfield site with 90 percent capture 105
Exhibit 6-25. Initial and annual O&M costs for cement greenfield site with 99
percent capture ....................................................................................................... 107
Exhibit 6-26. Initial and annual O&M costs for cement greenfield site with 90
percent capture ....................................................................................................... 108
Exhibit 6-27. COC for 1.3 M tonnes/year cement cases ....................................... 108
Exhibit 6-28. Cement plant capacity sensitivity ..................................................... 109
Exhibit 6-29. Cement capture system BEC and amount of CO2 captured versus
capture rate .............................................................................................................. 110
Exhibit 6-30. Capital costs for cement greenfield site with FGD and SCR and 99
percent CO2 capture ............................................................................................... 112
Exhibit 6-31. Capital costs for cement greenfield site with FGD and SCR and 90
percent CO2 capture ............................................................................................... 113
Exhibit 6-32. Owners’ costs for cement cases with FGD and SCR ........................ 116
Exhibit 6-33. Initial and annual O&M costs for cement greenfield site with FGD
and SCR at 99 percent capture .............................................................................. 117
viii
Exhibit 6-34. Initial and annual O&M costs for cement greenfield site with FGD
and SCR at 90 percent capture .............................................................................. 118
Exhibit 6-35. COC for 1.3 M tonnes/year cement greenfield cases (base cases
and FGD + SCR cases) ............................................................................................. 119
Exhibit 6-36. BOF iron and steel plant characteristics [52] .................................... 121
Exhibit 6-37. Braddock steel mill plot plan .............................................................. 121
Exhibit 6-38. CO2 capture BFD for COG/BFS ........................................................... 122
Exhibit 6-39. Iron/steel COG/BFS stream table with 99 percent capture ............ 123
Exhibit 6-40. Iron/steel COG/BFS stream table with 90 percent capture ............ 124
Exhibit 6-41. CO2 capture BFD for COG PPS ........................................................... 125
Exhibit 6-42. Iron/steel COG PPS stream table with 99 percent capture ............ 125
Exhibit 6-43. Iron/steel COG PPS stream table with 90 percent capture ............ 126
Exhibit 6-44. Performance summary for iron/steel COG/BFS section ................... 127
Exhibit 6-45. Performance summary for iron/steel COG PPS section ................... 127
Exhibit 6-46. Owners’ costs for iron/steel retrofit cases .......................................... 129
Exhibit 6-47. Capital costs for iron/steel COG/BFS section retrofit with 99 percent
capture ...................................................................................................................... 130
Exhibit 6-48. Capital costs for iron/steel COG PPS retrofit with 99 percent capture
.................................................................................................................................... 131
Exhibit 6-49. Capital costs for iron/steel COG/BFS section retrofit with 90 percent
capture ...................................................................................................................... 133
.................................................................................................................................... 134
Exhibit 6-51. Initial and annual O&M costs for iron/steel site with 99 percent
capture ...................................................................................................................... 136
Exhibit 6-52. Initial and annual O&M costs for an iron/steel retrofit site with 90
percent capture ....................................................................................................... 137
Exhibit 6-53. COC for 2.54 M tonnes/year iron/steel retrofit cases ....................... 137
Exhibit 6-54. Iron/steel plant capacity sensitivity .................................................... 138
Exhibit 6-55. Iron/steel capture system BEC and amount of CO2 captured versus
capture rate .............................................................................................................. 139
Exhibit 7-1. COC summary ....................................................................................... 140
Exhibit 7-2. Cost and performance summary comparison – high purity cases .. 142
Exhibit 7-3. Cost and performance summary comparison – low purity cases .... 143
Exhibit 7-4. COC vs. CCF .......................................................................................... 144
Exhibit 7-5. COC vs. retrofit factor ........................................................................... 146
Exhibit 7-6. COC vs. purchased power price ......................................................... 147
Exhibit 7-7. COC vs. NG price .................................................................................. 148
Exhibit 7-8. COC vs. CF ............................................................................................. 149
Exhibit A-1. Ethanol case carbon balance ............................................................ 159
Exhibit A-2. Ammonia case carbon balance ........................................................ 159
Exhibit A-3. NGP case carbon balance.................................................................. 159
Exhibit A-4. EO case carbon balance .................................................................... 160
Exhibit A-5. CTL case carbon balance ................................................................... 160
ix
Exhibit A-6. GTL case carbon balance ................................................................... 160

Exhibit A-7. Refinery hydrogen case with 99 percent capture carbon balance 160
Exhibit A-8. Refinery hydrogen case with 90 percent capture carbon balance 161
Exhibit A-9. Iron/steel case COG/BFS stream with 99 percent capture carbon
balance ..................................................................................................................... 161
Exhibit A-10. Iron/steel case COG/BFS stream with 90 percent capture carbon
balance ..................................................................................................................... 161
Exhibit A-11. Steel case COG PPS stream with 99 percent capture carbon
balance ..................................................................................................................... 162
Exhibit A-12. Steel case COG PPS stream with 90 percent capture carbon
balance ..................................................................................................................... 162
Exhibit A-13. Cement 99 percent capture case carbon balance ...................... 162
Exhibit A-14. Cement 90 percent capture case carbon balance ...................... 162
LIST OF EQUATIONS
Equation ES-1 ................................................................................................................. 2
Equation 1-1................................................................................................................... 9
Equation 5-1................................................................................................................. 43
Equation 5-2................................................................................................................. 52
x
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

°C Degrees Celsius EO Ethylene oxide
°F Degrees Fahrenheit EOR Enhanced oil recovery
AACE AACE International (formerly EPC Engineering/procurement/
Association for the construction
Advancement of Cost EPCC Engineering, procurement, and
Engineering) construction cost
abs Absolute EPRI Electric Power Research
AGR Acid gas removal Institute
Ar Argon FGD Flue gas desulfurization
Aspen Aspen Plus® ft3 Cubic foot
atm Atmosphere FT Fischer-Tropsch
B Billion gal Gallon
BBR4 Cost and Performance Baseline GHG Greenhouse gas
for Fossil Energy Plants gpm Gallons per minute
Volume 1: Bituminous Coal GTL Gas-to-liquids
and Natural Gas to h, hr Hour
Electricity, Revision 4
H2 Hydrogen
BEC Bare erected cost
H2O Water
BFD Block flow diagram
H2S Hydrogen sulfide
BFS Blast furnace stove
He Helium
BOF Basic oxygen furnace
HHV Higher heating value
BPD Barrels per day
HX Heat exchanger
Btu British thermal unit
I&C instrumentation and control
C 2H 6 Ethane
IEAGHG IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D
C 3H 8 Propane Programme
C4H10 Butane kg Kilogram
CCF Capital charge factor kJ Kilojoule
CCS Carbon capture and KO Knockout
storage/sequestration
kW, kWe Kilowatt electric
CCSI Carbon Capture Simulation
lb Pound
Initiative
LHV Lower heating value
CF Capacity factor
M Million
CH4 Methane
m3 Cubic meter
CH4S Methanethiol
MEA Monoethanethiol
CO Carbon monoxide
MMBtu Million British thermal units
COC Cost of CO2 capture
MMCFD Million cubic feet per day
CO2 Carbon dioxide
MMSCFD Million standard cubic feet per
COG Coke oven gas
day
CTL Coal-to-liquids
mol% Mole percent
DOE Department of Energy
MPa Megapascal
EAF Electric arc furnace
MW, MWe Megawatt electric
Eng’g CM H.O & Fee Engineering
MWh Megawatt-hour
construction management
home office and fees N/A Not applicable/available
N2 Nitrogen
xi
NaOH Sodium hydroxide SCR Selective catalytic reduction

NETL National Energy Technology SMR Steam methane reforming
Laboratory SO2 Sulfur dioxide
NG Natural gas SOx Oxides of sulfur
NGP Natural gas processing T&S Transport and storage
NOx Oxides of nitrogen TAG® Technical Assessment Guide
O&M Operation and maintenance TASC Total as-spent cost
O2 Oxygen TEG Triethylene glycol
O-H Overhead TOC Total overnight cost
PC Portland cement tonne Metric ton (1,000 kg)
PPS Power plant stack TPC Total plant cost
PSA Pressure swing adsorption U.S. United States
psia Pound per square inch USD U.S. dollar
absolute USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
psig Pound per square inch gauge USGS United States Geological
QGESS Quality Guidelines for Energy Survey
System Studies V-L Vapor-liquid
R&D Research and development yr Year
scf Standard cubic feet
xii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The objective of this report is to provide an estimate of the cost to capture carbon dioxide (CO2)
from selected industrial processes. The following nine processes were chosen for analysis due to
either the high purity of the CO2 emission source (99–100 mole percent CO2) or the large
quantity of CO2 potentially available. The processes considered in this study are summarized in
Exhibit ES-1, where “CO2 Available for Capture” represents the amount of pure CO2 in the
capture stream described in the table for each case, at a 100 percent capacity factor (CF).
Exhibit ES-1. Industrial sources of CO2 case summary
Base Plant CO2 Available for Capture

Case
Process Production Capture Stream Description
Class (M tonnes CO2/year)
Capacity
394,000
Ammonia Stripping vent: 23.52 psia 0.486
tonnes/year
364,500 Acid gas removal CO2

Ethylene Oxide 0.122
tonnes/year stream: 43.5 psia
High Ethanol 50 M gal/year Fermenter off-gas: 17.40 psia 0.143

Purity Natural Gas
330 MMSCFD CO2 vent: 23.52 psia 0.649
Processing
AGR CO2 streams: 160 psia,
Coal-to-Liquids 50,000 BPD 8.74
265 psia, and 300 psia
Gas-to-Liquids 50,000 BPD AGR CO2 stream: 265 psia 1.86
Refinery Raw syngas from SMR: 399.9

87,000 tonnes/year 0.405
Hydrogen psia
Low
Cement 1.3 M tonnes/year Kiln off-gas: 14.7 psia 1.21
Purity
COG PPS: 14.7 psia 3.74 (total of both
Steel/Iron 2.54 M tonnes/year
COG/BFS: 14.7 psia capture streams)
Note: COG = coke oven gas; PPS = power plant stack; BFS = blast furnace stove
For each industrial process considered, available plant information, such as existing average
plant size, projected new development plant size, or existing plant operations data was used to
develop a reference plant for this study. Plant size is one factor affecting the amount of CO 2
available for capture from an industrial process. Other factors are specific to each industry. For
example, the ammonia industry captures and re-uses CO2 in urea production, and natural gas
processing (NGP) plant CO2 emissions are dependent upon the raw gas compositions entering
the facility. As such, specific assumptions related to CO2 availability are necessary to establish
each representative plant and to suggest the industry’s average CO2 emissions.
For each process, the CO2 capture cost for a greenfield facility and a retrofit facility was
calculated with the latter being calculated by applying a retrofit factor to the greenfield total
plant cost (TPC). For the iron/steel process, only a retrofit case is given since the representative
1
plant is a basic oxygen furnace facility, which are no longer being constructed. For the coal-to-
liquids (CTL) and gas-to-liquids (GTL) cases, no retrofit case is given, since no plants currently
exist domestically, and it is assumed that none will be constructed without CO2 capture. The
cost metric of interest is the cost of CO2 captured in U.S. dollars per tonne, as calculated in
Equation ES-1. In this report, costs are presented in December 2018 real dollars.
$ 𝑇𝑂𝐶 ∗ 𝐶𝐶𝐹 + 𝐹𝑂𝑀 + 𝑉𝑂𝑀 + 𝑃𝐹 + 𝑃𝑃 Equation ES-1

𝐶𝑂𝐶 ( )=
𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒 𝐶𝑂2 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠 𝐶𝑂2 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟
Where:
TOC – Total overnight costs of equipment added for the application of CO2 capture
CCF – Capital charge factor, based on industry-specific financial assumptions as detailed in
Section 3.2
FOM – Annual fixed operating & maintenance (O&M) costs
VOM – Annual variable O&M costs
PF – Purchased fuel
PP – Purchased power
The high purity emissions sources are inherently produced by their base plants at CO2
concentrations suitable for pipeline transport, requiring only compression, associated
intercooling, and, in some cases, glycol dehydration. The low purity sources considered offer
emission streams with CO2 concentrations below that which is acceptable for pipeline use, per
guidance in National Energy Technology Laboratory’s (NETL) “Quality Guidelines for Energy
System Studies (QGESS): CO2 Impurity Design Parameters” specifications. [1] As such, the
refinery hydrogen, cement, and iron/steel cases require CO2 removal systems along with
compression, associated intercooling, and glycol dehydration. For the CO2 removal systems, two
capture rates were evaluated, 90 and 99 percent, to evaluate the cost of capturing the CO2 from
the emissions streams defined in Exhibit ES-1.a
Exhibit ES-2 provides the resulting greenfield and retrofit cost of CO2 capture (COC), where
appropriate, for each case considered in this study, along with the capital, variable and fixed
O&M, purchased power and/or natural gas (NG) fuel cost components for each case. For each
case, other than those of iron/steel, the individual cost components shown (i.e., capital costs,
fixed O&M costs, variable O&M costs, and purchased power/natural gas) represent the cost
components that add to the total COC in greenfield applications. For iron/steel, those individual
cost components represent retrofit costs. In addition, each high purity source shows the total
retrofit COC, which is estimated based on methodology described in Section 3.3, except for the
CTL and GTL cases. As there are no existing CTL or GTL plants in the domestic industrial fleet, it
a This report does not consider capture of the CO2 produced by the natural gas-fired boiler used for steam generation in
the low purity cases (i.e., for solvent regeneration) or other process streams outside of those defined in Exhibit ES-1. If this
CO2 was captured, it would greatly impact the results presented herein. Such an analysis is discussed in the future work
considerations detailed in Section 9.
2
is assumed that future (i.e., greenfield) builds would include carbon capture (i.e., retrofit
capture applications at CTL or GTL facilities would not be expected). Further details regarding
the estimation of capital, operating, and maintenance costs are provided within the body of the
report.
Exhibit ES-2. COC from industrial sources
Fixed Variable Purchased

Capital Greenfield Retrofit
Case O&M O&M Power/
Costs COC COC
Costs Costs Natural Gas
Ammonia 6.1 3.9 2.7 6.3 19.0 19.0
Ethylene Oxide 9.4 9.8 1.7 5.2 26.0 26.2
Ethanol 14.1 9.2 1.7 6.8 31.8 32.0
NGP 6.2 3.4 1.5 5.0 16.1 16.2
CTL 2.0 0.7 0.3 2.6 5.6 N/A
GTL 2.9 1.2 0.3 1.9 6.4 N/A
Refinery 90% Capture 22.8 15.6 5.3 16.2 59.9 61.7

Hydrogen 99% Capture 21.3 14.4 5.1 16.5 57.3 58.9
90% Capture 22.8 11.1 6.1 22.6 62.7 64.3
Cement
99% Capture 21.8 10.6 5.9 22.6 60.8 62.4
90% Capture 28.0 9.5 5.7 22.6 N/A 65.9
Iron/Steel
99% Capture 27.8 9.3 5.6 22.6 N/A 65.4
Note: All values expressed in December 2018 U.S. dollars per tonne CO2.
The results show that CTL has the lowest greenfield COC, followed by GTL, NGP, ammonia,
ethylene oxide (EO), ethanol, refinery hydrogen, and finally, cement, which has the highest
greenfield COC. Retrofit applications exclude CTL and GTL, but follow the same cost pattern;
however, the highest retrofit COC is the iron/steel case.
For the low purity cases, the normalized COC ($/tonne CO2) decreases slightly with increasing
capture rate (i.e., from 90 to 99 percent capture). The cost of the capture system and associated
consumables increases at a lesser rate than that of the amount of CO2 captured (i.e., a 10
percent increase from 90 to 99 percent capture). This is the effect of accuracy ranges of the
capital cost estimates from the capture system vendor (-25/+40 percent) and the cost scaling
methodology employed in this study. [2] [3] The margin of error associated with the cost
estimate indicate that with increasing capture rate in the low purity cases, the COC is effectively
the same. The reported minor increase in capital cost with increased capture rate (up to 99
percent for sources with CO2 purity greater than 12 percent) based on vendor furnished cost
and performance estimates has been validated by independent modeling performed by the
carbon capture simulation initiative team at NETL and has been reported independently in
literature. [4] Exhibit ES-3 shows the error in the calculated capture system BEC associated with
the vendor’s quoted uncertainty rate alongside the amount of CO2 captured in the cement case
3
from 90 to 99 percent capture rate. Similar graphs in for the refinery hydrogen and iron/steel
cases can be found in Section 6.1.10 and Section 6.3.10, respectively.
Exhibit ES-3. Capture system BEC and amount of CO 2 captured versus capture rate
Exhibit ES-4 shows a plot of the COC versus the assumed CO2 stream partial pressure and the
assumed CO2 concentrations for each of the base cases considered in this report. The general
trend shows that as both the CO2 concentration and the CO2 partial pressure decrease, the COC
of CO2 increases. The average COC for the six processes with CO2 concentration greater than 95
percent is $17.5/tonne, while the average COC for the three processes with CO2 concentration
less than 50 percent is $62.0/tonne. The partial pressure in the high purity cases is mainly
reflective of the CO2 concentration.
4
Exhibit ES-4. COC versus CO2 partial pressure and CO2 concentration
Note: Marker size is relatively indicative of CO2 captured (tonnes/year).
The trends observed in this study may not be universally applicable because the assumptions
made for each case in this study may not apply to all real-world examples of a specific industry.
Additionally, concentration trends are emphasized due to the potential misleading nature of
partial pressure values. In some instances, partial pressure can have directly recognizable effects
on the COC; higher pressures will reduce the size of and duty of compression equipment, but
this may not always be the case. For example, a stream with a total pressure of 1,000 psia, and a
concentration of 10 percent CO2, would have a partial pressure of 100 psia. For the cases in this
study, this partial pressure would be considered high, and might be expected to result in a low
COC. However, for this example, capture and/or purification would be required, and therefore
the resulting COC would not be expected to follow the partial pressure trend observed in Exhibit
ES-4.
There are also exceptions to these trends driven by economies of scale. Such a relationship is
demonstrated in Exhibit ES-4 when comparing the results of NGP and ammonia. The CO2 stream
partial pressures are equivalent, and the concentrations are also the same at 99 percent.
However, the greenfield COCs were calculated to be $16.1/tonne CO2 for NGP and $19.0/tonne
CO2 for ammonia, about an 18 percent difference. This is a result of the amount of CO2 available
for capture in each case. Based on the assumptions made for each representative plant, NGP
has 649,225 tonne/year CO2 available, while ammonia only has 486,227 tonne/year available.
Therefore, while the CO2 stream partial pressures and concentrations are equivalent, there is 33
percent more CO2 available for capture and sale at the NGP reference plant, resulting in a lower
normalized CO2 capture cost. The factors noted above in Exhibit ES-4, namely CO2 partial
pressure, concentration, and economies of scale (i.e., CO2 available at each representative
5
plant), result in a significant range of CO2 capture costs. The highest greenfield COC, the cement
case with 90 percent capture, is more than eleven times the price of the least expensive case
(i.e., CTL).
In addition, the assumptions regarding the quality of the CO2 emissions stream from the base
plant in each case may greatly impact the COC. For instance, the base cement case assumes that
the kiln off-gas is suitable to be sent directly for CO2 separation; however, cement industry
members suggest that the kiln off-gas may have higher-than-acceptable levels of oxides of sulfur
(SOx)/oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and would require the addition of selective catalytic reduction
(SCR) and flue gas desulfurization (FGD). A sensitivity to this case was performed to evaluate the
effect of adding these unit operations to the cement cases. The amount of SOx/NOx was not
directly characterized; instead, the FGD and SCR costs were scaled from Case B12B of Revision 4
of NETL’s “Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Volume 1: Bituminous Coal
and Natural Gas to Electricity” based on the quantity of gas to be treated (i.e., the total flow of
kiln off-gas). [5] Case B12B presents an SCR with a 78 percent NOx removal efficiency and an
FGD that removes 2,000 ppm, by volume, of SOx from the coal boiler flue gas stream. The
results of this sensitivity analysis show that the addition of a similar SCR and FGD to the cement
plant’s CO2 capture system would increase greenfield COC by 23–25 percent with a COC of
$74.8/tonne CO2 and $78.0/tonne CO2 for 99 and 90 percent capture, respectively.
While the calculation of a COC demonstrates the capture costs across different industries based
on a specific set of plant assumptions, another important consideration is the amount of CO2
available from each industry. Neglecting CO2 transportation costs, if two industries demonstrate
approximately equivalent normalized COCs, but one has a significantly larger supply, the
industry with the larger supply would offer the more effective decarbonizationb application at
the same or similar normalized cost. Exhibit ES-5 shows the CO2 emissions by industry in the
United States, while Exhibit ES-6 presents a plot of COC versus the amount of domestic CO2
emissions, both based on the Environmental Protection Agency Facility Level Information on
Greenhouse Gases Tool as of the 2020 reporting year.c [6] The COCs are those calculated in this
study for greenfield sites except for iron/steel, which is for a retrofit application. This plot shows
the cost of the source relative to the potentially capturable emissions in the United States.
b Decarbonization within the context of this report is defined as the reduction of point-source emissions from industrial
processes. Lifecycle analysis of decarbonization efforts as it relates to the CO2 capture operations evaluated in this
report is not considered but could be considered in future work opportunities.
c CO2 emissions related to EO production are not reported in Environmental Protection Agency’s Facility Level
Information on Greenhouse Gases Tool; as such, the total emissions were estimated based on the total EO production as
of 2019 [53] and an emissions factor of 1:3 CO2:EO on a molar basis, according to reaction stoichiometry as detailed in
Section 5.2.
6
Exhibit ES-5. U.S. industrial CO2 emissions by industry
U.S. Total CO2 Emissions in 2020

Industry
(M tonnes CO2/year) [6]
Ammonia 36
Ethylene Oxide 0.95
Ethanol 18
Natural Gas Processing 56
Coal-to-Liquids 0
Gas-to-Liquids 0
Refinery Hydrogen 30
Cement 66
Steel/Iron 62
Exhibit ES-6. Representative plant COC results versus U.S. industrial CO2 emissions
Note: Only the 99 percent capture cases are shown for low purity sources in Exhibit ES-6.
Based on emissions rates, of the industrial plants with existing operations (i.e., excluding CTL
and GTL), EO is the least impactful decarbonization option given the small amount of CO2
available for capture (0.95 M tonnes/year), and cement manufacturing is the most impactful
option with the largest amount of CO2 available (66 M tonnes/year). Based on normalized COC,
NGP is the least expensive industrial source of CO2 within the existing U.S. fleet with a price of
$16.1/tonne, and iron/steel is the most expensive option with a price of $64.8/tonne.
7
Sensitivities to CF, cost of purchased power, plant size in terms of CO2 emissions per year, and
capital charge factor (CCF) were analyzed for each greenfield case. A sensitivity to natural gas
price was also performed for the greenfield low purity cases. In these cases, natural gas is
burned in an industrial boiler, described in Section 4.3, to generate steam for solvent
regeneration in the CO2 capture process. Lastly, a sensitivity to the retrofit factor applied to
generate retrofit application costs was evaluated for each case, excluding CTL and GTL, which do
not have retrofit applications. The plant size sensitivity results for each case, evaluated across
the typical plant size ranges specific to each industry, can be found in the corresponding
sections, and all other sensitivity analyses can be found in Section 7.2.
The general results of the sensitivities evaluated are as follows:
• As CF varies from 65 to 95 percent, the COC for each case decreases, most notably in the
Refinery H2 90 percent capture case where a $18.0/tonne CO2 decrease is observed
across the sensitivity range. An 85 percent CF was assumed for the cases in this study.
• As purchased power price increases, the COC also increases. This study assumes that all
electricity requirements are provided by purchasing power from the grid. In cases
requiring additional power beyond just compression, such as power for auxiliary loads in
the CO2 separation processes, the COC increase is more dramatic. The largest increase
across the sensitivity range was observed in the iron/steel and cement cases at
$16.4/tonne.
• The sensitivity to CCF is important as different industries may have access to different
costs of capital. The CCF for each case was developed by NETL’s Energy Markets Analysis
Team based on market financial data respective to each industrial sector. Details of the
financial factors used in this study are given in Section 3.2. As CCF varies from 5 percent
to 35 percent, the capture costs can increase by up to $150.2/tonne as observed in the
refinery hydrogen case with 90 percent capture.
• The final sensitivity to natural gas price showed that as the natural gas price varied over
the range $3–10/MMBtu, the COC may rise as much as $30.6/tonne CO2 as was
observed in the iron/steel 90 percent capture case.d
This study uses the COC and CO2 supply to compare nine potential industrial CO2 sources. The
results are representative of the assumptions regarding the reference plant and its CO2
emissions stream(s). Scale and location will impact results for actual plants. Methods of CO2
transport and storage (T&S) and the associated costs are considerations that could ultimately
change the economic impact of implementing carbon capture at a specific plant. T&S costs were
not considered in this study; however, Section 2 examines the location of individual plants in
each industry relative to CO2 pipelines and current EOR sites to qualitatively identify relative
advantages or disadvantages for decarbonization in each industry, as it relates to T&S. To
estimate T&S costs, users may refer to NETL’s “Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies
(QGESS): Carbon Dioxide Transport and Storage Costs in NETL Studies” for guidance. [7]
d This report does not consider capture of the CO2 produced by the NG-fired boiler. If this CO2 was captured, it would
impact the results presented herein greatly, due to the lower concentration of CO2 in the flue gas stream compared to
that of the low purity industrial sources considered. It would also increase the amount of CO 2 available for capture, as
NG consumption increases. Such an analysis is discussed in the future work considerations detailed in Section 9.
8
1 INTRODUCTION
With a global initiative to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, several common industrial
processes have been identified as potential opportunities for carbon dioxide (CO2) capture. Of
the 9 processes considered in this report, 7 have existing operations in the United States,
contributing just under 270 M tonnes per year of CO2 emissions in 2020 based on reporting to
the Environmental Protection Agency. [6] Industrial plant CO2 emissions sources offer
advantages when considering decarbonization due to their relatively high concentrations of CO2
in emissions streams, which may lead to lower normalized capture costs. With high CO2
concentrations, separation equipment costs are minimized, or even eliminated in cases where
CO2 streams are 99–100 percent pure. This study evaluates nine representative plants with CO2
emissions sources having relatively high concentrations to determine the cost of CO2 capture.
The cost of CO2 capture (COC) in each case, as defined by Equation 1-1, considers the
equipment required for CO2 removal, if applicable, and compression, as well as the balance of
plant equipment as detailed in Section 4.3 through Section 4.6, and operation and maintenance
(O&M), purchased power, and fuel costs, as applicable. Throughout the report, “CO 2 capture”
refers to the incremental equipment required to prepare the CO2 emissions stream for pipeline
transport (i.e., compression and intercooling, auxiliary equipment, CO2 removal systems, etc.).
$ 𝑇𝑂𝐶 ∗ 𝐶𝐶𝐹 + 𝐹𝑂𝑀 + 𝑉𝑂𝑀 + 𝑃𝐹 + 𝑃𝑃 Equation 1-1

𝐶𝑂𝐶 ( )=
𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒 𝐶𝑂2 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠 𝐶𝑂2 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟
Where:
TOC – Total overnight costs of equipment added for the application of CO2 capture
CCF – Capital charge factor, based on industry-specific financial assumptions as detailed in
Section 3.2
FOM – Annual fixed O&M costs
VOM – Annual variable O&M costs
PF – Purchased fuel
PP – Purchased power
Estimates of financing scenarios specific to each industry were applied to the capital
costs to account for return on equity and financing costs. Financial methodology and
the resulting financial factors for each case are presented in Section 3.
1.1 ASSUMPTIONS
There are many industrial processes that produce CO2 emissions, and as such, criteria were
established to justify the inclusion of an industrial process in this report. First, an industrial plant
must be representative of either a relatively large amount of CO2 emissions (i.e., an emissions
source that could benefit from economies of scale) or of a 99–100 percent pure CO2 stream. The
9
second criterion for inclusion is that an industrial plant is likely to provide a relatively low
normalized COC. This condition is highly dependent upon the first criteria, as normalized COC
values are a function of CO2 availability. Power production plants are not considered in this
study, as they are evaluated in NETL’s collection of baseline studies, such as “Cost and
Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to
Electricity.” [5] Process models were developed for each case based on guidance in NETL’s
“Quality Guidelines for Energy Systems Studies (QGESS): Process Modeling Design Parameters,”
and applicable model assumptions are shown in Exhibit 1-1. [8]
Exhibit 1-1. Process design assumptions

Site Characteristics
Location Greenfield, Midwestern U.S.
Topography Level
Size, acres 10
Particulate Matter Disposal Off-Site
Water Supply 50% Municipal and 50% Ground Water
Site Ambient Conditions
Elevation, meter (feet) 0 (0)
Barometric Pressure, MPa (psia) 0.101 (14.696)
Average Ambient Dry Bulb Temperature, °C (°F) 15 (59)
Average Ambient Wet Bulb Temperature, °C (°F) 10.8 (51.5)
Design Ambient Relative Humidity, % 60
Cooling Water Temperature, °C (°F) 15.6 (60)
Natural Gas Characteristics
Component Volume %
Methane CH4 93.1
Ethane C2H6 3.2
Propane C3H8 0.7
n-Butane C4H10 0.4
Carbon Dioxide CO2 1.0
Nitrogen N2 1.6
MethanethiolA CH4S 5.75x10-6
LHV HHV
kJ/kg (Btu/lb) 47,201 (20,293) 52,295 (22,483)
Megajoule/standard
34.52 (927) 38.25 (1,027)
cubic meter (Btu/scf)
Air composition based on published psychrometric data, mass %
Nitrogen N2 75.055
Oxygen O2 22.998
Argon Ar 1.280
Water H2O 0.616
Carbon Dioxide CO2 0.050
A The sulfur content of natural gas is primarily composed of added Mercaptan (methanethiol [CH4S]) with trace
levels of hydrogen sulfide (H2S)
10
2 PLANT SITES AND CO2 END-USE

The assumption made for this study is that the final CO2 product is transported via pipeline to
be utilized in enhanced oil recovery (EOR) applications, and as such applies the specifications for
CO2 product purity, pressure, and temperature after capture and compression per National
Energy Technology Laboratory’s (NETL) “QGESS: CO2 Impurity Design Parameters” specifications.
[1] The viability of adding capture to a representative plant would ultimately be dependent
upon the costs for transport and storage (T&S) of the CO2 captured in addition to the COCs
evaluated in this report. T&S costs are not considered in the metric of value, COC of CO2, in this
study but should be considered by an owner evaluating capture implementation at an industrial
facility. Other uses for the CO2 may be available to owners, but those alternate possibilities were
not considered for the purpose of this report. In addition, analysis of the base plants for each of
the nine processes considered falls outside the scope of this study (i.e., cost of cement
production before and after CO2 capture).
Leaving the system boundary of this study is a CO2 stream that has been purified, where
necessary, and compressed to pipeline specifications of 2,200 psig per QGESS specification. [1]
While detailed pipeline specifications such as pressure drop, length, and other characteristics,
are not considered in this report, and as noted in Exhibit 1-1, the study assumes a generic
midwestern plant for the purposes of consistency in process modeling, it is useful to highlight
potential industrial CO2 capture locations and their relative locations to sites/transport
mechanisms that could be utilized. Exhibit 2-1 shows existing CO2 pipelines and EOR injection
sites, while the seven maps that follow, Exhibit 2-2 through Exhibit 2-7, illustrate the proximity
of plants for each industrial source type to the existing CO2 pipeline and EOR infrastructure.
There are currently no U.S. coal-to-liquids (CTL) or gas-to-liquids (GTL) plants in operation, so no
map is given for these cases.
11
Exhibit 2-1. Existing CO2 pipelines and active EOR injection sites
A large percentage of ammonia plants are in close proximity to existing CO2 pipelines and EOR
injection sites, as shown in Exhibit 2-2. The bars on the chart represent gross (light blue) and net
(dark blue) ammonia production at each plant. As noted in Section 5.1.2, the representative
ammonia production in the United States was considered at gross capacity, but in some
ammonia plants, portions of gross ammonia and CO2 produced are further utilized to make
ammonia derivatives, such as ammonium nitrate or urea. Alternate use of CO2 in ammonia
plants is outside the scope of this study, but net capacities are shown alongside gross capacities
in Exhibit 2-2 for reference or future use.
12
Exhibit 2-2. Ammonia plant locations and existing CO2 pipelines and EOR injection sites
Exhibit 2-3 shows the location of EO plants and their relation to existing CO2 pipelines and EOR
injection sites. U.S. EO production is concentrated in Texas and Louisiana. Of the 15 U.S. EO
plants, 6 are located very close to existing EOR pipelines and injection sites. Therefore, from a
location standpoint, EO presents a potentially advantageous option for capture integration.
However, due to the small scale of the existing EO plants (i.e., the small amount of CO2 available
for capture), diseconomies of scale may deter implementation.
13
Exhibit 2-3. EO plant locations and existing CO2 pipelines and EOR injection sites
As shown in Exhibit 2-4, a large percentage of ethanol plant locations are not near existing CO2
pipelines or EOR injection site locations; however, most of the ethanol processing facilities are
grouped in the Midwest and could potentially realize economies of scale collectively to justify
the addition of a new CO2 pipeline for connection to existing infrastructure. This scenario falls
outside the scope of this study but could be considered in future work.
14
Exhibit 2-4. Ethanol plant locations and existing CO2 pipelines and EOR injection sites
Exhibit 2-5 shows the location of natural gas processing (NGP) facilities and their relations to
existing CO2 pipelines and EOR injection sites. Plant capacities are shown on this map; however,
given the 471 NGP facilities, each treating a different amount of natural gas (NG) with widely
varying CO2 concentrations, there may not be a direct correlation between capacity and CO2
available. This means that a large facility processing NG with low CO2 concentration may have
less CO2 available than a smaller facility processing NG with a much higher CO2 concentration.
15
Exhibit 2-5. NGP plant locations and existing CO2 pipelines and EOR injection sites
Exhibit 2-6 shows the location of U.S. refineries that produce hydrogen, and their proximity to
existing CO2 pipelines and EOR injection sites. There are many refineries near existing EOR
pipelines and injection sites. However, the map is only intended to show the relative crude
throughput capacity of the refineries, and not the amount of CO2 available. There is not
necessarily a direct relationship between refinery capacity and CO2 available for capture.
16
Exhibit 2-6. Refinery hydrogen (U.S. refineries) plant locations and existing CO 2 pipelines and EOR injection sites
Exhibit 2-7 shows the location of cement plants and their relation to existing CO2 pipelines and
EOR injection sites. Some cement plants are located relatively close to existing infrastructure
and given the typically larger scale of cement production capacity, and consequently larger
amount of CO2 emissions available, construction of a connecting pipeline for other cement
facilities may be a viable means of decarbonization in the cement industry. This is scenario is
not evaluated within the context of this study.
17
Exhibit 2-7. Cement plant locations and existing CO2 pipelines and EOR injection sites
Exhibit 2-8 shows currently operating steel basic oxygen furnace (BOF) plants and their relation
to existing CO2 pipelines and EOR injection sites. Steel does not appear to provide ease of
implementation for EOR end-use because many facilities would not be able to utilize any of the
existing EOR infrastructure. However, based on this study’s assumptions, steel plants represent
the largest amount of CO2 available among the industries considered that are currently
operating plants in the United States; therefore, construction of connecting pipelines may be a
viable means of decarbonization in the steel industry. This scenario is not evaluated in the
context of this study.
18
Exhibit 2-8. Steel (BOF) plant locations and existing CO2 pipelines and EOR injection sites
19
3 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OVERVIEW

The industrial sources considered in this study are grouped into “High Purity” and “Low Purity”
groups, based on the concentration of CO2 in the stream to be captured. The prior iteration of
this report applied global financial assumptions based on the simple delineation between high
and low purity sources. This approach relied on the fact that high purity sources would only
require compression, whereas low purity sources would require CO2 removal and compression,
and each would have distinct construction, and thus capital expenditure, periods. For this
revision update, capital expenditure assumptions have been maintained, but additional detail
regarding each specific industry’s financial assumptions have been added based on market data
analysis performed by NETL’s Energy Markets Analysis Team in October 2021.
3.1 COST ESTIMATING METHODOLOGY

Detailed information pertaining to topics such as contracting strategy; engineering,
procurement, and construction (EPC) contractor services; estimation of capital cost
contingencies; owner’s costs; cost estimate scope; economic assumptions; and finance
structures are available in the 2019 revision of the QGESS document “Cost Estimation
Methodology for NETL Assessment of Power Plant Performance.” [9] Select portions are
repeated in this report for completeness.
Costs of Mature Technologies and Designs:
The cost estimates for cases that only contain fully mature technologies, which have been
widely deployed at commercial scale (e.g., high purity cases, which only require compression)
reflect nth-of-a-kind on the technology commercialization maturity spectrum. The costs of such
technologies have dropped over time due to “learning by doing” and risk reduction benefits
that result from serial deployments as well as from continuing research and development
(R&D). All process equipment in the estimates found herein is commercially available, so no
process contingencies were added to those cases, except for those which require purification
(i.e., low purity cases) via acid gas removal as detailed in Section 4.2.
Costs of Emerging Technologies and Designs:
The cost estimates for cases that include technologies that are not yet fully mature (e.g.,
capture systems for low purity cases) use the same cost estimating methodology as for mature
technologies, which does not fully account for the unique cost premiums associated with the
initial, complex integrations of emerging technologies in a commercial application. Thus, it is
expected that addition of capture equipment in low purity cases may incur costs higher than
those estimated for a mature technology. As such, process contingency of 17 percent is applied
to the CO2 removal system for low purity cases based on engineering judgment and for
consistency of process contingencies applied for similar technologies in other NETL studies. [5]
Other Factors:
Actual reported project costs for all the plant types are also expected to deviate from the cost
estimates in this report due to project- and site-specific considerations (e.g., contracting
strategy, local labor costs, seismic conditions, water quality, financing parameters, local
20
environmental concerns, weather delays) that may make construction more costly. Such
variations are not captured by the reported cost uncertainty.
3.1.1 Capital Costs

As illustrated in Exhibit 3-1, this report defines capital cost at five levels: BEC, EPCC, TPC, TOC,
and TASC. BEC, EPCC, TPC, and TOC are “overnight” costs and are expressed in “base-year”
dollars. The base year is the first year of capital expenditure. TASC is expressed in mixed,
current-year dollars over the entire capital expenditure period, which is assumed to last one
year in high purity cases and three years in low purity cases. The cost estimates presented in
this study are considered Class 4 estimates, as defined by AACE International (AACE) 16R-90.
[10]
The Bare Erected Cost (BEC) comprises the cost of process equipment, on-site facilities and
infrastructure that support the plant (e.g., shops, offices, labs, road), and the direct and indirect
labor required for its construction and/or installation. The cost of EPC services and
contingencies are not included in BEC.
The Engineering, Procurement and Construction Cost (EPCC) comprises the BEC plus the cost of
services provided by the EPC contractor. EPC services include detailed design, contractor
permitting (i.e., those permits that individual contractors must obtain to perform their scopes of
work, as opposed to project permitting, which is not included here), and project/construction
management costs.
The Total Plant Cost (TPC) comprises the EPCC plus project and process contingencies.
The AACE 16R-90 states that project contingency for a “budget-type” estimate (AACE Class 4 or
5) should be 15–30 percent of the sum of BEC, EPC fees, and process contingency. [10]
Therefore, a 20 percent project contingency was added to each cost account across all cases.
The Total Overnight Cost (TOC) comprises the TPC plus all other overnight costs, including
owner’s costs. TOC does not include escalation during construction or interest during
construction.
The Total As-Spent Cost (TASC) is the sum of all capital expenditures as they are incurred during
the capital expenditure period including their escalation. TASC also includes interest during
construction, comprising interest on debt and a return on equity.
21
Exhibit 3-1. Capital cost levels and their elements
process equipment
Bare Erected Cost
supporting facilities Engineering, Procurement
BEC
direct and indirect EPCC and Construction Cost
labor Total Plant Cost
TPC Total Overnight Cost
EPC contractor services Total As-Spent Cost
process contingency
TOC
project contingency
TASC
pre-production costs
inventory capital BEC, EPCC, TPC and TOC are
financing costs all “overnight” costs
expressed in base-year dollars.
other owner’s costs
TASC is expressed in mixed-
escalation during capital expenditure period year current dollars, spread
over the capital expenditure
interest on debt during capital expenditure period period.
3.1.1.1 Cost Estimate Basis and Classification

The TPC and O&M costs for each of the cases in the report were estimated based on adjusted
vendor-furnished data and scaled estimates from previous NETL studies. Reference costs are
scaled based on direction from NETL’s QGESS “Capital Cost Scaling Methodology: Revision 4
Report.” [3] An underlying assumption of this cost scaling methodology is that capital
equipment is available and scalable at any size/capacity. In real applications, equipment may
only be manufactured in discrete sizes, which would potentially differ from the costs presented
herein. This is particularly applicable for the “Plant Capacity Sensitivity Analysis” found in the
analysis subsections for each of the industrial plant types. Those sensitivity analyses are
generated assuming continuous equipment capacities and costs and using generic scaling of
cost components, rather than by following the QGESS capital cost scaling methodology for every
capacity across the plant size range. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that margins
of error associated with discrete versus continuous costs and equipment capacities would be
within the scope of an AACE Class 4 estimate.
3.1.1.2 System Code-of-Accounts

The costs are grouped according to a process/system-oriented code of accounts. This type of
code-of-account structure has the advantage of grouping all reasonably allocable components
of a system or process, so they are included in the specific system account. e
e This would not be the case had a facility, area, or commodity account structure been chosen instead.
22
3.1.1.3 Price Fluctuations

During the writing of this report, the prices of equipment and bulk materials used as reference
costs fluctuated because of various market forces. All vendor quotes used to develop these
estimates were adjusted to December 2018 dollars accounting for the price fluctuations. The
Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index [11] was used as needed for these adjustments. While
such overall indices are nearly constant, it should be noted that the cost of individual
equipment types may still deviate from the December 2018 reference point.
In addition to year dollar effects on the costs presented in this study, the location of the actual
installation can influence pricing due to transport and shipping constraints, workforce
availability, etc. It is assumed that these contingencies are covered within the range of accuracy
of the report (AACE Class 4).
3.1.1.4 Owner’s Costs

Owner’s costs were estimated based on the 2019 revision of the QGESS document “Cost
Estimation Methodology for NETL Assessment of Power Plant Performance.” [9] Owner’s costs
are split into three categories: pre-production costs, inventory capital, and other costs.
Pre-production allocations are expected to carry the specific plants through substantial
completion, and to commercial operation. Substantial completion is intended to represent the
transfer point of the facility from the EPC contractor (development entity) to the end user or
owner, and is typically contingent on mutually acceptable equipment closeout, successful
completion of facility-wide performance testing, and full closeout of commercial items. Exhibit
3-2 presents descriptions of the owner’s costs estimated for the cases in this report.
Exhibit 3-2. Estimated amounts for owner’s costs
Owner’s Cost Estimated Amount

Any technology royalties are assumed to be included in the associated equipment
Prepaid Royalties
cost, and thus are not included as an owner’s cost
• 6 months operating labor
• 1 month maintenance materials at full capacity
• 1 month non-fuel consumables at full capacity
• 1 month waste disposal
• 25% of one month’s fuel cost at full capacity
Production
• 2% of TPC
(Start-up) Costs
Compared to AACE 16R-90, this includes additional costs for operating labor (6
months versus 1 month) to cover the cost of training the plant operators, including
their participation in startup, and involving them occasionally during the design and
construction. AACE 16R-90 [10] and Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Technical
Assessment Guide (TAG®) [12] differ on the amount of fuel cost to include; this
estimate follows EPRI
• 0.5% of TPC for spare parts
Inventory Capital
• 60-day supply (at full capacity) of fuel. Not applicable for NG
23
Owner’s Cost Estimated Amount

• 60-day supply (at full capacity) of non-fuel consumables (e.g., chemicals and
catalysts) that are stored on site. Does not include catalysts and adsorbents that
are batch replacements such as water gas shift, carbonyl sulfide, and selective
catalytic reduction catalysts and activated carbon
AACE 16R-90 [10] does not include an inventory cost for fuel, but EPRI TAG® [12] does
• $3,000/acre, 10 acres
Land
• Note: This land cost is based on a site in a rural location
• 2.7% of TPC
This financing cost (not included by AACE 16R-90 [10]) covers the cost of securing
Financing Costs financing, including fees and closing costs but not including interest during
construction. The “rule of thumb” estimate (2.7% of TPC) is based on a 2019
professional communication with Black & Veatch
• 15% of TPC
Other Owner’s This additional lumped cost is not included by AACE 16R-90 [10] or EPRI TAG® [12].
Costs The “rule of thumb” estimate (15% of TPC) is based on a 2019 professional
communication with Black & Veatch
3.1.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs

The production costs or operating costs and related maintenance expenses pertain to those
charges associated with operating and maintaining equipment over its expected life. The O&M
costs calculated in this study are incremental costs related to the capture, compression, and
ancillary equipment evaluated and thus are not indicative of the O&M costs of the base plant.
These O&M costs include the following:
• Operating labor
• Maintenance – material and labor
• Administrative and support labor
• Consumables
• Fuel
• Waste disposal
• Co-product or by-product credit (that is, a negative cost for any by-products sold)
There are two components of O&M costs: fixed O&M, which is independent of production, and
variable O&M, which is proportional to production. Taxes and insurance are included as fixed
O&M costs, totaling two percent of the TPC.
3.1.2.1 Operating Labor

Operating labor cost was determined based on the number of operators required for the
addition of capture and compression where applicable for each case. For high purity cases,
which require only the addition of compression and associated utilities, one additional operator
was considered. Low purity cases require acid gas removal (AGR) units and an industrial boiler
alongside compression and the utilities associated with each additional process unit. As such,
24
2.3 additional operators were considered for low purity cases, which is the difference in
operating labor required for a supercritical pulverized coal power plant with and without
capture, per NETL’s “Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Volume 1:
Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity” results. [5] The average base labor rate used to
determine annual cost is $38.50/hour. The associated labor burden is estimated at 30 percent of
the base labor rate.
3.1.2.2 Maintenance Material and Labor

Maintenance cost was evaluated based on relationships of maintenance cost to initial capital
cost. This represents a weighted analysis in which the individual cost relationships were
considered for each major plant component or section.
3.1.2.3 Administrative Support and Labor

Labor administration and overhead charges are assessed at a rate of 25 percent of the burdened
O&M labor.
3.1.2.4 Consumables
The cost of consumables, including fuel, was determined based on individual rates of
consumption, the unit cost of each specific consumable commodity, and the plant annual
operating hours.
Quantities for major consumables such as NG for fuel and purchased power were taken from
technology-specific energy and mass balance diagrams developed for each plant application.
Fuel cost is $4.42/MMBtu, and power is purchased at a cost of $60/MWh. Sensitivity analyses
relating COC to purchased power price and NG price are detailed in Section 7.2.3 and Section
respectively. Other consumables were evaluated based on the quantity required using reference
data.
The quantities for initial fills and daily consumables were calculated on a 100 percent operating
capacity basis. The annual cost for the daily consumables was then adjusted to incorporate the
annual plant operating basis, or capacity factor (CF). An 85 percent CF was assumed for all
cases. Initial fills of the consumables, fuels, and chemicals may be accounted for directly in the
O&M tables or included with the equipment pricing in the capital cost.
3.1.2.5 Waste Disposal

Waste quantities and disposal costs were determined/evaluated similarly to the consumables.
Waste streams are individually reported, and disposal costs are reported for each waste stream,
where applicable.
3.2 CAPITAL CHARGE FACTORS

The financial assumptions for each case were developed by NETL’s Energy Markets Analysis
Team in October 2021 based on market data respective to each industrial sector. These factors
are summarized in Exhibit 3-3 and Exhibit 3-4. All values are expressed in real dollar terms.
25
Exhibit 3-3. Financial assumptions for high purity sources
Financial Parameter Ammonia EO Ethanol NGP CTL/GTL

Fixed Charge Rate 5.33% 4.63% 6.64% 5.82% 7.32%
TASC/TOC Ratio 1.035 1.025 1.047 1.039 1.054
Capital Charge Factor 5.51% 4.74% 6.96% 6.05% 7.71%
Debt/Equity Ratio 54/46 48/52 36/64 43/57 32/68
Payback Period 30 years
Interest on Debt 5.15%
Levered Return on Equity
1.50% 0.04% 4.51% 2.96% 5.54%
(Asset Weighted)
Capital Expenditure Period 1 year
Capital Distribution 1st year – 100%
Exhibit 3-4. Financial assumptions for low purity sources
Refinery
Financial Parameter Cement Iron/Steel
Hydrogen
Fixed Charge Rate 4.39% 5.08% 6.90%
TASC/TOC Ratio 1.036 1.054 1.091
Capital Charge Factor 4.55% 5.35% 7.53%
Debt/Equity Ratio 33/67 42/58 39/61
Payback Period 30 years
Interest on Debt 5.15%
Levered Return on Equity (Asset Weighted) 0.41% 1.42% 5.02%
Capital Expenditure Period 3 years
Capital Distribution 1st year – 10%; 2nd year – 60%; 3rd year – 30 %
The result of the economic analysis is a calculated COC of CO2, which represents the cost to the
owner, per tonne of CO2 captured. This cost includes the capital expenditures, escalated at the
assumed nominal general inflation rate of two percent per year, providing the stipulated rate of
return on equity over the entire economic analysis period. Assuming all annual costs also
escalate at the same inflation rate, the COC is essentially the sum of the O&M costs and the
annualized capital cost charges, all normalized to the annual plant CO2 flow rate.
For a CO2 source with a higher flow rate (same CO2 purity and pressure), a corresponding
increase in the flow rate of the captured CO2, requirement for consumables, size of capture
equipment, etc., occurs; however, the COC is expected to be roughly equivalent or, in some
cases, lower due to the economies of scale associated with the cost of the larger
equipment. This is especially apparent when comparing the costs of each low purity case at two
26
different capture rates (e.g., cement at 90 percent and 99 percent capture). Ultimately, the CCF,
which is the product of the fixed charge rate and the TASC/TOC ratio, applied in each case can
have a dramatic effect on the COC calculated. A sensitivity analysis evaluating this relationship is
presented in Section 7.2.1.
3.3 RETROFIT FACTORS

Retrofit factors for power plants retrofitting amine solvent-based CO2 capture technologies
were developed in the NETL study “Retrofit Cost Analysis for Post-combustion CO2 Capture”
(Retrofit Study). [13] The retrofit factors, as presented in the Retrofit Study, are technology- and
size-specific, and significant factors would be ignored when applying them to other
configurations, such as the ones in this study. Examples of assumptions that would affect the
implementation of the retrofit factors from the Retrofit Study include:
The high purity sources do not require a CO2 separation system
CO2 separation is performed using Shell Cansolv post-combustion amine-based capture process
in the steel and cement cases, a process that differs from that of the monoethanethiol (MEA)
systems that were used to develop the retrofit factors in the Retrofit Study [13]
Shell’s ADIP-Ultra amine-based pre-combustion capture process is the basis for purification of
the CO2 stream in the refinery hydrogen case, which differs greatly from the post-combustion
MEA systems within the Retrofit Study [13]
These industrial sources are significantly smaller than the utility scale power plants for which
the retrofit factors in the Retrofit Study were developed [13]
The areas where these retrofit factors would be more directly applicable are the ‘Ductwork &
Stack’ accounts, which can have a retrofit factor as high as 1.6. The BEC of the ‘Ductwork &
Stack’ account in the cement case with 99 percent capture, for example, is $15,274,000.
Application of a 1.6 retrofit factor would add an additional $9,164,400 for the ‘Ductwork &
Stack’ line item. With the cement plant case having a greenfield TOC of $424,897,000
application of this 1.6 retrofit factor would represent a 2.2 percent increase in the TOC for
‘Ductwork & Stack’ alone.
Engineering judgment was used to determine a more generic factor to be applied to the cases in
this report, in lieu of those presented in the Retrofit Study. As an alternative, for high purity
cases a retrofit factor of 1.01 was applied to the TPC as a blanket retrofit cost increase, and a
retrofit factor of 1.05 was applied to the TPC of low purity cases. Without a formalized
procedure for applying the retrofit factors, it is best to consider the retrofit factor as a single
capital cost sensitivity, from which the true cost of a retrofit (which has overriding project and
site-specific considerations) can be refined as more information is available for a specific design
case. A sensitivity analysis examining the effect on COC related to the retrofit factor applied is
discussed in Section 7.2.2.
27
4 EQUIPMENT
4.1 COMPRESSION
Two different types of compressors are used for the cases in this study, an integrally geared
centrifugal compressor and a reciprocating compressor. The type of compressor selected for
each case is chosen based on the mass flow of CO2 to the first compression stage as well as the
suction conditions at stage one.
4.1.1 Reciprocating Compressor

A quote for a five-stage reciprocating compressor was used to represent compression for cases
listed in Exhibit 4-1. The referenced compression quoted a suction pressure of 17.4 psia, suction
temperature of 80°F, and an inlet flow to stage one of 35,991 lb/hr. The discharge pressure was
quoted as 2,200 psia with a total power requirement of 1.72 MW. The reciprocating compressor
was modeled with alterations as applicable, resulting in the specifications shown in Exhibit 4-1.
Exhibit 4-1. Reciprocating compressor cases specifications
Number of Inlet Flow to Suction Suction Discharge

Case Compression Compression Pressure Temperature Pressure
Stages Stage 1 (lb/hr) (psia) (°F) (psia)
Ammonia 5 122,946 23.5 69 2,214.7
EO 4 30,578 43.5 96 2,214.7
Ethanol 5 36,000 16.4 80 2,214.7
4.1.2 Centrifugal Compressor

Quotes for integrally geared centrifugal compressors were used to represent compression in the
cases listed in Exhibit 4-2. Two separate quotes were used, the first of which was provided for
the development of NETL’s “Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Volume 1:
Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity," Revision 4 (BBR4). [5] The second quote for a
centrifugal compressor was obtained as part of the development of this study, specifically for
application in the refinery hydrogen case.
Given that the CTL and GTL cases are taken from previous NETL reports, they implement the
same compression train performance and cost used in their respective reports, converted to
current year dollar. Those reports employ integrally geared centrifugal compressors specifically
designed for their respective CO2 flowrates and conditions. This type of compressor is
particularly advantageous for CTL and refinery hydrogen cases, where CO2 is available at
multiple pressures, and requires a special compression train that can accommodate multiple
suction pressures. Exhibit 4-2 shows the cases using integrally geared centrifugal compression
and their case specifications.
28
Exhibit 4-2. Integrally geared centrifugal compressor cases specifications
Number of Inlet Flow to Suction Suction Discharge

Case Compression Compression Stage 1 Pressure Temperature Pressure
Stages (lb/hr) (psia) (°F) (psia)
NGP 8 164,059 23.5 69 2,214.7
Steel/Iron COG/BFS
8 424,424 28.9 87.8 2,214.7
90% Capture
Steel/Iron COG/BFS
8 466,701 28.9 87.8 2,214.7
99% Capture
Steel/Iron COG PPS
8 426,791 28.9 87.8 2,214.7
90% Capture
Steel/Iron COG PPS
8 469,304 28.9 87.8 2,214.7
99% Capture
Cement
8 275,388 28.9 87.8 2,214.7
90% Capture
Cement
8 302,818 28.9 87.8 2,214.7
99% Capture
Refinery Hydrogen
7 93,136B, C 28.3/90.8D 104.0/215.6 2,214.7
90% Capture
Refinery Hydrogen
7 104,553B, C 28.3/90.8D 104.0/215.6 2,214.7
99% Capture
CTL N/AA 2,200,423B 160/265/300E N/A 2,214.7
A
GTL N/A 467,794 265 100 2,214.7
A Both CTL and GTL are assumed to use eight total compression stages, but this is not explicitly stated in the respective reports.
B Flow reported is total. The individual flows at each of the multiple suction pressures sum to the total flow.
C These flowrates fall below the lower operating limit detailed in Section 4.1.1, but a specific performance and cost quote was
obtained for application in the refinery hydrogen cases. The quote data is proprietary; thus, details are not included within this
report.
D A second inlet to compression was considered as part of the compressor design (proprietary) for refinery hydrogen cases due
to AGR specifications and process flow.

E The CTL process produces three high purity CO streams at three pressures. Details related to the compressor for the CTL case
2
are provided in Section 5.5.
As mentioned, all compressors discharge at a pressure of 2,214.7 psia (2,200 psig). This is the
pipeline pressure specification assumed in this study, which is given in the QGESS for CO 2 for use
in EOR applications. [1] However, it should be noted that EOR field pressure requirements can
vary from location to location, and pressures as low as 1,200 psig could be acceptable. [14]
4.2 CO2 CAPTURE AND PURIFICATIONf

For cases requiring CO2 separation and purification prior to compression, an AGR unit was used.
The AGR unit also provides polishing of residual sulfur components in the CO2 capture stream.
fMuch of the text and descriptions within this section were sourced, with permission, from data provided by Shell to NETL, unless otherwise
noted. The information relates to a CO2 removal system designed by Shell.
29
The performance and cost information for the AGR units employed in this study are based on
data provided by Shell in 2021. The quote provided specific cost and performance metrics at
individual capture rates (i.e., 90, 95, and 99 percent) for each representative industrial plant.
The unit cost is scaled based on CO2 product mass flow (60 percent) and inlet flow to the
adsorber (40 percent), per specifications in “QGESS Capital Cost Scaling Methodology: Revision
4 Report.” [3] Cases where an AGR is used include refinery hydrogen, iron/steel, and cement.
The CO2 removal efficiency of the AGR unit is represented at two rates, 90 percent and 99
percent, for each case. For the purposes of this study, performance and cost data for the AGR
units was obtained from Shell for the specific flue gas streams representative of the low purity
industrial sources, not scaled or applied from quotes provided for power-related capture
systems.
4.2.1 Cansolv Post-Combustion Capture

The AGR system utilized in the iron/steel and cement cases is the Cansolv CO2 Capture
technology commercially offered by Shell. This amine-based, post-combustion process is
designed to recover high purity CO2 from dilute streams that contain O2, such as flue gas from
coal-fired power plants, combustion turbine exhaust gas, and other industrial waste gas
streams, such as those evaluated in this report. A typical flowsheet for the process is shown in
Exhibit 4-3.
Exhibit 4-3. Shell’s Cansolv CO2 capture typical process flow diagram
CO2
CONDENSER
SOLVENT
TREATED GAS RECLAIMING
TO STACK REFLUX
ACCUMULATOR
WASH WATER
RICH AMINE
LEAN AMINE LEAN/RICH EXCHANGER
REFLUX PUMP
ABSORBER STRIPPER
REBOILER
INTERCOOLER
LEAN AMINE
INDUSTRIAL RICH AMINE
FEED GAS WATER VAPOR RECYCLE
INDUSTRIAL PRESCRUBBER WATER VAPOR STEAM

PRESCRUBBER
FEED GAS BLOWDOWN RECOMPRESSION LEAN AMINE/
WATER VAPOR
4.2.1.1 Pre-scrubber
The CO2-laden gas from the industrial source (cement or iron/steel plant) is sent through a
booster fan to drive the gas through downstream equipment starting with the pre-scrubber
inlet cooling section. The cooler is operated as a direct contact cooler that saturates and sub-
cools the feed gas stream. Saturation and sub-cooling are beneficial to the system as they
improve the amine absorption capacity, thus reducing amine circulation rate. In cement or steel
30
applications, in or after the cooling section the feed gas is also scrubbed with caustic to capture
residual acid compounds (SO2, hydrogen chloride, etc.).
4.2.1.2 CO2 Absorber

The Cansolv absorber is a single, rectangular, acid resistant, steel- or resin-lined concrete
structure containing stainless-steel packing, a typical design for large-scale units. There is a
packed section used for CO2 absorption, and another packed section used for water-wash. This
specific absorber geometry and design provides several cost advantages over more traditional
column configurations while maintaining equivalent or elevated performance. The feed gas
enters the absorber and flows counter-current to the Cansolv solvent.
The lean solvent absorbs 90–99 percent of the inlet CO2, depending on the design capture rate,
and the remaining CO2 exits the main absorber section and enters the water-wash section of
the absorber. Prior to entering the bottom packing section, hot amine is collected, removed,
and pumped through a heat exchanger (HX) to provide intercooling and maintain a low
temperature favorable to absorption. The cooled amine is then sent back to the absorber just
above the final packed section.
The water-wash section at the top of the absorber is used to remove volatiles or entrained
amine from the treated gas, as well as to condense and retain water in the system. The wash
water is removed from the bottom of the wash section, pumped through a HX, and is then re-
introduced at the top of the wash section. This wash water is made up of recirculated wash
water as well as water condensed from the treated gas; excess water resulting from
condensation overflows to the lower absorption section through a chimney tray. The CO2-lean
gas treated in the water-wash section is then released to the atmosphere.
4.2.1.3 Amine Regeneration

The rich amine is collected at the bottom of the absorber and pumped through multiple parallel
rich/lean HXs where heat from the lean amine is exchanged with the rich amine. The Cansolv
rich/lean solvent HXs are a stainless-steel plate and frame type with a typical 5°C (9°F) approach
temperature. The rich amine continues and enters the stripper near the top of the column.
The stripper is a stainless-steel vessel using structured stainless-steel packing. The regenerator
reboiler uses low pressure steam to boil water vapor from the solvent; this vapor flows
upwards, counter-current to the rich amine flowing downwards, and removes CO2 from the
amine. Steam is provided by the NG-fired boiler described in Section 4.3. The Cansolv
regenerator reboiler is a stainless-steel plate and frame type with a 3°C (5°F) approach
temperature. Lean amine is collected in the stripper bottoms and flows to a flash vessel where
water vapor is released. This lean solvent is then pumped through the same rich/lean HX to
exchange heat from the lean amine to the rich amine and continues to the lean amine tank.
The water vapor and stripped CO2 flow up the stripper where they are contacted with recycled
reflux to condense a portion of the vapor and collect entrained solvent droplets. The remaining
gas continues to the condenser where it is partially condensed. The two-phase mixture then
flows to a reflux accumulator where the CO2 product gas is separated and sent to the CO2
31
compressor at approximately 0.2 MPa (29 psia), and the remaining water is collected and
returned to the stripper as reflux.
The flow of steam to the regenerator reboiler is proportional to the rich amine flow to the
stripper; however, the flow of low-pressure steam is also dependent on the stripper top
temperature.
4.2.1.4 Amine Purification

The purpose of the amine purification, or amine reclaiming, section is to remove a portion of
the heat-stable salts as well as ionic and non-ionic amine degradation products. The Cansolv
amine purification (reclaiming) is essentially a distillation operation, in which the usable amine
is boiled off the degraded solvent, which is recovered at the bottom of the column for disposal.
4.2.2 ADIP-Ultra Pre-Combustion Capture

The AGR utilized in the refinery hydrogen case is the ADIP-Ultra CO2 capture technology
developed by Shell. This pre-combustion process, the latest evolution of the ADIP-Ultra process,
uses a proprietary amine-based solvent capable of bulk removal of CO2 from high pressure gas
streams. This technology has been deployed and is currently in operation at Shell’s Quest facility
in Alberta, Canada. [15] A typical flowsheet is shown in Exhibit 4-4.
Exhibit 4-4. ADIP-Ultra CO2 capture typical process flow diagram
LOW-PRESSURE CO2
TREATED GAS
CONDENSER
TO PSA
MID-PRESSURE CO2
TREATED GAS
KNOCKOUT
RICH AMINE
REFLUX
LEAN
FLASH VESSEL ACCUMULATOR
AMINE
INTERCOOLER
COOLER
LEAN/RICH EXCHANGER
REFLUX PUMP
ABSORBER
COOLING REGENERATOR
WATER
REBOILER
FEED GAS RICH AMINE
INDUSTRIAL FEED GAS KNOCKOUT LEAN AMINE STEAM

FEED GAS KNOCKOUT LIQUIDS
4.2.2.1 CO2 Absorber

The feed gas is sent through a knockout vessel to remove water and liquid hydrocarbons if any
are present. The knockout vessel produces a saturated vapor stream that is sent to the CO2
absorber. A lean solvent stream enters the top of the absorber and flows down over trays to
absorb CO2 from the feed gas stream. The feed gas stream flows countercurrent to the solvent
stream, which absorbs 90–99 percent of inlet CO2, depending on the design capture rate.
32
Treated gas exits through the top of the absorber and is sent through a second knockout vessel
to remove entrained amine droplets using a mist pad before being routed to the pressure-swing
adsorption unit for the production of high purity hydrogen. A rich solvent stream exits through
the sump of the absorber and is routed towards the amine regeneration section.
4.2.2.2 Amine Regeneration

The rich solvent stream flows through a rich/lean HX, where rich solvent is heated by lean
solvent moving to the absorber. To minimize reboiler duty and compression power, part of the
CO2 (mid-pressure) in the rich amine is then flashed off in a hot flash vessel and routed towards
compression and dehydration.
The remaining rich amine liquid continues to the stripper, entering near the top of the column.
The regenerator reboiler indirectly uses low pressure steam to produce water vapor that flows
upwards, counter-current to the rich amine flowing downwards, and removes CO2 from the
amine. Steam is provided by the NG-fired boiler described in Section 4.3. The lean solvent flows
from the bottom of the regenerator tower and is pumped through the same rich/lean HX to
exchange heat from the lean amine to the rich amine and continues to the absorber.
The acid gas from the stripping section is washed in the water wash section of the regenerator
to remove entrained amine. The gas is then cooled in an overhead condenser and sent to a
reflux vessel where CO2 and water are separated. Low-pressure CO2 is sent to compression and
dehydration, while water is returned to the stripper via regenerator reflux pumps.
4.3 INDUSTRIAL BOILER

AGR unit configurations detailed in the prior two sections require low pressure steam at 71 psia
for solvent regeneration. Since no assumptions regarding available steam are made about the
base plants, cases requiring CO2 separation and purification also require the addition of a boiler
for steam production.
A quote for an industrial steam boiler was obtained from CleaverBrooks in March 2021. [16] The
boiler produces superheated steam at 100 psig. For each case requiring an AGR unit, the total
heat required from 71 psia steam for solvent regeneration was calculated, and that amount of
heat delivered from the referenced boiler was modeled as part of the Aspen Plus® (Aspen)
simulation. Boiler auxiliary power requirements for pumps and compressors were scaled based
on the quoted information. Consumables include NG fuel usage, as predicted by the Aspen
model for each case, and feedwater makeup, calculated by methods consistent with those used
to estimate feedwater makeup in BBR4 cases.
4.4 COOLING WATER UNIT

As previously stated, no characterization of the base plant for each process was assessed; as
such, no assumptions were made regarding the existing plant’s cooling water system. Therefore,
it is assumed for the purpose of this report that any cooling required by the compression train,
and in some cases the AGR unit, must be supplied by a stand-alone cooling water unit.
33
Power consumption estimates for the cooling water system (i.e., circulating water pumps and
cooling tower fans) were calculated based on methodology consistent with that of BBR4 cases.
Cost estimates for the cooling water system were scaled from Case B11A-BR of NETL’s
“Eliminating the Derate of Carbon Capture Retrofits” (Derate Study) based on QGESS guidance
for capital cost scaling. [17] [3] This account was scaled from the Derate Study because Case
B11A-BR is more representative of the size range for the cooling water system associated with
the cases in this report.
4.5 HEAT EXCHANGERS

Cooling of the product CO2 is required for all cases following compression to meet the pipeline
temperature specification of 86°F, and in some cases, cooling is also required preceding
compression. For cases using a reciprocating compressor, post-cooling of the compressed
product CO2 is included in the compressor quote. The quoted discharge temperature of the
centrifugal compressors referenced are higher than the pipeline specification temperature of
86°F and require cooling. For those cases, after-cooler costs were scaled from BBR4 Case B12B
based on HX duty as predicted by Aspen, consistent with QGESS cost scaling methodology.
Cases with reciprocating compression do not depict an aftercooler HX in the block flow
diagrams (BFDs) throughout Section 5. For the cases with centrifugal compression, the HX is
depicted downstream of the compressor in the BFDs throughout Section 5 and Section 6.
Cooling of the CO2 at the inlet of the compression train is dependent on the quoted
compression train suction temperature and the base plant assumptions regarding the
temperature at which the CO2 is available. A pre-cooler HX is required only for the Ethanol case,
where fermentation produces a CO2 stream with a temperature of 320°F, which far exceeds the
suction temperature of the reciprocating compressor employed. The cost of this exchange was
developed from heuristics in Analysis, Synthesis, and Design of Chemical Processes, assuming a
floating head shell-and-tube HX with a heat transfer coefficient equal to 6.2 Btu/hour-square
foot-°F. [18]
4.6 ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT, BUILDINGS, AND STRUCTURES

Ancillary equipment associated with implementing the capture and compression systems in this
report include an accessory electrical plant and instrumentation and control (I&C) equipment.
In addition, some site improvements, such as ground preparation and additional facilities,
would be required for the construction and ongoing operation of the equipment considered.
Estimates for these costs were scaled per QGESS guidance based on Case B11A-BR of the Derate
Study, as the costs of this reference case are approximately comparable to those that would be
incurred with the addition of the equipment detailed throughout the prior sub-sections. [17]
34
5 COST AND PERFORMANCE: HIGH PURITY SOURCES

The sources discussed in this section are considered high purity sources, meaning the available
CO2 does not require AGR to meet EOR pipeline specifications. In some high purity cases,
dehydration of the CO2 stream using a triethylene glycol (TEG) system may be required.
5.1 AMMONIA
It is estimated that the U.S. gross ammonia production in 2019 was over 19.2 M tonnes. [19] In
all but one plant in the United States, the ammonia production process first reforms a NG
feedstock to produce hydrogen (H2), carbon monoxide (CO), and CO2. The unconverted CO from
reforming is then shifted to produce more H2 and CO2. The optimum ratio of H:N for ammonia
synthesis is 3:1; therefore, the amount of CO2 removed from the post-shift stream must be high
to optimize the H:N ratio. A portion of the CO2 removed from the post-shift stream is often
captured and reused to produce urea, by reacting ammonia with CO2. The amount of CO2
captured and reused for ammonia derivatives will vary from plant to plant based on production
capacities and market opportunities for each product. With CO2 removal inherent to the
ammonia process, coupled with the need for CO2 to convert ammonia into ammonia
derivatives, ammonia processing is a potentially low-cost option for industrial CO2 capture.
5.1.1 Size Range

As of 2019, there were 32 ammonia plants in the United States, 19 of which fell in the range of
0.1–0.6 M tonnes/year (0.11–0.66 M tons/year) production capacity, and nine had a capacity of
600,000 tonnes/year or greater. The largest U.S. ammonia plant has a capacity of 4.3 M
tonnes/year. [19] For the purposes of this study, the ammonia case is represented with a
production capacity of 394,000 tonnes ammonia/year.
5.1.2 CO2 Point Sources

The main point sources of CO2 emissions in an ammonia plant comes from the flue gas from the
primary reformer and the vent from the CO2 stripper that separates CO2 from the ammonia
syngas. Of these two, only the CO2 stripper vent is considered a high purity source of CO2. The
primary reformer flue gas has a CO2 concentration of approximately 18 mol% and would be
considered a low purity source of CO2. [20] [21] As such, it is not considered in this study case
but may be evaluated as part of future work, as discussed in Section 9.1.
An article published by KBR Technology [22] concerning CO2 capture in the ammonia industry
stated that for an average ammonia plant producing 660,000 tonnes/year ammonia,
approximately 34 percent of CO2 emissions come from the primary reformer flue gas and 66
percent are emitted by the CO2 stripper vent. The total CO2 produced in ammonia production
(i.e., that of both the primary reformer and the CO2 stripper) is 1.87 tonnes CO2/tonne
ammonia. [22] Applying this emissions factor and the fact that 66 percent of the CO2 emissions
would be captured from the stripper vent as a high purity source, the representative 394,000
tonnes ammonia/year plant produces 486,227 tonnes CO2 vented from the CO2 stripper. It is
assumed that the stripper vent CO2 concentration is 99 percent by volume. [23] The ammonia
35
production process, using NG as a feedstock, is depicted in a basic BFD (Exhibit 5-1) to further
illustrate the point-sources of CO2 described in this section.
Exhibit 5-1. Ammonia production via NG reforming
CO2 in flue gas CO High purity CO 2

(~34 percent of (~66 percent of
process emissions) process emissions)
Air
Synthesis Gas
Natural Gas Primary Secondary Shift & CO2
for Ammonia
& Steam Reformer Reformer removal
Production
In some ammonia production facilities, portions of the ammonia and the CO2 emissions are
further processed to create ammonia derivatives. For this study, it is assumed that the ammonia
produced by the representative plant is not used for derivative production, and as such, the CO 2
emitted is not needed for reprocessing within the plant. In practical applications, the amount of
CO2 available would be affected by derivative manufacturing, as well as by process
configurations and operating parameters affecting the ratio of CO2 emitted from the stripper
and the primary reformer. This would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and the
assumptions in this study are employed to present an illustrative COC in a representative
ammonia production plant.
5.1.3 Design Input and Assumptions

The following is a list of design inputs and assumptions made specific to the ammonia process
for the purpose of this study:
• The representative ammonia plant has a capacity of 394,000 tonnes ammonia per year
• The ammonia process feedstock is NG
• The gas from the stripper vent is assumed 99 volume percent CO2 and the balance of the
stream (1 volume percent) is assumed to be water
• The total high purity CO2 amount produced by the plant is 736,750 tonnes CO2/year (at
100 percent CF); the amount generated from the stripper vent is 486,227 tonnes
CO2/year at 100 percent CF and neglecting process losses or CO2 reuse in ammonia
derivative production
• The temperature of the CO2 at the stripper vent outlet is 69°F
• The pressure of the CO2 at the stripper vent outlet is 23.52 psia
• The end product CO2 quality is based on the EOR pipeline standard as mentioned in the
NETL QGESS for CO2 Impurity Design Parameters [1]
36
5.1.4 CO2 Capture System

Only cooling and compression is required for the ammonia case. Reciprocating compression
discussed previously in Section 4.1.1 is modeled and the costs for the compressor and ancillary
equipment is estimated as outlined in Section 3 and Section 4. Based on mass flow rate, this
represents a large scale with up to 3.39 times the quoted flow rate.
5.1.5 BFD, Stream Table, and Performance Summary

There is no cooling of the high purity CO2 stream from the ammonia plant since it is assumed
that the overhead condenser of the stripping column discharges at a temperature of 69°F. A
water knockout step is considered to avoid water condensation within the compression train.
The costs for the water knockout were estimated using methods in Analysis, Synthesis, and
Design of Chemical Processes. [18] After compression, the CO2 product stream is cooled and
sent directly for EOR or other usage. Exhibit 5-2 gives the BFD for this process. Exhibit 5-3
provides the stream table.
Exhibit 5-2. Ammonia CO2 capture BFD
Ammonia Water Desired

1 2 Compressor 3
Plant Knockout Usage
Exhibit 5-3. Ammonia stream table
1 2 3
V-L Mole Fraction
Ar 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CH4 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CO 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CO2 0.9709 0.9887 0.9995
SO2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
H2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
H2O 0.0291 0.0113 0.0005
H2S 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
N2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
V-L Flowrate (kgmol/hr) 1,299 1,276 1,261

V-L Flowrate (kg/hr) 56,189 55,767 55,488
Temperature (°C) 21 21 30
Pressure (MPa, abs) 0.16 0.2 15.3
37
1 2 3
A
Steam Table Enthalpy (kJ/kg) 8,841 8,791 8,755
Aspen Plus Enthalpy (kJ/kg)B -9,021 -8,968 -9,195
Density (kg/m3) 3.0 2.9 630.1
V-L Molecular Weight 43.3 43.7 44.0
V-L Flowrate (lbmol/hr) 2,864 2,812 2,780

V-L Flowrate (lb/hr) 123,876 122,946 122,330
Temperature (°F) 69 69 86
Pressure (psia) 23.5 23.5 2,214.7
Steam Table Enthalpy (Btu/lb)A 3,801 3,779 3,764
Aspen Plus Enthalpy (Btu/lb)B -3,878 -3,855 -3,953
3
Density (lb/ft ) 0.184 0.183 39.3
ASteam table reference conditions are 32.02°F & 0.089 psia
BAspen thermodynamic reference state is the component’s constituent elements in an ideal gas state at 25°C and 1 atm
The performance results are based on the reciprocating compressor quote and are provided in
Exhibit 5-4.
Exhibit 5-4. Performance summary
Performance Summary
Item 394,000 tonnes ammonia/year (kWe)
CO2 Compressor 5,770
Circulating Water Pumps 60
Cooling Tower Fans 30
Total Auxiliary Load 5,860
5.1.6 Capture Integration

In an existing ammonia plant, a cooling water system that could accommodate the additional
cooling needs of the compressor intercoolers modeled in this case may be in place to satisfy the
condenser cooling duty for the CO2 removal system. This is especially true if an ammonia plant
is designed to produce ammonia derivatives. However, for this study, a stand-alone cooling
system is required to provide for the compressor’s intercooling needs. In real applications, the
inclusion of an additional cooling water system would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
5.1.7 Power Source

Given the relatively small amount of CO2, the compression power consumption is 5.77 MW.
Power consumption estimates for the cooling system were scaled as described in Section 4.4.
The total power requirement was calculated to be 5.86 MW, which includes all power required
38
by the compression train and the cooling water system. Purchased power cost is estimated at a
rate of $60/MWh as discussed in Section 3.1.2.4.
5.1.8 Economic Analysis Results

The economic results for CO2 capture application in an ammonia plant are presented in this
section. Owner’s costs (Exhibit 5-5), capital costs (Exhibit 5-6), and O&M costs are calculated as
discussed in Section 3.1. Retrofit costs were determined by applying a retrofit factor to TPC as
discussed in Section 3.3. The greenfield TOC for the ammonia case is $45.6 M. The
corresponding greenfield COC is $19.0/tonne CO2, and the COC is $19.0/tonne CO2 in retrofit
applications. The small difference between greenfield and retrofit COC in this case is not
apparent due to rounding.
Exhibit 5-5. Owner’s costs for ammonia greenfield site
Description $/1,000 $/tonnes/yr (CO2)

Pre-Production Costs
6 Months All Labor $423 $1
1-Month Maintenance Materials $35 $0
1-Month Non-Fuel Consumables $70 $0
1-Month Waste Disposal $3 $0
25% of 1-Month Fuel Cost at 100% CF $0 $0
2% of TPC $747 $2
Total $1,278 $3
Inventory Capital
60-day supply of fuel and consumables at 100% CF $134 $0
0.5% of TPC (spare parts) $187 $0
Total $321 $1
Other Costs
Initial Cost for Catalyst and Chemicals $0 $0
Land $30 $0
Other Owner's Costs $5,602 $12
Financing Costs $1,008 $2
TOC $45,587 $94
TASC Multiplier (Ammonia, 31 year) 1.035
TASC $47,162 $97
39
Exhibit 5-6. Capital costs for ammonia greenfield site

Case: Ammonia Estimate Type: Conceptual
Representative Plant Size: 394,000 tonnes ammonia/year Cost Base: Dec 2018
Item Equipment Material Labor Bare Erected Eng'g CM Contingencies Total Plant Cost
Description
No. Cost Cost Direct Indirect Cost H.O. & Fee Process Project $/1,000 $/tonnes/yr (CO2)
5 Flue Gas Cleanup
5.1 Inlet Water Knockout for Compression $11 $0 $2 $0 $14 $2 $0 $3 $19 $0
5.4 CO2 Compression & Drying $6,192 $929 $2,070 $0 $9,192 $1,609 $0 $2,160 $12,960 $27
5.5 CO2 Compressor Aftercooler w/5.4 w/5.4 w/5.4 w/5.4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
5.7 TEG Dryer (within compression train) $1,900 $285 $635 $0 $2,821 $494 $0 $663 $3,977 $8
Subtotal $8,104 $1,214 $2,708 $0 $12,026 $2,105 $0 $2,826 $16,957 $35
7 Ductwork & Stack
7.3 Ductwork $0 $164 $114 $0 $277 $49 $0 $65 $391 $1
Subtotal $0 $164 $114 $0 $277 $49 $0 $65 $391 $1
9 Cooling Water System
9.1 Cooling Towers $163 $0 $50 $0 $213 $37 $0 $50 $301 $1
9.2 Circulating Water Pumps $13 $0 $1 $0 $14 $2 $0 $3 $20 $0
9.3 Circulating Water System Aux. $321 $0 $42 $0 $364 $64 $0 $85 $513 $1
9.4 Circulating Water Piping $0 $149 $135 $0 $283 $50 $0 $67 $399 $1
9.5 Make-up Water System $52 $0 $67 $0 $119 $21 $0 $28 $167 $0
9.6 Component Cooling Water System $23 $0 $18 $0 $41 $7 $0 $10 $58 $0
9.7 Circulating Water System Foundations $0 $19 $31 $0 $50 $9 $0 $12 $71 $0
Subtotal $572 $167 $344 $0 $1,084 $190 $0 $255 $1,528 $3
11 Accessory Electric Plant
11.2 Station Service Equipment $1,725 $0 $148 $0 $1,873 $328 $0 $440 $2,642 $5
11.3 Switchgear & Motor Control $2,679 $0 $465 $0 $3,143 $550 $0 $739 $4,432 $9
11.4 Conduit & Cable Tray $0 $348 $1,003 $0 $1,352 $237 $0 $318 $1,906 $4
11.5 Wire & Cable $0 $922 $1,648 $0 $2,570 $450 $0 $604 $3,624 $7
Subtotal $4,404 $1,270 $3,265 $0 $8,939 $1,564 $0 $2,101 $12,604 $26
12 Instrumentation & Control
12.8 Instrument Wiring & Tubing $353 $282 $1,130 $0 $1,765 $309 $0 $415 $2,489 $5
12.9 Other I&C Equipment $434 $0 $1,005 $0 $1,439 $252 $0 $338 $2,029 $4
Subtotal $787 $282 $2,135 $0 $3,204 $561 $0 $753 $4,518 $9
13 Improvements to Site
13.1 Site Preparation $0 $22 $440 $0 $461 $81 $0 $108 $651 $1
13.2 Site Improvements $0 $102 $136 $0 $238 $42 $0 $56 $336 $1
13.3 Site Facilities $117 $0 $123 $0 $240 $42 $0 $56 $339 $1
Subtotal $117 $124 $698 $0 $940 $164 $0 $221 $1,325 $3
14 Buildings & Structures
14.5 Circulation Water Pumphouse $0 $9 $7 $0 $17 $3 $0 $4 $23 $0
Subtotal $0 $9 $7 $0 $17 $3 $0 $4 $23 $0
Total $13,985 $3,231 $9,271 $0 $26,487 $4,635 $0 $6,225 $37,347 $77
40
The initial and annual O&M costs for a greenfield site were calculated and are shown in Exhibit
5-7 while Exhibit 5-8 shows the COC for greenfield and retrofit sites for the representative
ammonia plant.
Exhibit 5-7. Initial and annual O&M costs for ammonia greenfield site
Case: Ammonia Cost Base: Dec 2018
Representative Plant Size: 394,000 tonnes ammonia/year Capacity Factor (%): 85
O&M Labor
Operating Labor Operating Labor Requirements per Shift
Operating Labor Rate (base): 38.50 $/hour Skilled Operator: 0.0
Operating Labor Burden: 30.00 % of base Operator: 1.0
Labor O-H Charge Rate: 25.00 % of labor Foreman: 0.0
Lab Techs, etc.: 0.0
Total: 1.0
Fixed Operating Costs
Annual Cost
($) ($/tonnes/yr CO2)
Annual Operating Labor: $438,438 $0.90
Maintenance Labor: $239,021 $0.49
Administrative & Support Labor: $169,365 $0.35
Property Taxes and Insurance: $746,941 $1.54
Total: $1,593,765 $3.28
Variable Operating Costs
Maintenance Material: $358,532 $0.87
Consumables
Initial Fill Per Day Per Unit Initial Fill
Water (/1000 gallons): 0 46 $1.90 $0 $27,119 $0.07
Makeup and Waste Water Treatment 0 0.1 $550.00 $0 $24,747 $0.06
Chemicals (ton):
Triethylene Glycol (gal): w/equip. 312 $6.80 $0 $658,287 $1.59
Subtotal: $0 $710,152 $1.72
Waste Disposal
Triethylene Glycol (gal): 312 $0.35 $0 $33,882 $0.08
Subtotal: $0 $33,882 $0.08
Variable Operating Costs Total: $0 $1,102,566 $2.67
Exhibit 5-8. COC for 394,000 tonnes/year ammonia greenfield and retrofitA
Component Greenfield Value, $/tonne CO2 Retrofit Value, $/tonne CO2

Capital 6.1 6.1
Fixed 3.9 3.9
Variable 2.7 2.7
Purchased Power 6.3 6.3
Total COC 19.0 19.0
ADifferences in COC for greenfield and retrofit applications of this case are not apparent due to rounding.
41
5.1.9 Plant Capacity Sensitivity Analysis

An analysis of the sensitivity of greenfield COC to ammonia plant capacity is shown in Exhibit
5-9. As the plant capacity increases, more CO2 is available for capture, thus realizing economies
of scale. This generic scaling exercise assumes that equipment is available at continuous
capacities; however, equipment is often manufactured in discrete sizes, which would possibly
affect the advantages of economies of scale and skew the results of this sensitivity analysis.
Exhibit 5-9. Ammonia plant capacity sensitivity
Note: The data point for the COC at a 394,000 tonnes/year ammonia plant does not fall on the COC line due to data point
increments and plot formatting.
5.1.10 Ammonia Conclusion

The high purity CO2 stream produced from ammonia plants makes them a relatively low-cost
industrial process for CO2 capture since the plant itself acts as the separation medium.
Economic analysis of the additional CO2 compression system required for capture resulted in a
COC of CO2 equal to $19.0/tonne CO2 for a greenfield site and $19.0/tonne CO2 for a retrofit
application. The small disparities (not visible due to roundingg) between greenfield and retrofit
cases are the result of unknown difficulties required for a retrofit installation versus a greenfield
application, assuming adequate plot plan space for the retrofit case exists. The sensitivity
analysis for plant capacity, when varied from 0.1 M tonnes/year to 2.1 M tonnes/year ammonia
production, showed a change in COC of $13.6/tonne CO2.
gFor instance, the TASC for the retrofit ammonia case is $47.5 million, which is higher in comparison to the TASC for the
greenfield ammonia case (i.e., $47.2 million) as presented in Exhibit 5-5.
42
It should be noted that for existing U.S. ammonia plants producing excess high purity CO 2, this
CO2 may already be processed and sold for other uses. For example, in addition to urea and
other ammonia derivative production, some ammonia plants also produce food-grade liquid
CO2 as a sellable product. This would reduce or eliminate the amount of high purity CO2
potentially available for capture as evaluated in this study. This scenario was not considered in
this study as it would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
5.2 ETHYLENE OXIDE

Ethylene oxide (EO) is a colorless flammable gas that is mainly used as a raw material for
production of several industrial chemical intermediates. When assessed by region, 73 percent of
North American EO production goes directly to synthesis of ethylene glycol, which is used in
antifreeze, polyester, liquid solvents, and plastics production. [24]
EO is produced by direct oxidation of ethylene in the presence of a silver catalyst. The reaction
conditions range 200–300°C and 10–30 bar. [24] Literature suggests that with the catalyst
driving the competing reactions (Equation 5-1) towards more EO production, CO2 is produced
during the oxidation reaction in a ratio of 6:2 EO:CO2 on a molar basis. As a result of the
competing steam and CO2 producing, CO2 concentration of the emissions stream can range 30–
100 percent CO2 [25] with the balance of the emissions stream being water, but most references
give a range of 95–100 percent CO2 concentration, indicating that a purification step (i.e., water
removal from the emissions stream) is inherent to the EO production plant. [26]
𝑆𝑖𝑙𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝐶𝑎𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑦𝑠𝑡
𝐶2 𝐻4 + 1⁄2 𝑂2 → 𝐶2 𝐻4 𝑂 Equation
𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑𝑠 5-1
𝐶2 𝐻4 + 5𝑂2 → 2𝐶𝑂2 + 2𝐻2 𝑂
5.2.1 Size Range

Current EO U.S. plant sizes range 105,000–770,000 tonnes. [27] Exhibit 5-10 shows the ten U.S.
EO production facilities and their associated capacity as of 2007.
Exhibit 5-10. 2007 U.S. EO production facility capacities
Company Location Capacity (1,000 tonnes EO/year)

BASF Geismar, Louisiana 220
Dow Chemical Plaquemine, Louisiana 275
Dow Chemical Seadrift, Texas 430
Dow Chemical Taft, Louisiana 770
Eastman Chemical Longview, Texas 105
Formosa Plastics Point Comfort, Texas 250
Huntsman Port Neches, Texas 460
LyondellBasell Bayport, Texas 360
Old World Industries Clear Lake, Texas 355
Shell Chemicals Geismar, Louisiana 420
43
The U.S. contains 10 major producers totaling an EO production of 3.6 M tonnes. The average
2007 U.S. plant capacity is 364,500 tonnes EO, which is representative of the majority of EO
plants and, thus, is the production capacity basis for the EO case in this study. With a 6:2 ratio of
EO:CO2, a plant with a 3.6 M tonnes annual EO production capacity would produce 121,500
tonnes CO2/year at 100 percent CF. The International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas R&D
Programme (IEAGHG) database gives an average annual emission for the 52 worldwide EO
production sites of 150,000 tonnes CO2 per plant [24], which is within range of the assumed
emissions rate for the representative EO plant evaluated.

EO is considered a high purity source of CO2. The process has a single CO2 source: the CO2
removal system that is assumed an inherent part of the EO production process. The removal
system may be one of several types—physical sorbents such as Rectisol or Selexol, chemical
sorbents such as aqueous amines, or cryogenic separation systems. This study assumes that the
base plant employs a physical sorbent Rectisol unit, with the CO2 stream to be captured
available at a pressure of 43.5 psia and a temperature of 96°F. For this study, the concentration
of the CO2 emissions stream is assumed to be 100 percent CO2.

The following is a list of design inputs and assumptions made specific to the EO process for the
purpose of this study:
• The representative plant has a production capacity of 364,500 tonnes of EO/year
• The CO2 generated at 100 percent CF is 121,500 tonnes CO2/year.
• The CO2 stream is 100 percent CO2
• Due to 100 percent purity, only compression and cooling are required
• The CO2 stream temperature is 96°F
• The CO2 stream pressure is 43.5 psia

For the EO case considered in this report, CO2 separation is an inherent part of base plant
operations, and only the addition of compression and associated intercooling are required.
Given the low CO2 flowrate, reciprocating compression is employed and scaled for this case.
Based on mass flow rate, this represents a scale down of 15 percent versus the quoted flow rate
as given previously in Section 4.1.2.
The suction pressure to the first stage of the reciprocating compressor is quoted as 17.43 psia,
which is below the assumed stream pressure for this case of 43.5 psia. However, the assumed
CO2 stream pressure nearly matches the quoted 44.04 psia suction pressure to the second stage
of the compressor. Therefore, when implementing this quote, the first stage is bypassed, and
the CO2 stream is introduced into the second stage. This reduces the overall power consumption
44
of the compression train. The cost was adjusted to account for the removal of the first stage by
scaling on power requirement, resulting in a 21.4 percent reduction in cost, as compared to the
quoted value.

Since the EO absorption/separation process releases 100 percent pure CO2, only cooling and
compression is required for the CO2 stream to be sent directly for EOR or other usage. As
shown in Exhibit 5-11, the vent, which is at a lower temperature than required by the
compressor, is sent directly to the compression train. Since the compression train includes a
post-cooler, after-cooling is not represented here. Exhibit 5-12 provides the stream table.
Exhibit 5-11. EO CO2 capture BFD
Desired
EO Plant 1 Compressor 2
Usage
Exhibit 5-12. EO stream table
1 2
V-L Mole Fraction
AR 0.0000 0.0000
CH4 0.0000 0.0000
CO 0.0000 0.0000
CO2 1.0000 1.0000
SO2 0.0000 0.0000
H2 0.0000 0.0000
H2O 0.0000 0.0000
H2S 0.0000 0.0000
N2 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0000 1.0000
V-L Flowrate (kgmol/hr) 315 315

V-L Flowrate (kg/hr) 13,870 13,870
Temperature (°C) 36 30
Pressure (MPa, abs) 0.30 15.3
A
Steam Table Enthalpy (kJ/kg) 8,759 8,753
B
Aspen Plus Enthalpy (kJ/kg) -8,935 -9,193
3
Density (kg/m ) 5.2 629
V-L Molecular Weight 44.0 44.0
V-L Flowrate (lbmol/hr) 695 695
45
1 2
V-L Mole Fraction
V-L Flowrate (lb/hr) 30,578 30,578
Temperature (°F) 96 86
Pressure (psia) 43.5 2,214.7
Steam Table Enthalpy (Btu/lb)A 3,765 3,763
Aspen Plus Enthalpy (Btu/lb)B -3,841 -3,952
3
Density (lb/ft ) 0.325 39.3
The performance summary is provided in Exhibit 5-13.
Performance Summary
Item 364,500 tonnes/year (kWe)

The reactor effluent is received by the AGR absorber at a temperature of 410°F [28] and
requires cooling, indicating an existing cooling water system. A cooling water system from the
retrofit could potentially be integrated into the existing plant’s cooling water system; however,
depending on the size of the existing cooling water system and the design cooling temperature
range, it might be more economical to install a stand-alone cooling system rather than increase
the existing cooling system. This would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If a power
plant using a steam cycle is present within the EO facility, an efficient HX could capture this
energy to heat condensate make-up.
For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that an additional, stand-alone cooling water unit
will perform the necessary cooling for compression intercooling. However, there is a potential
for integration of make-up water to be used to feed or partially feed the cooler thereby
reducing the unit’s size or replacing it with a simple heat exchanger depending on the size of the
plant. These options are not evaluated within the scope of this study.
5.2.7 Power Source

Given the relatively small amount of CO2, the compressor power consumption is 1.18 MW.
Power consumption estimates for the cooling water system were scaled as described in Section
4.4. The total power requirement was approximated to be 1.2 MW, which includes all power
required by the compression train and the cooling water system. Purchased power cost is
46
estimated at a rate of $60/MWh as discussed in Section 3.1.2.4. Given that the EO reaction is
exothermic, and this additional heat is possibly used to generate steam, an EO plant may
already generate power on-site for other usage, and this power may be available as an
alternative to purchasing power from the grid. The availability of on-site power would need to
be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and is not considered within the scope of this report.

The economic results for CO2 capture application in an EO plant are presented in this section.
Owner’s costs (Exhibit 5-14), capital costs (Exhibit 5-15), and O&M costs are calculated as
discussed in Section 3.3. The greenfield TOC for the EO case is $20.4 M. The corresponding
greenfield COC is $26.0/tonne CO2, and the COC is $26.2/tonne CO2 in retrofit applications.
Exhibit 5-14. Owner’s costs for EO greenfield site

2% of TPC $333 $3
Total $690 $6
Inventory Capital
Total $84 $1
Other Costs
Land $30 $0
Financing Costs $449 $4
TOC $20,385 $168
TASC Multiplier (EO, 31 year) 1.025
TASC $20,892 $172
47
Exhibit 5-15. Capital costs for EO greenfield site

Case: Ethylene Oxide Estimate Type: Conceptual
Representative Plant Size: 364,500 tonnes EO/year Cost Base: Dec 2018
Labor Contingencies Total Plant Cost
Item Equipment Material Bare Erected Eng'g CM
Description $/tonnes/yr
No. Cost Cost Direct Indirect Cost H.O. & Fee Process Project $/1,000
(CO2)
5 Flue Gas Cleanup
5.4 CO2 Compression & Drying $2,352 $353 $786 $0 $3,491 $611 $0 $820 $4,922 $41
Subtotal $2,352 $353 $786 $0 $3,491 $611 $0 $820 $4,922 $41
7 Ductwork & Stack
7.3 Ductwork $0 $41 $29 $0 $70 $12 $0 $16 $99 $1
Subtotal $0 $41 $29 $0 $70 $12 $0 $16 $99 $1
9.1 Cooling Towers $52 $0 $16 $0 $68 $12 $0 $16 $95 $1
Subtotal $215 $66 $138 $0 $418 $73 $0 $98 $590 $5
11.2 Station Service Equipment $873 $0 $75 $0 $947 $166 $0 $223 $1,336 $11
11.4 Conduit & Cable Tray $0 $176 $507 $0 $684 $120 $0 $161 $964 $8
11.5 Wire & Cable $0 $466 $834 $0 $1,300 $227 $0 $305 $1,833 $15
Subtotal $2,227 $642 $1,651 $0 $4,521 $791 $0 $1,062 $6,374 $52
12.8 Instrument Wiring & Tubing $287 $230 $919 $0 $1,437 $251 $0 $338 $2,026 $17
12.9 Other I&C Equipment $353 $0 $818 $0 $1,171 $205 $0 $275 $1,651 $14
Subtotal $640 $230 $1,737 $0 $2,607 $456 $0 $613 $3,677 $30
13.3 Site Facilities $85 $0 $90 $0 $175 $31 $0 $41 $247 $2
Subtotal $85 $90 $509 $0 $685 $120 $0 $161 $965 $8
Subtotal $0 $4 $3 $0 $7 $1 $0 $2 $10 $0
Total $5,520 $1,427 $4,852 $0 $11,799 $2,065 $0 $2,773 $16,636 $137
48
5-16, while Exhibit 5-17 shows the COC for greenfield and retrofit sites for the representative EO
plant.
Exhibit 5-16. Initial and annual O&M costs for EO greenfield site
Case: Ethylene Oxide Cost Base: Dec 2018
Representative Plant Size: 364,500 tonnes EO/year Capacity Factor (%): 85
Operating & Maintenance Labor

Total: 1.0
Annual Cost
Total: $1,013,852 $8.34
Consumables
Water (/1000 gallons): 0 10 $1.90 $0 $6,099 $0.06
Chemicals (ton):
Subtotal: $0 $11,359 $0.11
Variable Operating Costs Total: $0 $171,063 $1.66
Exhibit 5-17. COC for 364,500 tonnes/year EO greenfield and retrofit

Capital 9.4 9.4
Fixed 9.8 9.9
Variable 1.7 1.7
Total COC 26.0 26.2
49

An analysis of the sensitivity of greenfield COC to EO plant capacity is shown in Exhibit 5-18. As
the plant capacity increases, more CO2 is available for capture, thus realizing economies of
scale. This generic scaling exercise assumes that equipment is available at continuous capacities;
however, equipment is often manufactured in discrete sizes, which would possibly affect the
advantages of economies of scale and skew the results of this sensitivity analysis.
Exhibit 5-18. EO plant capacity sensitivity
5.2.10 Ethylene Oxide Conclusion

The high purity CO2 stream produced from EO plants makes them a relatively low-cost industrial
process for CO2 capture, as the plant itself performs the separation of CO2 under normal
operating conditions. A CO2 compression system for a 364,500 tonnes/year EO plant was
modeled to estimate the COC of capturing CO2 from the AGR system. The results showed the
COC of CO2 to be $26.0/tonne CO2 for a greenfield site and $26.2/tonne CO2 for a retrofit site.
The small disparities between greenfield and retrofit cases are the result of unknown difficulties
required for a retrofit installation versus a greenfield application, assuming adequate plot plan
space for the retrofit case exists.
The plant size sensitivity showed that as plant size decreased from 770,000 tonnes EO/year to
105,000 tonnes EO/year, the COC increased by $26.3/tonne CO2. As the plant size is decreased,
less CO2 is produced, and economies of scale are lost, resulting in a higher COC.
50
5.3 ETHANOL
Ethanol production generates as a byproduct a high purity CO2 stream greater than 85 percent
by volume. [29] Though not a large-scale CO2 producer, the COC is assumed to be relatively low.
One project where CO2 is being captured from ethanol refining is the DOE-funded Archer
Daniel’s Midlands project in Decatur, IL. The purpose of the project is to demonstrate how the
next generation of technologies capture and store or reuse industrial CO2 emissions. [30] The
project design states a goal to capture approximately 1 M tons of CO2/year using dehydration
and compression and store the captured CO2 in the Mt. Simon Sandstone Formation saline
reservoir. [30]
5.3.1 Size Range

There are 208 ethanol refineries in the United States demonstrating a wide range of production,
with 90 percent of these refineries using the dry-mill process. [31]. Of the 208 ethanol refineries
in the United States, 66 of the plants (approximately 32 percent) fall between 40 and 60 M
gallons/year. [32] Exhibit 5-19 shows the quantities of ethanol production ranges and the
number of plants in each designated range. It is important to note that plant capacities would
affect the COC presented, and a sensitivity analysis evaluating the effect of plant size on COC is
included in Section 5.3.9. However, the effects would be noted at the equipment selection level.
For instance, CO2 produced from a 50 M gallons/year plant versus a 215+ M gallons/year plant
requires a different type of compression (reciprocating versus centrifugal). This is due to the
quantity of CO2 produced at each plant. Discussion of the different types of compression can be
found in Section 4.1.
Exhibit 5-19 U.S. Ethanol plant capacities and quantities
Capacity Range (M gallons/year) Number of Plants

0–50 59
40–60 66
51–100 81
101–150 57
>150 11
Since a large portion of existing ethanol plants, 66 have smaller production capacities of 40–60
M gallons/year, the plant size chosen was 50 M gallons/year, and utilized reciprocating
compression. It was also assumed that the plant uses the dry mill process with corn as the
feedstock of choice.

The major point sources of CO2 emissions at an ethanol plant result from the fermentation
process and fuel burning to provide required process heat. Of these two sources, only the
51
fermentation off-gas stream is considered high purity and is the basis for the ethanol case in this
report. The fuel burning stream may be considered as future work, as detailed in Section 9.1.
A study by the Illinois State Geological Survey [33] investigated the inventory of stationary CO2
emissions in the Illinois Basin in 2007. The study reviewed a wide range of industrial processes,
including ethanol plants. They used the relationship given in Equation 5-2 to calculate the
amount of CO2 emissions from the fermentation point source.
𝑔𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑏𝐶𝑂2
[𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑜𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 ( ) ( )]
𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟 ∗ 𝐸𝐹 𝑔𝑎𝑙 Equation
𝐶𝑂2 𝐹𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 ( )= 5-2
𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑙𝑏 𝑡𝑜𝑛
2,000 𝑡𝑜𝑛 ∗ 1.01231 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒
Where
𝐸𝐹 = emission factor, feedstock dependent
The generic plant assumed in the Illinois Stage Geological Survey study utilizes corn as the
feedstock, giving an EF equal to 6.31 lb CO2/gallons ethanol. The EF was formulated in the
Illinois Stage Geological Survey study through communication with representatives from existing
ethanol plants in the Illinois Basin. [33] Using this relationship, the representative ethanol plant
will generate approximately 143,042 tonnes CO2/year from fermentation (at 100 percent CF),
with a production capacity of 50 M gallons of ethanol/year.
A report published by the Global Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) Institute in 2010
states that “the emission in ethanol plants arise from fermentation of biomass such as sugar
cane or corn. Fermentation results in a pure stream of CO2, which significantly reduces the cost
for applying CCS.” [34] The fermentation process occurs at a temperature of 140–180 °C (284–
356 °F). [35] Therefore, the fermentation stream is assumed to be 100 percent CO2 and may be
sent directly for cooling and compression. Other sources [30] have referenced the presence of
water in the fermentation CO2 stream. This is a possibility; however, water knockout drums
would be present in the CO2 compression train and, thus, further purification before processing
would be unnecessary.

The following is a list of design inputs and assumptions made specific to the ethanol process for
the purpose of this study:
• The base plant is representative of an ethanol plant producing 50 M gallons of
ethanol/year
• The plant uses the dry-mill process with corn as the feedstock
• The fermentation off-gas, assumed to be 100 percent CO2, is the only high purity point
source considered
• The CO2 generated at 100 percent CF is 143,042 tonnes CO2/year
• The CO2 temperature is 320°F
• The CO2 pressure is 17.4 psia
52

Exhibit 5-20 [36] is a map provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) showing the
production of corn by county in comparison to the location of U.S. ethanol plants, as of March
2012. As expected, the ethanol plants are mostly located near areas of high corn production,
namely the Midwest states. The highest density of ethanol plants occurs in Illinois, Iowa,
Minnesota, and Nebraska.
Exhibit 5-20. U.S. ethanol plant locations
Source: USDA [36]
53
The trend for the ethanol industry is smaller plants, which in turn produce smaller CO 2 streams
and require compression equipment capable of handling smaller flows. This requirement is
satisfied by using reciprocating compression discussed in Section 4.1.1; however, an alternative
to smaller equipment could be to combine the emissions streams from multiple nearby plants
for a single, larger compressor to compress the aggregate CO2 for EOR use. Such a scenario is
not considered in the scope of this study but could be evaluated in future work as described in
Section 9.2.

Since the fermentation process releases 100 percent pure CO2, only cooling and compression is
required for the CO2 stream to be sent directly for EOR or other usage. As shown in Exhibit
5-21, the fermentation vent is cooled through a HX, compressed (with interstage cooling and
after-cooling) to meet EOR pipeline specifications for pressure and temperature. Exhibit 5-22
provides the stream table.
Exhibit 5-21. Ethanol CO2 capture BFD
Ethanol Desired
1 HX 2 Compressor 3
Plant Usage
Exhibit 5-22. Ethanol stream table
1 2 3
V-L Mole Fraction
AR 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CH4 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CO 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CO2 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
SO2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
H2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
H2O 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
H2S 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
N2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
V-L Flowrate (kgmol/hr) 371 371 371

V-L Flowrate (kg/hr) 16,329 16,329 16,329
A
B
Aspen Plus Enthalpy (kJ/kg) -8,819 -8,941 -9,193
54
1 2 3
V-L Mole Fraction
Density (kg/m3) 1.5 2.0 629

V-L Flowrate (lbmol/hr) 818 818 818
V-L Flowrate (lb/hr) 36,000 36,000 36,000
Pressure (psia) 17.4 16.4 2,214.7
A
Steam Table Enthalpy (Btu/lb) 3,767 3,766 3,763
3
Density (lb/ft ) 0.092 0.125 39.3
The performance results are based on compressor quotes discussed in Section 4.1.1 and scaled
auxiliary loads for the cooling water system as discussed in Section 4.4. The performance
summary is provided in Exhibit 5-23.
Performance Summary
Item 50 M Gal Ethanol/year (kWe)

The fermentation process occurs at a temperature of 140–180°C (284–356°F). Any cooling water
system from the retrofit could be integrated into the existing plant’s cooling water system;
however, depending on the size of the existing cooling water system and the design cooling
temperature range, it might be more economical to install a stand-alone cooling system rather
than increase the existing cooling system. For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that an
additional, stand-alone cooling water unit will perform the necessary cooling for capture and
compression since integration with the base plant is outside the scope of this report. However,
there is a potential for integration of make-up water to be used to feed or partially feed the
cooling unit, thereby reducing the unit’s size; there is also the potential that the heat removed
from compression could be recycled within the plant to produce dried distiller grain solids. This
product is produced by drying the solids that remain after fermentation. Heat for dried distiller
grain solids drying is generally provided by NG.
55
5.3.7 Power Source

Given the relatively small amount of CO2, the compression power consumption is 1.81 MW.
Power consumption estimates for the cooling system were scaled as described in Section 4.4.
The total power requirement was calculated to be 1.85 MW, which includes all power required
by the compression train and the cooling water system. Purchased power cost is estimated at a
rate of $60/MWh as discussed in Section 3.1.2.4.

The economic results for CO2 capture application in an ethanol plant are presented in this
section. Owner’s costs (Exhibit 5-24), capital costs (Exhibit 5-25), and O&M costs are calculated
as discussed in Section 3.1. Retrofit costs were determined by applying a retrofit factor to TPC
as discussed in Section 3.3. The greenfield TOC for the ethanol case is $24.7 M. The
corresponding greenfield COC is $31.8/tonne CO2, and the COC is $32.0/tonne CO2 in retrofit
applications.
Exhibit 5-24. Owner’s costs for ethanol greenfield site

2% of TPC $404 $3
Total $779 $5
Inventory Capital
Total $103 $1
Other Costs
Land $30 $0
Financing Costs $545 $4
TOC $24,672 $172
TASC Multiplier (Ethanol, 31 year) 1.047
TASC $25,840 $181
56
Exhibit 5-25. Capital costs for ethanol greenfield site

Case: Ethanol Estimate Type: Conceptual
Representative Plant Size: 50 M gallons ethanol/year Cost Base: Dec 2018
Description
5 Flue Gas Cleanup
5.1 Inlet Cooler for Compression Train $63 $0 $13 $0 $76 $13 $0 $18 $107 $1
5.4 CO2 Compression & Drying $3,053 $458 $1,021 $0 $4,532 $793 $0 $1,065 $6,390 $45
Subtotal $3,116 $458 $1,034 $0 $4,608 $806 $0 $1,083 $6,497 $45
7 Ductwork & Stack
7.3 Ductwork $0 $112 $78 $0 $190 $33 $0 $45 $268 $2
Subtotal $0 $112 $78 $0 $190 $33 $0 $45 $268 $2
9.1 Cooling Towers $75 $0 $23 $0 $99 $17 $0 $23 $139 $1
Subtotal $296 $90 $186 $0 $571 $100 $0 $134 $805 $6
11.4 Conduit & Cable Tray $0 $212 $610 $0 $822 $144 $0 $193 $1,159 $8
11.5 Wire & Cable $0 $561 $1,002 $0 $1,563 $274 $0 $367 $2,204 $15
Subtotal $2,678 $773 $1,985 $0 $5,436 $951 $0 $1,277 $7,665 $54
12.8 Instrument Wiring & Tubing $304 $243 $972 $0 $1,519 $266 $0 $357 $2,142 $15
Subtotal $677 $243 $1,837 $0 $2,757 $482 $0 $648 $3,887 $27
13.3 Site Facilities $93 $0 $98 $0 $191 $33 $0 $45 $269 $2
Subtotal $93 $99 $554 $0 $746 $131 $0 $175 $1,052 $7
Subtotal $0 $5 $4 $0 $9 $2 $0 $2 $13 $0
Total $6,860 $1,779 $5,678 $0 $14,317 $2,505 $0 $3,364 $20,187 $141
57
5-26, while Exhibit 5-27 shows the COC for greenfield and retrofit sites for the representative
ethanol plant.
Exhibit 5-26. Initial and annual O&M costs for ethanol greenfield site
Case: Ethanol Cost Base: Dec 2018
Representative Plant Size: 50 M gallons ethanol/year Capacity Factor (%): 85

Total: 1.0
Annual Cost
Total: $1,113,272 $7.78
Consumables
Water (/1000 gallons): 0 17 $1.90 $0 $9,946 $0.08
Makeup and Waste Water Treatment
0 0.1 $550.00 $0 $8,577 $0.07
Chemicals (ton):
Subtotal: $0 $18,523 $0.15
Exhibit 5-27. COC for 50 M gallons/year ethanol greenfield and retrofit

Capital 14.1 14.2
Fixed 9.2 9.2
Variable 1.7 1.8
Total COC 31.8 32.0
58

An analysis of the sensitivity of greenfield COC to ethanol plant capacity is shown in Exhibit
Exhibit 5-28. Ethanol plant capacity sensitivity
Note: The data point for the COC at a 50 M gallon/year ethanol plant does not fall directly on the COC line due to data point
increments and plot formatting.
5.3.10 Ethanol Conclusion

The high purity CO2 stream produced in an ethanol plant makes them relatively low-cost
industrial processes for CO2 capture since they require no costly separation equipment. A CO2
compression system for a 50 M gallons/year ethanol plant was modeled to estimate the COC of
capturing CO2 from the fermenter. The results showed the COC of CO2 to be $31.8/tonne CO2
for a greenfield site and $32.0/tonne CO2 for a retrofit site. The small disparities between
greenfield and retrofit cases are the result of unknown difficulties required for a retrofit
installation versus a greenfield application, assuming adequate plot plan space for the retrofit
case exists.
The plant size sensitivity showed that as plant size decreased from 415 M gallons/year to 30 M
gal/year, the COC increased by $20.1/tonne CO2. As the plant size is decreased, less CO2 is
produced, and economies of scale are lost, resulting in a higher COC. Though outside of this
study’s scope, literature discusses food-grade CO2 capture for potential use instead of EOR. This
59
might be a more economical option, but further evaluation would be required to determine an
applicable COC for this alternate CO2 end-use.
5.4 NATURAL GAS PROCESSING

Natural gas processing is considered a high purity industrial process with a CO2 discharge stream
composition of 96–99 percent. Since in many applications CO2 removal is inherently necessary
to the processing of natural gas, NGP presents a potentially low-cost source of industrial CO2
capture.
5.4.1 Size Range

For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that the reference plant has a capacity of 330
MMSCFD at 100 percent capacity. The composition of the raw gas processed is represented by
that of a formation in the Michigan Basin producing formation with 10.2 percent CO2. [37] The
full raw gas characteristics are given in Exhibit 5-29, and represent average concentrations of
the gas produced in the referenced formation. Given this plant capacity and the raw natural gas
CO2 composition, this plant would generate approximately 649,255 tonnes CO2/year at 100
percent CF.h
Exhibit 5-29. Michigan basin producing formation raw gas characteristics
Michigan Basin Raw Gas Characteristics

Component Average Mole %
CH4 82.4
C2H6 2.48
C3H8 0.37
n-Butane 0.00
i-Butane 0.00
n-Pentane 0.00
i-Pentane 0.00
c-Pentane 0.00
Hexanes 0.00
H2S 0.00
CO2 10.2
N2 2.23
He 0.00
Other 2.32
h The assumptions for this study’s reference plant are not limited to the Michigan Basin. High CO2 content coupled with
large capacity processing plants may also be found in the Gulf Coast region, the Williston Basin, and the Midwest region,
referred to as the Foreland Province, according to the Gas Technology Institute database. [37]
60

Natural gas processing (or gas sweetening) takes raw NG containing 2–70 percent CO2 by
volume and removes CO2 and other impurities to meet the required pipeline or liquefaction
specifications. The single point source is the CO2 stream from the AGR system, which is
generally vented to the atmosphere. The variation in raw natural gas CO2 content would affect
the amount of CO2 available for capture; however, the concentration of the CO2 stream to be
captured is high, 96–99 percent.

The following is a list of design inputs and assumptions made specific to the natural gas
processing plant for the purpose of this study:
• The representative NGP plant has a capacity of 330 MMSCFD of raw gas processed
• The raw gas CO2 content is 10.2 mole percent
• The CO2 generated at 100 percent CF is 649,255 tonnes CO2/year
• The CO2 stream temperature is 69°F
• The CO2 stream pressure is 23.52 psia
• The CO2 stream is 99 percent CO2 by volume, balanced with water
• The CO2 quality is based on the EOR pipeline standard as mentioned in the NETL QGESS
for CO2 Impurity Design Parameters [1]

Only compression, glycol dehydration, and associated cooling is required for this NGP case.
Given the amount of CO2 available for capture, a centrifugal compressor, discussed in Section
4.1.2, is used to attain 2,200 psig EOR pipeline pressure per QGESS specifications. [1]

Since the stripping column releases 99 volume percent CO2, only compression with glycol
dehydration and cooling is required. Water knockout is used in the compression train to avoid
liquid entering the compressors. There is no cooling of the inlet stream required, as it is
assumed that the overhead condenser of the stripping column in the base plant discharges at a
temperature of 69°F. After compression, the CO2 product stream is cooled to 120°F and sent
directly for EOR or other usage. Exhibit 5-30 gives the BFD for this process. Exhibit 5-31 provides
the stream table.
Exhibit 5-30. NGP CO2 capture BFD
Natural Gas
Desired
Processing 1 Compressor 2 HX 3
Usage
Plant
61
Exhibit 5-31. NGP stream table
1 2 3
V-L Mole Fraction
AR 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CH4 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CO 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CO2 0.9900 0.9995 0.9995
SO2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
H2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
H2O 0.0100 0.0005 0.0005
H2S 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
N2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

V-L Flowrate (kg/hr) 74,416 74,109 74,109
A
B
Aspen Plus Enthalpy (kJ/kg) -8,965 -9,034 -9,195
3
Density (kg/m ) 2.9 416 630

V-L Flowrate (lb/hr) 164,059 163,382 163,382
Pressure (psia) 23.5 2,216.9 2,214.7
A
Steam Table Enthalpy (Btu/lb) 3,778 3,765 3,764
Density (lb/ft3) 0.183 25.9 39.3
The performance results are based on the centrifugal compressor discussed in Section 4.1.2 and
scaled auxiliary loads for the cooling water system as discussed in Section 4.4. The performance
summary is provided in Exhibit 5-32.
62
Performance Summary
Item 330 MMSCFD (kWe)

In this instance, the capture system is inherent to the base plant design, under the assumption
that the raw gas CO2 content is above that of pipeline specifications. Therefore, there is little
opportunity for capture integration other than the necessary cooling for compression. Since the
base plant is considered outside the scope of this study, a standalone cooling water system is
assumed to provide the necessary intercooling for the compression process. However, in real
applications, the necessity for a standalone cooling water system would need to be evaluated
on a case-by-case basis. There could be potential to integrate make-up water to feed or partially
feed the cooling system, thereby reducing the unit’s size, or replacing it completely with a
simple HX.
5.4.7 Power Source

The compressor power consumption for this case is 6.01 MW. Power consumption estimates for
the cooling water system were scaled as described in Section 4.4. The total power requirement
was calculated to be 6.12 MW, which includes all power required by the compression train and
the cooling water system. Purchased power cost is estimated at a rate of $60/MWh as discussed
in Section 3.1.2.4. For practical applications for this type of facility with NG readily available, the
power required to operate the cooling water system as well as the compression system could be
generated on site. Depending on the size and location of the facility there could be other co-
beneficial reasons to produce the required power on-site. This scenario would need to be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis and is outside of the scope of this study.

The economic results for CO2 capture application in an NGP plant are presented in this section.
discussed in Section 3.3. The greenfield TOC for the NGP case is $56.8 M. The corresponding
greenfield COC is $16.1/tonne CO2, and the COC is $16.2/tonne CO2 in retrofit applications.
63
Exhibit 5-33. Owner’s costs for NGP greenfield site

25% of 1 Months Fuel Cost at 100% CF $0 $0
2% of TPC $934 $1
Total $1,477 $2
Inventory Capital
Total $302 $0
Other Costs
Land $30 $0
TOC $56,764 $87
TASC Multiplier (NGP, 31 year) 1.039
TASC $58,977 $91
64
Exhibit 5-34. Capital and costs for NGP greenfield site

Case: Natural Gas Processing Estimate Type: Conceptual
Representative Plant Size: 330 MMSCFD natural gas Cost Base: Dec 2018
No. Cost Cost Direct Indirect Cost H.O.& Fee Process Project $/1,000
(CO2)
5 Flue Gas Cleanup
5.4 CO2 Compression & Drying $12,229 $1,834 $4,089 $0 $18,152 $3,177 $0 $4,266 $25,594 $39
5.5 CO2 Compressor Aftercooler $86 $14 $37 $0 $136 $24 $0 $32 $192 $0
Subtotal $12,315 $1,848 $4,126 $0 $18,288 $3,200 $0 $4,298 $25,787 $40
7 Ductwork & Stack
7.3 Ductwork $0 $200 $139 $0 $339 $59 $0 $80 $478 $1
Subtotal $0 $200 $139 $0 $339 $59 $0 $80 $478 $1
9.1 Cooling Towers $183 $0 $57 $0 $239 $42 $0 $56 $338 $1
Subtotal $632 $184 $378 $0 $1,194 $209 $0 $281 $1,683 $3
11.5 Wire & Cable $0 $939 $1,679 $0 $2,618 $458 $0 $615 $3,691 $6
Subtotal $4,485 $1,294 $3,325 $0 $9,104 $1,593 $0 $2,139 $12,837 $20
Subtotal $791 $284 $2,147 $0 $3,222 $564 $0 $757 $4,543 $7
13.3 Site Facilities $118 $0 $124 $0 $242 $42 $0 $57 $342 $1
Subtotal $118 $125 $704 $0 $948 $166 $0 $223 $1,337 $2
Subtotal $0 $10 $8 $0 $18 $3 $0 $4 $26 $0
Total $18,342 $3,945 $10,826 $0 $33,114 $5,795 $0 $7,782 $46,690 $72
65
5-35, while Exhibit 5-36 shows the COC for greenfield and retrofit sites for the representative
NGP plant.
Exhibit 5-35. Initial and annual O&M costs for NGP greenfield site
Case: Natural Gas Processing Cost Base: Dec 2018
Representative Plant Size: 330 MMSCFD natural gas Capacity Factor (%): 85

Total: 1.0
Annual Cost
Total: $1,855,379 $2.86
Consumables
Water (/1000 gallons): 0 53 $1.90 $0 $31,518 $0.06
Chemicals (ton):
Subtotal: $0 $380,826 $0.69
Waste Disposal
Subtotal: $0 $16,552 $0.03
Exhibit 5-36. COC for 330 MMSCFD NGP greenfield and retrofit

Capital 6.2 6.3
Fixed 3.4 3.4
Variable 1.5 1.5
Total COC of CO2 16.1 16.2
66

An analysis of the sensitivity of greenfield COC to NGP plant capacity is shown in Exhibit 5-37. As
Exhibit 5-37. NGP plant capacity sensitivity
5.4.10 Natural Gas Processing Conclusion

The high purity CO2 stream produced from NGP plants makes them a relatively low-cost
industrial process since CO2 separation is inherent to normal operations. A CO2 compression
system for a 330 MMSCFD NGP plant was modeled to estimate the COC of capturing CO2 from
the plant’s existing AGR. The results showed the COC of CO2 to be $16.1/tonne CO2 for a
greenfield site and $16.2/tonne CO2 for a retrofit site. The small disparities between greenfield
and retrofit cases are the result of unknown difficulties required for a retrofit installation versus
a greenfield application, assuming adequate plot plan space for the retrofit case exists.
The plant size sensitivity, based on the design basis assumptions in this study, showed that as
plant size decreased from 1,250 MMSCFD to 50 MMSCFD, the COC increased by $16.7/tonne
CO2. With decreasing plant size, less CO2 is produced, and economies of scale are lost, resulting
in a higher COC.
67
5.5 COAL-TO-LIQUIDS
Economic and national security concerns related to liquid fuels have revived national interest in
alternative liquid fuel sources. Coal-to-Fischer-Tropsch fuels production emerged as a major
technology option for many states and the DOE. The 2014 NETL report “Baseline Technical and
Economic Assessment of a Commercial Scale Fischer-Tropsch Liquids Facility” (“CTL Study”) [38]
examined the technical and economic feasibility of a commercial 50,000 barrels per day (BPD)
CTL facility. The facility employs gasification and Fischer-Tropsch (FT) technology to produce
commercial-grade diesel and naptha liquids from medium-sulfur bituminous coal. The basis for
the CTL case in this report is that of the CO2 sequestration case evaluated in the CTL Study.
5.5.1 Size Range

The CTL Study focuses on a 50,000 BPD CTL production facility, and this is the plant capacity
assumed for this study to allow for comparisons across NETL reports. With the given capacity,
the CTL facility will produce 8,743,312 tonnes/year of CO2 at 100 percent CF. The CTL study also
considers power production, where the gas turbine and steam turbine produce power in excess
of what base plant operations would require, and this excess 4.7 MW was exported to the grid.
This reported excess power is on a net basis and does include auxiliary loads for CO2
compressors. For the purposes of this study, all power requirements are met with power
purchased from the grid; however, in some cases the base plant will have excess power
available to meet compression and cooling power requirements, as is the case in the CTL study.

Within the CTL facility there are two main point sources of CO2 emissions; the AGR unit in the
gasification section and the FT amine AGR unit in the FT section. The gasification section AGR
generates CO2 at two pressures: 160 psia and 300 psia. The FT amine AGR generates CO2 at 265
psia. These three streams are compressed in one compression train, with the higher-pressure
streams added to the train between the appropriate compression stages. The CO2 product
stream has a purity of 100 percent CO2.

The following is a list of design inputs and assumptions made specific to the CTL process for the
• The representative CTL facility has a production capacity of 50,000 BPD
• The CO2 generated is 8,743,312 tonnes CO2/year at 100 percent CF
• The CO2 stream pressures are 160, 265, and 300 psia
68

The CTL Study considers cases with CO2 compression for EOR export and, therefore, the base
plant acts as the separation process. The specific AGR units used in the CTL Study discharge CO2
at multiple pressures and, therefore, the compression trains used are configured specifically to
handle these compression requirements. Of the vendor quotes discussed in Section 4.1, there is
not a compression train quote that accounts for multiple inlet CO2 streams at multiple
pressures. Therefore, the cost and performance specified in the NETL CTL Study are used here.
This requires approximation of the amount of cooling water necessary for interstage cooling.
[38]
It should be noted that in the CTL Study, after the CO2 streams are combined, a portion is
removed and sent back to the gasifier. For the purposes of this study, this stream is not
considered, and all calculations are based on the reported mass flow of the product CO 2 stream
(at 2,200 psig) given in the CTL Study. [38]

Since the CTL process releases 100 percent pure CO2, only cooling and compression is required
for the CO2 stream to be sent directly for EOR or other usage. The compression train used
discharges the product CO2 at 2,200 psig and 121°F and, therefore, after-cooling is required.
Exhibit 5-38 gives the BFD for this process, and Exhibit 5-39 provides the stream table.
Exhibit 5-38. CTL CO2 capture BFD
Exhibit 5-39. CTL stream table
1 2 3 4 5
V-L Mole Fraction
AR 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CH4 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CO 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CO2 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
H2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
H2O 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
H2S 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
N2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
69
1 2 3 4 5
V-L Mole Fraction
V-L Flowrate (kgmol/hr) 13,449 7,384 1,846 22,679 22,679
V-L Flowrate (kg/hr) 91,870 324,980 81,245 498,095 498,095
Temperature (°C) 38 16 16 49 30
Pressure (MPa, abs) 1.8 1.1 2.1 15.3 15.3
A
Steam Table Enthalpy (kJ/kg) 8,759 8,759 8,758 8,755 8,753
Aspen Plus Enthalpy (kJ/kg)B -8,948 -8,961 -8,972 -9,132 -9,188
3
Density (kg/m ) 34.2 21.7 43.8 668.2 628.8
V-L Molecular Weight 44.01 44.01 44.01 44.01 44.01
V-L Flowrate (lbmol/hr) 29,649 16,280 4,070 49,998 49,998

V-L Flowrate (lb/hr) 1,304,851 716,458 179,114 2,200,423 2,200,423
Temperature (°F) 100 60 60 121 86
Pressure (psia) 265.0 160.0 300.0 2,214.7 2,214.7
Steam Table Enthalpy 3,766 3,766 3,765 3,764 3,763
(Btu/lb)A
Aspen Plus Enthalpy (Btu/lb)B -3,847 -3,852 -3,857 -3,926 -3,950
3
Density (lb/ft ) 2.14 1.36 2.74 41.7 39.3
The performance results are taken from the CTL Study sequestration case that considered CO2
capture. The performance summary is provided in Exhibit 5-40.
Performance Summary
Item 50,000 BPD (kWe)

For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that an additional, stand-alone cooling water
system will perform the necessary cooling for capture and compression. No retrofit case is
considered for CTL as any new builds would most likely include cooling. However, to make this
case comparable to the other cases considered in this study, the cost for cooling must be
included in the greenfield COC. Therefore, a stand-alone cooling system is included.
70
5.5.7 Power Source

The auxiliary power required for this case is 43.6 MW. The total power requirement was
approximated to include all power required by the compression train and the cooling water
system. Power requirement estimates for the cooling water system were scaled as described in
Section 4.4. Purchased power costs are estimated at a rate of $60/MWh as discussed in Section
3.1.2.4. However, for practical applications for this type of facility with power produced on-site
and excess power sent to the grid, the power requirements may be met with power generated
on-site. For instance, while the CTL Study sequestration case has excess power that would be
able to satisfy a portion of this study’s power requirement, this scenario should be evaluated on
a case-by-case basis, which is not included in the scope of this report.

The economic results for CO2 capture application in a CTL plant are presented in this section.
discussed in Section 3.1. The greenfield TOC for the CTL case is $196.9 M. The corresponding
greenfield COC is $5.6/tonne CO2.
Exhibit 5-41. Owner’s costs for CTL greenfield site

2% of TPC $3,257 $0
Total $4,377 $1
Inventory Capital
Total $853 $0
Other Costs
Land $30 $0
TOC $196,924 $23
TASC Multiplier (CTL, 31 year) 1.054
TASC $207,583 $24
71
Exhibit 5-42. Capital costs for CTL greenfield site

Case: CTL Estimate Type: Conceptual
Representative Plant Size: 50,000 BPD Fischer-Tropsch liquids Cost Base: Dec 2018
Description
5 Flue Gas Cleanup
Subtotal $59,507 $49 $20,203 $0 $79,759 $13,958 $0 $18,743 $112,461 $13
7 Ductwork & Stack
7.3 Ductwork $0 $246 $171 $0 $417 $73 $0 $98 $588 $0
Subtotal $0 $246 $171 $0 $417 $73 $0 $98 $588 $0
9.1 Cooling Towers $839 $0 $661 $0 $1,501 $263 $0 $353 $2,116 $0
9.3 Circulating Water System Aux. $2,663 $0 $351 $0 $3,014 $527 $0 $708 $4,250 $0
9.4 Circulating Water Piping $0 $1,231 $1,115 $0 $2,346 $410 $0 $551 $3,307 $0
9.7 Circulating Water System $0 $132 $220 $0 $352 $62 $0 $83 $497 $0
Foundations
Subtotal $4,233 $1,363 $2,905 $0 $8,502 $1,488 $0 $1,998 $11,988 $1
11.2 Station Service Equipment $4,090 $0 $351 $0 $4,441 $777 $0 $1,044 $6,261 $1
11.3 Switchgear & Motor Control $6,349 $0 $1,102 $0 $7,450 $1,304 $0 $1,751 $10,505 $1
11.5 Wire & Cable $0 $2,186 $3,907 $0 $6,093 $1,066 $0 $1,432 $8,591 $1
Subtotal $10,439 $3,011 $7,738 $0 $21,188 $3,708 $0 $4,979 $29,874 $3
Subtotal $1,022 $367 $2,771 $0 $4,160 $728 $0 $977 $5,865 $1
13.3 Site Facilities $175 $0 $184 $0 $359 $63 $0 $84 $506 $0
Subtotal $175 $186 $1,043 $0 $1,404 $246 $0 $330 $1,980 $0
Subtotal $0 $33 $26 $0 $60 $10 $0 $14 $84 $0
Total $75,376 $5,255 $34,858 $0 $115,490 $20,211 $0 $27,140 $162,840 $19
72
5-43, while Exhibit 5-44 shows the COC for a greenfield site for the representative CTL plant.
Exhibit 5-43. Initial and annual O&M costs for CTL greenfield site
Case: Coal-to-Liquids Cost Base: Dec 2018
Representative Plant Size: 50,000 BPD Fischer-Tropsch liquids Capacity Factor (%): 85

Total: 1.0
Annual Cost
Maintenance Labor: $1,042,178 $0.12
Property Taxes and Insurance: $3,256,808 $0.37
Total: $5,107,578 $0.58
Maintenance Material: $1,563,268 $0.21
Consumables
Water (/1000 gallons): 0 387 $1.90 $0 $228,019 $0.03
Chemicals (ton):
Subtotal: $0 $428,198 $0.06
Exhibit 5-44. COC for 50,000 BPD CTL greenfield
Component Greenfield Value, $/tonne CO2

Capital 2.0
Fixed 0.7
Variable 0.3
Purchased Power 2.6
Total COC 5.6
73

An analysis of the sensitivity of greenfield COC to CTL plant capacity is shown in Exhibit 5-45. As
Exhibit 5-45. CTL plant capacity sensitivity
5.5.10 Coal-to-Liquids Conclusion

The high purity CO2 streams produced from CTL plants makes them a relatively low-cost
industrial process since the plant performs the CO2 separation as a part of normal operations. A
CO2 compression system for a 50,000 BPD plant was modeled to estimate the COC of capturing
CO2 from the process. The results showed the COC of CO2 to be $5.6/tonne CO2 for a greenfield
site. The plant size sensitivity showed that as plant size decreased from 100,000 to 10,000 BPD,
the COC increased by $2.7/tonne CO2. As the plant size is decreased, less CO2 is produced, and
economies of scale are lost, resulting in a higher COC.
5.6 GAS-TO-LIQUIDS
Domestic FT GTL technology provides an alternative option for use of U.S. increasing supply of
domestic NG. As with CTL, GTL can create a significant economic value while increasing the
country’s energy security. In their report “Analysis of Natural Gas-to Liquid Transportation Fuels
via Fischer-Tropsch” [39] (“GTL Study”) published in 2013, NETL evaluated the cost and
performance of a 50,000 BPD FT liquids GTL facility. Of the total liquids production, 30 percent is
allocated for finished motor gasoline, and 70 percent results in low-density diesel fuel. The
74
system is calibrated to produce predominately liquid fuels; however, electrical power for export
is also a co-product after satisfying internal plant power consumption. In its current
configuration, the GTL plant exports 40.8 MWe to the grid. This study also considers CO2
capture and compression with associated performance and cost. The case for this report is that
of the GTL Study.
5.6.1 Size Range

The GTL Study plant size is a 50,000 BPD GTL production facility and, therefore, the plant size
assumed for this study is 50,000 BPD to allow for comparisons across NETL reports. The 50,000
BPD GTL facility produces 1,858,628 tonnes/year of CO2 at 100 percent CF. The NETL study also
considered power production where the steam turbine produced power in excess of what base
plant operations would require, and this excess power is exported to the grid. The GTL plant in
the GTL Study has a net of 40.8 MWe available for export. While this study assumes that all
power requirements are met with power purchased from the grid, in some cases, such as that
of the GTL Study, the base plant will have excess power available to meet or partially meet
compression and cooling power requirements.

Within the GTL facility, there is one main point source of CO2 emissions; the AGR unit in the FT
section. The FT AGR generates CO2 at 265 psia and 100°F, with a purity of 100 percent CO2.

The following is a list of design inputs and assumptions made specific to the GTL process for the
• The representative plant has a production capacity of 50,000 BPD
• The CO2 stream pressure is 265 psia
• The CO2 stream temperature is 100 °F

NETL’s GTL Study considers CO2 removal and compression for EOR export and, therefore, the
base plant separates CO2 as part of its inherent process. The FT AGR unit used discharges CO2 at
265 psia and, therefore, the compression train used is configured specifically to handle this
higher inlet suction pressure. Of the vendors quotes discussed in Section 4.1, there is not a
compression train quote that accounts for higher inlet CO2 stream pressures. Therefore, the cost
and performance specified in the current GTL Study is replicated here, with its cost being
75
adjusted to December 2018 dollars. This will require that the amount of cooling water
necessary for interstage cooling be approximated, similar to the CTL case in this study.

Since the GTL process releases 100 percent pure CO2, only cooling and compression is required
for the CO2 stream to be sent directly for EOR or other usage. The compression train used
discharges the product CO2 at 2,200 psig and 117°F and, therefore, after-cooling is required.
Exhibit 5-46 gives the BFD for this process. Exhibit 5-47 provides the stream table.
Exhibit 5-46. GTL CO2 capture BFD
Desired
GTL Facility 1 Compressor 2 HX 3
Usage
Exhibit 5-47. GTL stream table

1 2 3
V-L Mole Fraction
AR 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CH4 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CO 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CO2 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
COS 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
H2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
H2O 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
H2S 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
N2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

V-L Flowrate (kg/hr) 212,188 212,188 212,188
Pressure (MPa, abs) 1.827 15.270 15.270
Steam Table Enthalpy (kJ/kg)A 8,758 8,754 8,753
Aspen Plus Enthalpy (kJ/kg)B -8,948 -9,139 -9,188
Density (kg/m3) 34.2 688.6 628.8

V-L Flowrate (lb/hr) 467,794 467,794 467,794
Pressure (psia) 265.0 2,214.7 2,214.7
Steam Table Enthalpy (Btu/lb)A 3,766 3,764 3,763
76
1 2 3
V-L Mole Fraction
Density (lb/ft3) 2.14 43.0 39.3
The performance results given are taken from the current GTL Study case that considered CO2
capture. The performance summary is provided in Exhibit 5-48.
Performance Summary
Item 50,000 BPD (kWe)

For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that a stand-alone cooling water unit will perform
the necessary cooling for capture and compression. No retrofit case is considered for GTL as any
new builds would most likely include compression. However, to make this case comparable to
the other cases considered in this study, the cost for cooling is included in the greenfield COC.
5.6.7 Power Source

The power consumption is approximated as 6.73 MW, which includes all power required by the
compression train and the cooling water system. Power requirement estimates for the cooling
water unit were scaled as described in Section 4.4. For practical applications for this type of
facility with power produced on-site and excess power sent to the grid, the power requirements
may be met with power generated on-site. For instance, while the GTL Study has excess power
that would be able to satisfy a portion of this study’s power requirement, this scenario should
be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, which is not included in the scope of this report.

The economic results for CO2 capture application in a GTL plant are presented in this section.
discussed in Section 3.1. The greenfield TOC for the GTL case is $59.7 M. The corresponding
greenfield COC is $6.4/tonne CO2.
77
Exhibit 5-49. Owners’ costs for GTL greenfield site

2% of TPC $983 $1
Total $1,507 $1
Inventory Capital
Total $252 $0
Other Costs
Land $30 $0
TOC $59,661 $32
TASC Multiplier (GTL, 31 year) 1.054
TASC $62,890 $34
78
Exhibit 5-50. Capital costs for GTL greenfield site

Case: GTL Estimate Type: Conceptual
Representative Plant Size: 50,000 BPD Fischer-Tropsch liquids Cost Base: Dec 2018
No. Cost Cost Direct Indirect Cost H.O. & Fee Process Project $/1,000
(CO2)
5 Flue Gas Cleanup
Subtotal $14,269 $12 $5,465 $0 $19,746 $3,456 $0 $4,640 $27,842 $15
7 Ductwork & Stack
7.3 Ductwork $0 $75 $52 $0 $126 $22 $0 $30 $178 $0
Subtotal $0 $75 $52 $0 $126 $22 $0 $30 $178 $0
9.1 Cooling Towers $197 $0 $61 $0 $257 $45 $0 $61 $363 $0
Subtotal $673 $195 $401 $0 $1,269 $222 $0 $298 $1,789 $1
11.5 Wire & Cable $0 $978 $1,749 $0 $2,727 $477 $0 $641 $3,845 $2
Subtotal $4,672 $1,348 $3,463 $0 $9,484 $1,660 $0 $2,229 $13,372 $7
Subtotal $801 $288 $2,173 $0 $3,262 $571 $0 $767 $4,600 $2
13.3 Site Facilities $120 $0 $126 $0 $247 $43 $0 $58 $348 $0
Subtotal $120 $128 $718 $0 $966 $169 $0 $227 $1,362 $1
Subtotal $0 $11 $9 $0 $19 $3 $0 $5 $27 $0
Total $20,536 $2,056 $12,280 $0 $34,872 $6,103 $0 $8,195 $49,170 $26
79
5-51, while Exhibit 5-52 shows the COC for a greenfield site for the representative GTL plant.
Exhibit 5-51. Initial and annual O&M costs for GTL greenfield site
Case: Gas-to-Liquids Cost Base: Dec 2018
Representative Plant Size: 50,000 BPD Fischer-Tropsch liquids Capacity Factor (%): 85
Total: 1.0
Annual Cost
Total: $1,924,802 $1.04
Consumables
Water (/1000 gallons): 0 59 $1.90 $0 $34,632 $0.02
Chemicals (ton):
Subtotal: $0 $64,495 $0.04
Exhibit 5-52. COC for 50,000 BPD GTL greenfield
Component Greenfield Value, $/tonne CO2

Capital 2.9
Fixed 1.2
Variable 0.3
Purchased Power 1.9
Total COC 6.4

An analysis of the sensitivity of greenfield COC to GTL plant capacity is shown in Exhibit 5-53. As
80
Exhibit 5-53. GTL plant capacity sensitivity
5.6.10 Gas-to-Liquids Conclusion

The high purity CO2 stream produced from GTL plants makes them a relatively low-cost
industrial process since the plant performs the CO2 separation as a part of normal operations. A
CO2 compression system for a 50,000 BPD plant was modeled to estimate the COC of capturing
CO2 from the process. The results showed the COC of CO2 to be $6.4/tonne CO2 for a greenfield
site. The plant size sensitivity showed that as plant size decreased from 100,000 to 10,000 BPD,
the COC increased by $4.9/tonne CO2. As the plant size is decreased, less CO2 is produced, and
economies of scale are lost, resulting in a higher COC.
81
6 COST AND PERFORMANCE: LOW PURITY SOURCES

The sources discussed in this section are considered low purity sources, meaning the available
CO2 requires purification to meet EOR pipeline specifications. The CO2 removal systems
described in Section 4.2 are employed to purify the CO2 streams to meet QGESS specifications
for EOR pipeline end-use. In all low purity cases, compression, cooling, and TEG dehydration of
the CO2 stream is required following capture and purification.
6.1 REFINERY HYDROGEN

Refineries are an example of an industrial source that currently deploys gas separation
technology to produce hydrogen. Like other gas processing, hydrogen production emits CO2 not
only from the process gas, but from the SMR in the form of flue gas, like that of a power plant.
NETL has studied hydrogen production with post-combustion CO2 capture as part of their
“Comparison of Commercial, State-of-the-Art, Fossil-Based Hydrogen Production Technologies”
[40], evaluating H2 production via SMR and coal gasification.
6.1.1 Size Range

Size range for hydrogen production varies widely depending on the industry. Ninety-five percent
of hydrogen produced in the United States is done so by way of NG reforming in refineries. [41]
The Shell Quest CCS facility in Alberta, Canada has successfully captured and stored over 5
million tonnes of CO2 from a refinery hydrogen production process since its startup in 2015. [42]
The Scotford Upgrader near Edmonton, Alberta, Canada includes three hydrogen manufacturing
units and produces a total of 367 MMSCFD (322,461 tonnes/year) of hydrogen. As a result,
approximately 1.5 M tonnes/year CO2 is available at the facility. The information provided by
Shell regarding their ADIP-Ultra pre-combustion CO2 capture process detailed in Section 4.2.2
provided cost and performance data for an 87,000 tonnes/year hydrogen production facility,
with 404,700 tonnes/year CO2 available for capture (at 100 percent CF). [2] As such, the
representative plant for the refinery hydrogen case will mirror that of the quote provided by
Shell. [2]

When producing hydrogen via SMR, Shell indicates that advanced capture systems (i.e., 99
percent CO2 capture rate or greater) are most economically implemented in the raw syngas
stream from the SMR. At lower capture rates, a post-combustion CO2 unit would likely be more
economically viable, but for the purpose of comparison of like technologies between cases, the
ADIP-Ultra pre-combustion system is employed in both the 90 and 99 percent capture scenarios
for the refinery hydrogen case. The pre-combustion AGR captures CO2 upstream of the
pressure-swing adsorption (PSA) unit, which separates the high purity hydrogen from the syngas
stream for further processing and end-use. The pre-PSA stream to be purified is characterized in
Exhibit 6-1.
82
Exhibit 6-1. Stream characteristics of raw syngas from SMR
Component Vapor Mole Fraction

CO2 0.1918
H2O 0.0032
CH4 0.0272
C2H6 0.0074
C3H8 0.0017
C4H10 0.0009
CO 0.0015
H2 0.7632
N2 0.0030
Component Liquid Weight Fraction
CO2 0.0047
H2O 0.9952
Parameter Value
Total Stream Vapor Faction 0.658
Temperature 102.2°F
Pressure 400.3 psia

The following is a list of design inputs and assumptions made specific to the refinery hydrogen
process for the purpose of this study:
• The representative refinery hydrogen production unit has a capacity of 87,000 tonnes
hydrogen/year
• The raw syngas has a total stream CO2 concentration of 12.7 mole percent
• The total CO2 generated at 100 percent CF is 404,700 tonnes CO2/year
• As a low purity source, separation, compression, and cooling are required.
Separation is accomplished using an ADIP-Ultra AGR unit
• The temperature of the CO2 entering the AGR pre-scrubber is 102.2°F
• The pressure of the stream entering the AGR pre-scrubber is 400.3 psia
• CO2 capture rates of 90 percent and 99 percent are evaluated

With an assumed concentration of only 12.7 mole percent CO2 in the raw syngas from SMR,
separation is required to meet QGESS EOR pipeline specifications. In addition, water removal,
83
compression, and cooling are necessary to create a CO2 product stream suitable for EOR end-
use. The Shell ADIP-Ultra pre-combustion AGR unit detailed in Section 4.2.2 is modeled to
represent CO2 removal at 90 and 99 percent. AGR auxiliary loads are scaled based on CO2
flowrate.
The AGR unit requires low pressure steam at 74 psia to regenerate the amine-based solvent.
These steam needs are met with the industrial boiler discussed in Section 4.3. In addition,
cooling water is required for both the AGR unit and for compression intercooling and after-
cooler. The cooling water unit auxiliaries are scaled as described in Section 4.4.

The raw syngas from SMR (stream 1) is fed to ADIP-Ultra capture unit, resulting in four main
process streams. Water (stream 4) is removed in the knock-out drum and is routed to waste
treatment. In stream 5 of Exhibit 6-2, H2 and methane (CH4) (along with other hydrocarbons)
are sent to the PSA where the H2 product is separated for end-use. The remaining process
streams are the purified CO2 streams: one at “mid-pressure” (stream 2) and one at “low-
pressure” (stream 30). The CO2 streams are routed to the centrifugal compressor, like that
described in Section 4.1.2, and an aftercooler is used to produce a high purity CO2 stream at
2,214.7 psia and 86°F for EOR pipeline use.
Exhibit 6-2. CO2 capture BFD
To PSA
5 2
ADIP-Ultra
Steam Desired
CO2
Methane 1 3 Compressor 6 HX 7
Capture Usage
Reformer
System
Water KO
The stream tables for 99 and 90 percent capture in the refinery hydrogen case are presented in
Exhibit 6-3 and Exhibit 6-4, respectively.
84
Exhibit 6-3. Refinery hydrogen stream table for 99 percent capture
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
V-L Mole Fraction
AR 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CH4 0.0179 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0336 0.0000 0.0000
CO 0.0010 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0017 0.0000 0.0000
CO2 0.1268 0.8644 0.9629 0.0020 0.0023 0.9995 0.9995
SO2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
H2 0.5020 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.9427 0.0000 0.0000
H2O 0.3438 0.1356 0.0371 0.9980 0.0039 0.0005 0.0005
H2S 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
N2 0.0020 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0034 0.0000 0.0000
C2H6 0.0049 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0091 0.0000 0.0000
C3H8 0.0011 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0021 0.0000 0.0000
C4H10 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0011 0.0000 0.0000
O2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
V-L Flowrate (kgmol/hr) 8,320 593 546 2,848 4,431 1,040 1,040
V-L Flowrate (kg/hr) 111,368 24,023 23,524 51,457 14,118 45,736 45,736
Temperature (°C) 39 102 40 39 55 121 29
Pressure (MPa, abs) 2.76 0.6 0.2 2.8 2.7 15.3 15.3
A
Steam Table Enthalpy (kJ/kg) 10,569 9,172 8,865 15,273 1,597 8,760 8,755
B
Aspen Plus Enthalpy (kJ/kg) -11,217 -9,144 -9,005 -15,873 -1,501 -8,952 -9,196
Density (kg/m3) 21.3 8.3 3.3 918.8 3.1 283.1 640.4
V-L Molecular Weight 13.4 40.5 43.0 18.1 3.19 44.0 44.0
V-L Flowrate (lbmol/hr) 18,342 1,308 1,205 6,279 9,768 2,292 2,292
V-L Flowrate (lb/hr) 245,524 52,962 51,861 113,443 31,124 100,830 100,830
Temperature (°F) 102 216 104 102 131 250 85
Pressure (psia) 399.9 90.8 28.3 399.9 394.4 2,215.9 2,214.7
A
Steam Table Enthalpy (Btu/lb) 4,544 3,943 3,811 6,566 686 3,766 3,764
B
Aspen Plus Enthalpy (Btu/lb) -4,822 -3,931 -3,871 -6,824 -645 -3,849 -3,954
3
Density (lb/ft ) 1.33 0.518 0.204 57.4 0.196 17.7 44.0
85
Exhibit 6-4. Refinery hydrogen stream table for 90 percent capture
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
V-L Mole Fraction
AR 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CH4 0.0179 0.0009 0.0000 0.0000 0.0328 0.0000 0.0000
CO 0.0010 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0018 0.0000 0.0000
CO2 0.1268 0.9493 0.9629 0.0020 0.0232 0.9995 0.9995
SO2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
H2 0.5020 0.0130 0.0000 0.0000 0.9219 0.0000 0.0000
H2O 0.3438 0.0368 0.0371 0.9980 0.0047 0.0005 0.0005
H2S 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
N2 0.0020 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0036 0.0000 0.0000
C2H6 0.0049 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0090 0.0000 0.0000
C3H8 0.0011 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0020 0.0000 0.0000
C4H10 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0011 0.0000 0.0000
O2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
V-L Flowrate (kgmol/hr) 8,320 496 492 2,848 4,524 945 945
V-L Flowrate (kg/hr) 111,368 21,076 21,170 51,457 18,375 41,572 41,572
Temperature (°C) 39 102 40 39 55 121 29
Pressure (MPa, abs) 2.76 0.6 0.2 2.8 2.7 15.3 15.3
A
Steam Table Enthalpy (kJ/kg) 10,569 8,858 8,865 15,273 2,884 8,760 8,755
B
Aspen Plus Enthalpy (kJ/kg) -11,217 -8,938 -9,005 -15,873 -3,225 -8,952 -9,196
Density (kg/m3) 21.3 8.7 3.3 918.8 4.0 283.1 640.4
V-L Flowrate (lb/hr) 245,524 46,464 46,672 113,443 40,510 91,651 91,651
Temperature (°F) 102 216 104 102 131 250 85
Pressure (psia) 399.9 90.8 28.3 399.9 394.4 2,215.9 2,214.7
A
Steam Table Enthalpy (Btu/lb) 4,544 3,808 3,811 6,566 1,240 3,766 3,764
B
Aspen Plus Enthalpy (Btu/lb) -4,822 -3,843 -3,871 -6,824 -1,387 -3,849 -3,954
3
Density (lb/ft ) 1.33 0.542 0.204 57.4 0.250 17.7 40.0
The performance summaries for 90 and 99 percent capture in the refinery hydrogen case are
presented in Exhibit 6-5.
86
Exhibit 6-5. Refinery hydrogen performance summary
Performance Summary
87,000 tonnes H2/year with 90 87,000 tonnes H2/year with 99
Item
percent CO2 capture (kWe) percent CO2 capture (kWe)
CO2 Capture Auxiliaries 500 500
Steam Boiler Auxiliaries 70 80
CO2 Compressor 3,160 3,470
Circulating Water Pumps 210 240
Cooling Tower Fans 100 120
Total Auxiliary Load 4,040 4,410

The cost and performance implications of adding an NG-fired boiler, as described in Section 4.3,
were estimated to meet the steam demands of the Shell ADIP-Ultra CO2 removal system.
However, in real applications at refineries, if steam requirements for the AGR process are met
with waste heat from the existing process, an additional boiler for solvent regeneration heating
needs may not be necessary. The cooling water system is considered a stand-alone addition;
however, there is potential to integrate existing make-up water systems to feed or partially feed
the cooling water system, thereby reducing the unit’s size, or replacing it completely with a
simple HX.
6.1.7 Power Source

The compressor power consumption for the 90 and 99 percent capture cases are 3.16 MW and
3.47 MW, respectively. Power consumption estimates for the cooling water system in each case
were scaled as described in Section 4.4. The total power requirements were calculated to be
4.01 MW and 4.42 MW for the 90 and 99 percent capture rates, respectively, which includes all
power required by the compression train, cooling water system, and ADIP-Ultra capture unit.
Purchased power cost is estimated at a rate of $60/MWh as discussed in Section 3.1.2.4. To
satisfy the steam requirements of the AGR system, an industrial boiler was modeled, and fuel
consumption costs were estimated at a rate of $4.42/MMBtu as discussed in Section 3.1.2.4.

The economic results of CO2 capture application in a refinery hydrogen plant are presented in
this section. Owner’s costs (Exhibit 6-6), capital costs (Exhibit 6-7 and Exhibit 6-8), and O&M
costs are calculated as discussed in Section 3.1. Retrofit costs were determined by applying a
retrofit factor to TPC as discussed in Section 3.3. The greenfield TOC for the refinery hydrogen
case at 99 percent capture is $159.2 M, while for 90 percent capture, a greenfield TOC of $155.0
M is estimated. The corresponding greenfield COC for the 99 percent and 90 percent capture
cases are $57.3/tonne CO2 and $59.9/tonne CO2, respectively. The COC is $58.9/tonne CO2 and
$61.7/tonne CO2 in retrofit applications for 99 percent and 90 percent capture, respectively.
87
Exhibit 6-6. Owners’ costs for refinery hydrogen cases
$/tonnes/yr $/tonnes/yr
Description $/1,000 $/1,000
(CO2) (CO2)
Pre-Production Costs 99% Capture 90% Capture
6 Months All Labor $1,153 $3 $1,139 $3
1-Month Maintenance Materials $123 $0 $120 $0
1-Month Non-Fuel Consumables $46 $0 $42 $0
1-Month Waste Disposal $0 $0 $0 $0
25% of 1-Month Fuel Cost at 100% CF $89 $0 $78 $0
2% of TPC $2,613 $7 $2,544 $7
Total $4,024 $10 $3,923 $11
Inventory Capital 99% Capture 90% Capture
60-day supply of fuel and consumables at
100% CF $786 $2 $693 $2
0.5% of TPC (spare parts) $653 $2 $636 $2
Total $1,439 $4 $1,329 $4
Other Costs 99% Capture 90% Capture
Initial Cost for Catalyst and Chemicals $0 $0 $0 $0
Land $30 $0 $30 $0
Other Owner's Costs $19,594 $49 $19,078 $52
Financing Costs $3,527 $9 $3,434 $9
TOC $159,244 $397 $154,978 $426
TASC Multiplier (Refinery Hydrogen, 33 year) 1.036 1.036
TASC $164,929 $412 $160,510 $441
88
Exhibit 6-7. Capital costs for refinery hydrogen greenfield site with 99 percent capture
Case: Refinery H2 Estimate Type: Conceptual
Representative Plant Size: 87,000 tonnes H2/year Cost Base: Dec 2018
Labor Eng'g CM Contingencies Total Plant Cost
Item Equipment Material Bare Erected
Description H.O. & $/tonnes/yr
No. Cost Cost Direct Indirect Cost Process Project $/1,000
Fee (CO2)
3 Feedwater & Miscellaneous BOP Systems
3.1 Feedwater System $237 $407 $203 $0 $847 $148 $0 $199 $1,195 $3
3.2 Water Makeup & Pretreating $552 $55 $313 $0 $921 $161 $0 $216 $1,298 $3
3.3 Other Feedwater Subsystems $82 $27 $25 $0 $134 $23 $0 $32 $189 $0
3.4 Industrial Boiler Package w/Deaerator $1,090 $0 $317 $0 $1,407 $246 $0 $331 $1,985 $5
3.5 Other Boiler Plant Systems $19 $7 $18 $0 $44 $8 $0 $10 $62 $0
3.6 NG Pipeline and Start-Up System $317 $14 $10 $0 $341 $60 $0 $80 $481 $1
3.7 Waste Water Treatment Equipment $2,898 $0 $1,776 $0 $4,675 $818 $0 $1,099 $6,591 $16
3.9 Miscellaneous Plant Equipment $68 $9 $34 $0 $111 $19 $0 $26 $157 $0
Subtotal $5,265 $518 $2,698 $0 $8,481 $1,484 $0 $1,993 $11,958 $30
5 Flue Gas Cleanup
5.1 ADIP-Ultra CO2 Removal System $21,678 $9,377 $19,691 $0 $50,746 $8,881 $8,627 $13,651 $81,904 $204
5.12 Gas Cleanup Foundations $0 $4 $4 $0 $8 $1 $0 $2 $11 $0
Subtotal $29,162 $10,504 $22,204 $0 $61,870 $10,827 $8,627 $16,265 $97,589 $244
7 Ductwork & Stack
7.3 Ductwork $0 $66 $46 $0 $112 $20 $0 $26 $158 $0
7.4 Stack $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
7.5 Duct & Stack Foundations $0 $157 $187 $0 $344 $60 $0 $81 $485 $1
Subtotal $0 $223 $233 $0 $456 $80 $0 $107 $643 $2
9.1 Cooling Towers $455 $0 $141 $0 $596 $104 $0 $140 $840 $2
9.3 Circulating Water System Aux. $744 $0 $98 $0 $843 $148 $0 $198 $1,188 $3
Subtotal $1,394 $385 $791 $0 $2,571 $450 $0 $604 $3,624 $9
11.4 Conduit & Cable Tray $0 $308 $888 $0 $1,196 $209 $0 $281 $1,687 $4
11.5 Wire & Cable $0 $816 $1,459 $0 $2,275 $398 $0 $535 $3,208 $8
Subtotal $3,898 $1,124 $2,890 $0 $7,912 $1,385 $0 $1,859 $11,156 $28
89

Fee (CO2)
Subtotal $759 $272 $2,057 $0 $3,088 $540 $0 $726 $4,354 $11
13.3 Site Facilities $111 $0 $116 $0 $227 $40 $0 $53 $320 $1
Subtotal $111 $117 $660 $0 $888 $155 $0 $209 $1,252 $3
Subtotal $0 $21 $16 $0 $37 $6 $0 $9 $52 $0
Total $40,588 $13,166 $31,550 $0 $85,303 $14,928 $8,627 $21,772 $130,630 $326
Exhibit 6-8. Capital costs for refinery hydrogen greenfield site with 90 percent capture
Fee (CO2)
3.1 Feedwater System $217 $372 $186 $0 $775 $136 $0 $182 $1,092 $3
3.2 Water Makeup & Pretreating $495 $49 $280 $0 $825 $144 $0 $194 $1,163 $3
3.4 Industrial Boiler Package w/Deaerator $971 $0 $282 $0 $1,254 $219 $0 $295 $1,768 $5
3.7 Waste Water Treatment Equipment $2,807 $0 $1,721 $0 $4,528 $792 $0 $1,064 $6,385 $18
Subtotal $4,944 $473 $2,551 $0 $7,968 $1,394 $0 $1,872 $11,234 $31
5 Flue Gas Cleanup
5.1 ADIP-Ultra CO2 Removal System $21,409 $9,260 $19,447 $0 $50,116 $8,770 $8,520 $13,481 $80,888 $222
Subtotal $28,476 $10,325 $21,820 $0 $60,621 $10,609 $8,520 $15,950 $95,700 $263
7 Ductwork & Stack
90

Fee (CO2)
7.3 Ductwork $0 $66 $46 $0 $112 $20 $0 $26 $158 $0
7.4 Stack $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal $0 $222 $231 $0 $454 $79 $0 $107 $640 $2
9.1 Cooling Towers $405 $0 $125 $0 $530 $93 $0 $124 $747 $2
9.3 Circulating Water System Aux. $676 $0 $89 $0 $766 $134 $0 $180 $1,079 $3
9.7 Circulating Water System
$0 $37 $62 $0 $100 $17 $0 $23 $141 $0
Foundations
Subtotal $1,258 $350 $719 $0 $2,327 $407 $0 $547 $3,281 $9
11.4 Conduit & Cable Tray $0 $297 $856 $0 $1,152 $202 $0 $271 $1,625 $4
11.5 Wire & Cable $0 $786 $1,405 $0 $2,191 $384 $0 $515 $3,090 $8
Subtotal $3,755 $1,083 $2,783 $0 $7,621 $1,334 $0 $1,791 $10,745 $30
Subtotal $750 $269 $2,034 $0 $3,053 $534 $0 $718 $4,305 $12
13.3 Site Facilities $109 $0 $114 $0 $223 $39 $0 $52 $315 $1
Subtotal $109 $115 $649 $0 $873 $153 $0 $205 $1,231 $3
Subtotal $0 $19 $15 $0 $34 $6 $0 $8 $48 $0
Total $39,291 $12,857 $30,802 $0 $82,950 $14,516 $8,520 $21,197 $127,184 $349
91
6-9 and Exhibit 6-10 for 99 percent and 90 percent capture, respectively, while Exhibit 6-11
shows the COC for greenfield and retrofit sites for the representative refinery hydrogen plants
at both capture rates.
Exhibit 6-9. Initial and annual O&M costs for refinery hydrogen greenfield site with 99 percent capture
Case: Refinery Hydrogen Cost Base: Dec 2018
Representative Plant Size: 87,000 tonnes H2/year Capacity Factor (%): 85

Total: 2.3
Annual Cost
Annual Operating Labor: $1,008,407 $2.52
Total: $4,918,137 $12.28
Consumables
Water (/1000 gallons): 0 176 $1.90 $0 $103,543 $0.30
Makeup and Waste Water Treatment $261,093 $0.77
0 1.5 $550.00 $0
Chemicals (ton):
CO2 Capture System ChemicalsA: Proprietary $29,128 $0.09
Subtotal: $0 $471,954 $1.39
Waste Disposal
Subtotal: $0 $4,025 $0.01
Fuel Cost
Natural Gas (MMBtu) 0 2,653 $4.42 $0 $3,638,461 $10.68
Total: $0 $3,638,461 $10.68
ACO capture system chemicals includes ADIP-Ultra Solvent

2
92
Exhibit 6-10. Initial and annual O&M costs for refinery hydrogen greenfield site with 90 percent capture
Case: Refinery Hydrogen Cost Base: Dec 2018
Representative Plant Size: 87,000 tonnes H2/year Capacity Factor (%): 85

Total: 2.3
Annual Cost
Total: $4,821,660 $13.24
Consumables
Water (/1000 gallons): 0 151 $1.90 $0 $89,100 $0.29
0 1.4 $550.00 $0 $244,702 $0.79
Chemicals (ton):
CO2 Capture System ChemicalsA: Proprietary $23,994 $0.08
Subtotal: $0 $429,347 $1.39
Waste Disposal
Subtotal: $0 $3,683 $0.01
Fuel Cost
Total: $0 $3,194,817 $10.32
ACO capture system chemicals includes ADIP-Ultra Solvent

2
Exhibit 6-11. COC for 87,000 tonnes H2/year refinery hydrogen cases
99% Capture COC, $/tonne CO2 90% Capture COC, $/tonne CO2
Component Greenfield Retrofit Greenfield Retrofit
Capital 21.3 22.2 22.8 23.8
Fixed 14.4 15.0 15.6 16.2
Variable 5.1 5.3 5.3 5.5
Purchased Power and Fuel 16.5 16.5 16.2 16.2
Total COC 57.3 58.9 59.9 61.7
93

An analysis of the sensitivity of greenfield COC to refinery hydrogen plant capacity is shown in
Exhibit 6-12. As the plant capacity increases, more CO2 is available for capture, thus realizing
economies of scale. This generic scaling exercise assumes that equipment is available at
continuous capacities; however, equipment is often manufactured in discrete sizes, which would
possibly affect the advantages of economies of scale and skew the results of this sensitivity
analysis.
Exhibit 6-12. Refinery hydrogen plant capacity sensitivity
As the cost of capturing CO2 is a normalized cost (i.e., $/tonne CO2), higher capture rates appear
to cost less than lower capture rates. Comparing the true capital and O&M costs (i.e., not as
normalized costs) shows that capital and O&M expenditures increase at higher capture rates.
The cost of the capture system and associated consumables increases at a lesser rate than that
of the amount of CO2 captured (i.e., a 10 percent increase from 90 to 99 percent capture). The
margin of error associated with the financial assumptions and cost scaling methodology
employed in this study indicate that with increasing capture rate in the low purity cases, the
COC is effectively the same. The reported minor increase in capital cost with increased capture
rate (up to 99 percent for sources with CO2 purity greater than 12 percent) has been validated
by independent modeling performed by the carbon capture simulation initiative (CCSI) team at
NETL and has been reported independently in literature. [4] Exhibit 6-13 shows the error in the
calculated capture system BEC associated with the vendor’s quoted uncertainty rate (-25/+40
percent) alongside the amount of CO2 captured in the refinery H2 case from 90 to 99 percent
capture rate.
94
Exhibit 6-13. Refinery H2 capture system BEC and amount of CO2 captured versus capture rate
6.1.10 Refinery Hydrogen Conclusion

The low purity CO2 stream produced in a refinery hydrogen plant results in a higher COC when
compared to the high purity cases evaluated in this report, but the quantity of CO2 to be
captured from refinery H2 production processes makes them attractive industrial processes for
CCS as it would represent a large GHG reduction at a relatively low cost. A CO2 capture and
compression system for an 87,000 tonnes/year hydrogen plant was modeled to estimate the
COC of capturing CO2 from the SMR raw syngas. The results showed the COC of CO2 to be
$57.3/tonne CO2 and $59.9/tonne CO2 for a greenfield site with 99 and 90 percent capture,
respectively. For a retrofit application, the COC is $58.9/tonne CO2 and $61.7/tonne CO2 for 99
and 90 percent capture, respectively. The small disparities between greenfield and retrofit cases
are the result of unknown difficulties required for a retrofit installation versus a greenfield
application, assuming adequate plot plan space for the retrofit case exists.
The plant size sensitivity showed that as plant size decreased from 170,000 to 50,000
tonnes/year, the COC increased by $17.5/tonne CO2 and $18.9/tonne CO2, for 99 and 90
percent capture, respectively. As the plant size decreases, less CO2 is produced, and economies
of scale are lost, resulting in a higher COC. Though Shell indicates that for capture rates lower
than 99 percent, post-combustion capture would be the optimal design, the pre-combustion
capture system performance and cost was applied for the 90 percent capture case in this study
for comparative purposes. As demonstrated by the resulting COCs and the sensitivity analysis,
the normalized cost of 99 percent CO2 capture is less than that of 90 percent capture.
95
6.2 CEMENT
Concrete is formed with a mixture of sand, gravel, water, and cement. Cement, when activated
with water, is the binder that holds the concrete mixture together. In 2020, the U.S. cement
industry produced approximately 89.3 M tonnes of Portland cement (PC) and masonry cement,
with sales at approximately $12.7 billion (B). [43] In the same year, the U.S. apparent
consumption of cement was 102 M tonnes of cement, meaning that imported cement filled the
production gap. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) asserts in their 2021 Minerals
Commodity Summary that U.S. cement production growth has been continuously constrained in
recent years “by closed or idle plants, underutilized capacity at others, production disruptions
from plant upgrades, and relatively inexpensive imports.” Production trends for cement, as
reported by the USGS, are shown in Exhibit 6-14. [43]
Exhibit 6-14. USGS cement production trends
Year 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020A

PC Production, M tonnes 84.7 86.4 86.4 88.0A 89.0
Apparent PC Consumption, M tonnes 95.2 97.2 98.5 103.0A 102.0
U.S. Market Satisfied by U.S. Production, % 89.0 88.9 87.7 85.4 87.3
PC Price, $/tonneB 111 117 121 123A 124
A Estimated
B Average mill value
There are two processes for producing PC: wet kiln and dry kiln. The number of the more
energy-intensive wet process kilns in the United States has declined by 96 percent from 234, in
1974, to 10, in 2019, while the number of dry process kilns was reduced from 198 to 110 over
the same period. [44] Since 2008, approximately 85 percent of U.S. cement is produced using
the dry-kiln process. [45]
Both the dry- and wet-kiln processes utilize a multitude of different fuels to provide the heat
necessary for drying, calcination, and sintering. Shown in Exhibit 6-15 is a breakdown of the fuel
type consumed for 2019 as reported by the Portland Cement Association. [44] The values are
given as a percentage of Btu consumed.
96
Exhibit 6-15. 2019 U.S. PC fuel consumption
Fuel burning to provide kiln heat is one of two CO2 emissions sources, with the second resulting
from the calcinations of calcium carbonate to form calcium oxide/calcium silicate species during
the manufacturing process itself. PC is manufactured by crushing limestone and clay/shale raw
materials to a powder, and then feeding in dry or slurry form to a kiln. Inside the kiln, the raw
materials are heated to 2,600–3,000°F (1,430–1,650°C) and a chemical reaction takes place,
fusing the raw materials into PC clinker, thus, generating CO2. The clinker exits the kiln, is
cooled, and is ground with gypsum to form PC. [46] Exhibit 6-16 shows the traditional PC
production process, as adapted from Hassan (2005). [47]
Exhibit 6-16. PC production process
97
6.2.1 Size Range

In 2020, there were 96 U.S. cement plants, including both wet and dry processing kilns, in
operation, with a total production capacity of 89.3 M tonnes/year. [43] The representative plant
for this study is assumed to produce 1.3 M tonnes/year of PC and masonry cement. Of the 96
cement plants in 2020, 69 plants fall within the range of 0.5–1.5 M tonnes cement/year, and 31
plants fall within the range of 0.75–1.25 M tonnes cement/year, which adequately brackets the
assumed plant size for this study.
Cement production creates on average 0.922 tonnes CO2 per tonne cement [48]; however, this
emissions factor may be broken down to two separate factors: an emissions factor for fuel
burning and an emissions factor for calcium carbonate calcinations. The average fuel-burning
emissions factor is 0.48 tonnes CO2 per tonne cement, and the average calcination emissions
factor is 0.44 tonne CO2 per tonne cement. [48] For the reference plant capacity in this report,
at 100 percent CF, these emissions factors give 631,737 tonnes CO2/year from calcinations of
raw materials, and 579,092 tonnes CO2/year from fuel burning, totaling 1,210,829 tonnes
CO2/year from one point source. It is assumed that there is no air in-leakage in the kiln off-gas.

A techno-economic analysis of CO2 capture from a cement plant used the St. Mary’s cement
plant located in Ontario, Canada, as a reference plant. Specifics given for that plant as of 2004
are shown below, in Exhibit 6-17. [47]
Exhibit 6-17. St. Mary’s cement plant characteristics
St. Mary’s Cement Plant Characteristics

Kiln Off-Gas Temperature (°F) 320
Kiln Off-Gas Pressure (psia) 14.7
Composition (mole %)
H2O 7.2
CO2 22.4
N2 68.1
O2 2.3
For this study, the main point source of CO2 available for capture is the kiln off-gas, and the
concentrations given for the St. Mary’s cement plant are assumed as representative. It is
assumed that the kiln off-gas requires only CO2 removal and compression and no other clean-
up; however, it is possible that other treatment of the off-gas would be necessary prior to AGR.
A study done by the IEAGHG in 2009 estimated the cost per tonne of CO2 avoided and the cost
per tonne of cement product when adding CO2 capture to a reference cement plant. [49] Their
analysis points out that for post-combustion CO2 capture to be implemented, there are several
issues that must be addressed, as operational problems may arise from: the SO2 concentration
98
in the off-gas stream, which is dependent on the sulfide concentration in the raw meal; NO2
concentration in the off-gas stream, which may cause solvent degradation; and dust present in
the off-gas, which will reduce the efficiency of the post-combustion capture process. These
issues are not considered in this study’s base case; rather, the kiln off-gas is assumed suitable
for post-combustion amine capture. However, a sensitivity case is evaluated to account for
these issues with the addition of a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) unit to treat NOx and flue
gas desulfurization (FGD) to remove oxides of sulfur (SOx).

The following is a list of design inputs and assumptions made specific to the cement process for
the purpose of this study:
• The representative cement plant has a production capacity of 1.3 M tonnes cement/year
• The CO2 stream available for capture is 22.4 mole percent CO2
• As a low purity source, separation, compression, and cooling are required. Separation is
accomplished using a Cansolv AGR unit
• The temperature of the CO2 available is 320°F
• The pressure of the CO2 available is 14.7 psia

The kiln off-gas stream CO2 concentration is relatively low requires purification before
compression to meet EOR pipeline standards. The purification system used is Shell’s Cansolv
post-combustion capture system discussed in Section 4.2.1. Steam for solvent regeneration is
provided by the industrial boiler discussed in Section 4.3. One integrally geared centrifugal
compression train as discussed in Section 4.1.2 is employed and costs for the compressor are
scaled based on product CO2 flow.

As shown in Exhibit 6-18, the kiln off-gas is sent to the Cansolv separation unit. Water and solids
recovered from the AGR process are sent to waste treatment. The CO2 stream is then
compressed with interstage cooling and then after-cooled before reaching the EOR pipeline.
Exhibit 6-18 shows the BFD for this process, and Exhibit 6-19 and Exhibit 6-20 show the stream
table for this process with 99 percent and 90 percent capture, respectively.
99
Exhibit 6-18. Cement CO2 capture BFD
Cansolv
Kiln CO2 Desired
1 2 Compressor 3 HX 4
Off-gas Capture Usage
System
Exhibit 6-19. Cement stream table for 99 percent capture
1 2 3 4 5
V-L Mole Fraction
AR 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CH4 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CO 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CO2 0.2240 0.9885 0.9995 0.9995 0.0032
SO2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
H2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
H2O 0.0720 0.0115 0.0005 0.0005 0.0205
H2S 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
N2 0.6810 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.9444
O2 0.0230 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0319
Total 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

V-L Flowrate (kg/hr) 433,946 137,356 136,707 136,707 282,775
Temperature (°C) 160 31 80 30 38
Pressure (MPa, abs) 0.10 0.2 15.3 15.3 0.1
A
Steam Table Enthalpy (kJ/kg) 3,442 8,791 8,758 8,755 274
Aspen Plus Enthalpy (kJ/kg)B -3,269 -8,959 -9,042 -9,195 -209.2
Density (kg/m3) 0.9 3.5 432.5 630.1 1.1

V-L Flowrate (lb/hr) 956,688 302,818 301,387 301,387 623,412
Temperature (°F) 320 88 177 86 100
Pressure (psia) 14.7 28.9 2,216.9 2,214.7 14.8
A
Steam Table Enthalpy (Btu/lb) 1,480 3,780 3,765 3,764 118
B
Aspen Plus Enthalpy (Btu/lb) -1,406 -3,852 -3,887 -3,953 -89.9
3
Density (lb/ft ) 0.054 0.217 27.0 39.3 0.069
100
Exhibit 6-20. Cement stream table for 90 percent capture
1 2 3 4 5
V-L Mole Fraction
AR 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CH4 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CO 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CO2 0.2240 0.9887 0.9995 0.9995 0.0302
SO2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
H2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
H2O 0.0720 0.0113 0.0005 0.0005 0.0207
H2S 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
N2 0.6810 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.9181
O2 0.0230 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0310
Total 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

V-L Flowrate (kg/hr) 433,946 124,914 124,334 124,334 295,281
Temperature (°C) 160 31 80 30 38
Pressure (MPa, abs) 0.10 0.2 15.3 15.3 0.1
A
Steam Table Enthalpy (kJ/kg) 3,442 8,791 8,758 8,755 631
B
Aspen Plus Enthalpy (kJ/kg) -3,269 -8,959 -9,042 -9,195 -580.6
3
Density (kg/m ) 0.9 3.5 432.5 630.1 1.1

V-L Flowrate (lb/hr) 956,688 275,388 274,110 274,110 650,984
Temperature (°F) 320 88 177 86 100
Pressure (psia) 14.7 28.9 2,216.9 2,214.7 14.8
Steam Table Enthalpy (Btu/lb)A 1,480 3,779 3,765 3,764 271
B
Aspen Plus Enthalpy (Btu/lb) -1,406 -3,852 -3,887 -3,953 -249.6
3
Density (lb/ft ) 0.054 0.217 27.0 39.3 0.070
101
The performance summary for both 90 and 99 percent capture cases is provided in Exhibit 6-21.
Performance Summary
1.3 M tonnes cement/year with 1.3 M tonnes cement/year with
Item
90 percent CO2 capture (kWe) 99 percent CO2 capture (kWe)
CO2 Capture Auxiliaries 3,100 3,500
Circulating Water Pumps 980 1,040

The cooling water system in this study is a stand-alone unit; however, there is potential to
integrate make-up water to feed or partially feed the cooling water system, thereby reducing
the unit’s size. This would be evaluated on case-by-case basis depending on the size of the
plant, its layout, and size of the plant’s current cooling system. This evaluation is outside of the
scope of this report.
6.2.7 Power Source

The compressor power consumption for the 90 and 99 percent capture cases are 9.57 MW and
10.46 MW, respectively. Power consumption estimates for the cooling water system in each
case were scaled as described in Section 4.4. The total power requirements were calculated to
be 14.48 MW and 15.91 MW for the 90 and 99 percent capture rates, respectively, which
includes all power required by the compression train, cooling system, and Cansolv capture unit.
Purchased power cost is estimated at a rate of $60/MWh as discussed in Section 3.1.2.4. To
satisfy the steam requirements of the AGR system, an industrial boiler was modeled, and fuel
consumption costs were estimated at a rate of $4.42/MMBtu as discussed in Section 3.1.2.4.

The economic results of CO2 capture application in a cement plant are presented in this section.
Owner’s costs (Exhibit 6-22), capital costs (Exhibit 6-23 and Exhibit 6-24), and O&M costs are
calculated as discussed in Section 3.1. Retrofit costs were determined by applying a retrofit
factor to TPC as discussed in Section 3.3. The greenfield TOC for the cement case at 99 percent
capture is $414.0 M, while for 90 percent capture, a greenfield TOC of $386.0 M is estimated.
The corresponding greenfield COC for the 99 percent and 90 percent capture cases are
$60.8/tonne CO2 and $62.7 /tonne CO2, respectively. The COC is $62.4/tonne CO2 and
$64.3/tonne CO2 in retrofit applications for 99 percent and 90 percent capture, respectively.
102
Exhibit 6-22. Owners’ costs for cement cases
(CO2) (CO2)
6 Months All Labor $1,986 $2 $1,922 $2
2% of TPC $6,779 $6 $6,457 $6
Total $9,742 $8 $9,289 $9
60-day supply of fuel and consumables at 100% CF $3,550 $3 $3,239 $3
0.5% of TPC (spare parts) $1,695 $1 $1,614 $1
Total $5,245 $4 $4,853 $4
Land $30 $0 $30 $0
Financing Costs $9,152 $8 $8,718 $8
TOC $413,960 $346 $394,192 $362
TASC Multiplier (Cement, 33 year) 1.054 1.054
TASC $436,252 $364 $415,418 $381
103
Exhibit 6-23. Capital costs for cement greenfield site with 99 percent capture
Case: Cement Estimate Type: Conceptual
Representative Plant Size: 1.3 M tonnes cement/year Cost Base: Dec 2018
Description
3.1 Feedwater System $658 $1,127 $564 $0 $2,349 $411 $0 $552 $3,311 $3
3.2 Water Makeup & Pretreating $1,633 $163 $925 $0 $2,722 $476 $0 $640 $3,837 $3
3.4 Industrial Boiler Package
$4,061 $0 $1,181 $0 $5,242 $917 $0 $1,232 $7,391 $6
w/Deaerator
3.7 Waste Water Treatment
$3,003 $0 $1,840 $0 $4,843 $848 $0 $1,138 $6,829 $6
Equipment
Subtotal $10,485 $1,458 $4,743 $0 $16,686 $2,920 $0 $3,921 $23,527 $20
5 Flue Gas Cleanup
5.1 Cansolv CO2 Removal System $58,671 $25,377 $53,292 $0 $137,340 $24,034 $23,348 $36,944 $221,667 $185
Subtotal $75,955 $28,036 $59,141 $0 $163,132 $28,548 $23,348 $43,006 $258,033 $215
7 Ductwork & Stack
7.3 Ductwork $0 $1,608 $1,117 $0 $2,725 $477 $0 $640 $3,842 $3
7.4 Stack $7,699 $0 $4,474 $0 $12,174 $2,130 $0 $2,861 $17,165 $14
Subtotal $7,699 $1,779 $5,795 $0 $15,274 $2,673 $0 $3,589 $21,537 $18
9.1 Cooling Towers $1,426 $0 $441 $0 $1,867 $327 $0 $439 $2,632 $2
9.4 Circulating Water Piping $0 $876 $794 $0 $1,670 $292 $0 $392 $2,355 $2
9.6 Component Cooling Water
$137 $0 $105 $0 $241 $42 $0 $57 $340 $0
System
$0 $97 $161 $0 $258 $45 $0 $61 $363 $0
Foundations
Subtotal $3,811 $973 $2,027 $0 $6,811 $1,192 $0 $1,600 $9,603 $8
11.3 Switchgear & Motor Control $4,114 $0 $714 $0 $4,828 $845 $0 $1,135 $6,808 $6
104

Description
11.5 Wire & Cable $0 $1,416 $2,532 $0 $3,948 $691 $0 $928 $5,567 $5
Subtotal $6,765 $1,951 $5,014 $0 $13,730 $2,403 $0 $3,227 $19,360 $16
Subtotal $896 $322 $2,431 $0 $3,648 $638 $0 $857 $5,144 $4
13.3 Site Facilities $143 $0 $150 $0 $293 $51 $0 $69 $414 $0
Subtotal $143 $152 $853 $0 $1,148 $201 $0 $270 $1,618 $1
Subtotal $0 $50 $40 $0 $90 $16 $0 $21 $127 $0
Total $105,754 $34,722 $80,043 $0 $220,519 $38,591 $23,348 $56,491 $338,949 $283
Exhibit 6-24. Capital costs for cement greenfield site with 90 percent capture
Description
No. Cost Cost Direct Indirect Cost H.O.& Fee Process Project $/1,000 $/tonnes/yr (CO2)
$3,731 $0 $1,085 $0 $4,816 $843 $0 $1,132 $6,790 $6
w/Deaerator
$2,872 $0 $1,760 $0 $4,632 $811 $0 $1,088 $6,531 $6
Equipment
Subtotal $9,829 $1,366 $4,464 $0 $15,659 $2,740 $0 $3,680 $22,079 $20
5 Flue Gas Cleanup
105

Description
Subtotal $72,025 $26,595 $56,096 $0 $154,716 $27,075 $22,148 $40,788 $244,727 $225
7 Ductwork & Stack
7.3 Ductwork $0 $1,608 $1,117 $0 $2,725 $477 $0 $640 $3,842 $4
7.4 Stack $7,712 $0 $4,482 $0 $12,194 $2,134 $0 $2,866 $17,194 $16
Subtotal $7,712 $1,778 $5,802 $0 $15,293 $2,676 $0 $3,594 $21,563 $20
9.1 Cooling Towers $1,343 $0 $415 $0 $1,759 $308 $0 $413 $2,480 $2
$0 $93 $154 $0 $246 $43 $0 $58 $347 $0
Foundations
Subtotal $3,614 $927 $1,929 $0 $6,470 $1,132 $0 $1,520 $9,122 $8
11.5 Wire & Cable $0 $1,360 $2,431 $0 $3,791 $663 $0 $891 $5,346 $5
Subtotal $6,496 $1,874 $4,815 $0 $13,185 $2,307 $0 $3,098 $18,590 $17
Subtotal $885 $318 $2,401 $0 $3,604 $631 $0 $847 $5,081 $5
13.3 Site Facilities $140 $0 $147 $0 $288 $50 $0 $68 $406 $0
Subtotal $140 $149 $837 $0 $1,126 $197 $0 $265 $1,588 $1
Subtotal $0 $48 $38 $0 $86 $15 $0 $20 $122 $0
Total $100,701 $33,054 $76,381 $0 $210,137 $36,774 $22,148 $53,812 $322,871 $296
106
6-25 and Exhibit 6-26 for 99 percent and 90 percent capture, respectively, while Exhibit 6-27
shows the COC for greenfield and retrofit sites for the representative cement plants at both
capture rates.
Exhibit 6-25. Initial and annual O&M costs for cement greenfield site with 99 percent capture
Case: Cement Cost Base: Dec 2018
Representative Plant Size: 1.3 M tonnes cement/year Capacity Factor (%): 85

Total: 2.3
Annual Cost
Total: $10,751,081 $8.98
Consumables
Water (/1000 gallons): 0 775 $1.90 $0 $457,112 $0.45
0 2.6 $550.00 $0 $440,049 $0.43
Chemicals (ton):
CO2 Capture System ChemicalsA: Proprietary $1,215,644 $1.19
Subtotal: $0 $2,619,977 $2.57
Waste Disposal
Thermal Reclaimer Unit Waste (ton) 0.69 $38.00 $0 $8,077 $0.01
Prescrubber Blowdown Waste (ton) 6.7 $38.00 $0 $78,627 $0.08
Subtotal: $0 $112,809 $0.11
Fuel Cost
Total: $0 $15,941,580 $15.66
ACO capture system chemicals includes NaOH and Cansolv solvent

2
107
Exhibit 6-26. Initial and annual O&M costs for cement greenfield site with 90 percent capture
Case: Cement Cost Base: Dec 2018
Representative Plant Size: 1.3 M tonnes cement/year Capacity Factor (%): 85

Total: 2.3
Annual Cost
Total: $10,300,905 $9.46
Consumables
Water (/1000 gallons): 0 717 $1.90 $0 $422,931 $0.46
0 2.4 $550.00 $0 $410,207 $0.44
Chemicals (ton):
Subtotal: $0 $2,447,404 $2.64
Waste Disposal
Subtotal: $0 $110,082 $0.12
Fuel Cost
Total: $0 $14,493,467 $15.66

2
Exhibit 6-27. COC for 1.3 M tonnes/year cement cases
99% Capture COC, $/tonne CO2 90% Capture COC, $/tonne CO2
Component Greenfield Retrofit Greenfield Retrofit
Capital 21.8 22.6 22.8 23.7
Fixed 10.6 11.0 11.1 11.6
Variable 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3
Total COC 60.8 62.4 62.7 64.3
108

An analysis of the sensitivity of greenfield COC to cement plant capacity is shown in Exhibit
Exhibit 6-28. Cement plant capacity sensitivity
by independent modeling performed by the CCSI team at NETL and has been reported
independently in literature. [4] Exhibit 6-29 shows the error in the calculated capture system
BEC associated with the vendor’s quoted uncertainty rate (-25/+40 percent) alongside the
amount of CO2 captured in the cement case from 90 to 99 percent capture rate.
109
Exhibit 6-29. Cement capture system BEC and amount of CO 2 captured versus capture rate
6.2.10 FGD + SCR Sensitivity Case

As stated previously, a cement plant’s kiln off-gas may require additional treatment prior to
purification to maximize the efficiency of the amine-based CO2 removal system and prevent
solvent degradation. Definitive concentrations for cement kiln off-gas SOx and oxides of
nitrogen (NOx) are not available, as SOx is highly dependent upon the sulfide concentration of
the raw meal used, and NOx content varies widely. Therefore, to account for the addition of SCR
and FGD units in terms of capital cost, as well as power and chemical requirements/costs, these
values were scaled from BBR4 Case B12B [5] based on quantity of gas treated. The FGD
employed in the reference case is a wet FGD; however, if SOx concentrations were low enough,
a lower cost option, such as a dry FGD could also be used, which would reduce cost compared
to the wet FGD estimated in this report.
The economic results of this sensitivity case are presented in Exhibit 6-30 and Exhibit 6-31 for
the 99 and 90 percent capture cases, respectively. The addition of SCR and FGD increases the
TPC over the base case greenfield cost by approximately $124.5 M. Most of this additional
capital is attributed to the FGD absorber vessels and accessories, which account for $110.7 M of
the TPC increase.
Fixed O&M and maintenance materials costs also increase, as some are calculated based on
TPC. Consumables costs also increase by $2.3 M, due to the requirement of limestone for the
FGD, as well as 19 weight percent ammonia for SCR injection. The initial SCR catalyst is assumed
110
to be included with equipment purchase, but catalyst makeup cost is calculated on a 3-year
replacement cycle. The auxiliary requirements for the FGD and SCR are scaled linearly from the
BBR4 Case B12B, adding 672 kW to the auxiliary load requirements for capture integration in
the representative cement plant. O&M costs for each cement sensitivity case are shown in
Exhibit 6-33 and Exhibit 6-34 for 99 and 90 percent capture cases, respectively, while owner’s
cost summaries for both cases are shown in Exhibit 6-32.
111
Exhibit 6-30. Capital costs for cement greenfield site with FGD and SCR and 99 percent CO 2 capture
Case: Cement with FGD and SCR Estimate Type: Conceptual
Representative Plant Size: 1.3 M tonnes/year Cost Base: Dec 2018
Description
$4,061 $0 $1,181 $0 $5,242 $917 $0 $1,232 $7,391 $6
w/Deaerator
3.6 NG Pipeline and Start-Up
$654 $28 $21 $0 $703 $123 $0 $165 $992 $1
System
$3,003 $0 $1,840 $0 $4,843 $848 $0 $1,138 $6,829 $6
Equipment
Subtotal $10,485 $1,458 $4,743 $0 $16,686 $2,920 $0 $3,921 $23,527 $20
4 Cement Kiln Accessories
4.1 Selective Catalytic Reduction
$5,660 $0 $3,225 $0 $8,885 $1,555 $0 $2,088 $12,528 $10
System
Subtotal $5,660 $0 $3,225 $0 $8,885 $1,555 $0 $2,088 $12,528 $10
5 Flue Gas Cleanup
FGD Absorber Vessels &
5.2 $64,703 $0 $13,834 $0 $78,537 $13,744 $0 $18,456 $110,737 $92
Accessories
5.3 Other FGD $290 $0 $327 $0 $617 $108 $0 $145 $870 $1
Subtotal $140,948 $28,036 $73,302 $0 $242,286 $42,400 $23,348 $61,607 $369,640 $309
7 Ductwork & Stack
7.3 Ductwork $0 $1,608 $1,117 $0 $2,725 $477 $0 $640 $3,842 $3
7.4 Stack $7,699 $0 $4,474 $0 $12,174 $2,130 $0 $2,861 $17,165 $14
Subtotal $7,699 $1,779 $5,795 $0 $15,274 $2,673 $0 $3,589 $21,537 $18
9.1 Cooling Towers $1,426 $0 $441 $0 $1,867 $327 $0 $439 $2,632 $2
112

Description
$137 $0 $105 $0 $241 $42 $0 $57 $340 $0
System
$0 $97 $161 $0 $258 $45 $0 $61 $363 $0
Foundations
Subtotal $3,811 $973 $2,027 $0 $6,811 $1,192 $0 $1,600 $9,603 $8
11.5 Wire & Cable $0 $1,442 $2,577 $0 $4,019 $703 $0 $945 $5,667 $5
Subtotal $6,886 $1,986 $5,104 $0 $13,977 $2,446 $0 $3,285 $19,707 $16
Subtotal $901 $323 $2,444 $0 $3,668 $642 $0 $862 $5,172 $4
13.3 Site Facilities $144 $0 $151 $0 $296 $52 $0 $70 $417 $0
Subtotal $144 $153 $860 $0 $1,157 $203 $0 $272 $1,632 $1
Subtotal $0 $50 $40 $0 $90 $16 $0 $21 $127 $0
Total $176,534 $34,760 $97,540 $0 $308,834 $54,046 $23,348 $77,245 $463,473 $387
Exhibit 6-31. Capital costs for cement greenfield site with FGD and SCR and 90 percent CO2 capture
Description
$3,731 $0 $1,085 $0 $4,816 $843 $0 $1,132 $6,790 $6
w/Deaerator
$624 $27 $20 $0 $671 $117 $0 $158 $946 $1
System
113

Description
$2,872 $0 $1,760 $0 $4,632 $811 $0 $1,088 $6,531 $6
Equipment
Subtotal $9,829 $1,366 $4,464 $0 $15,659 $2,740 $0 $3,680 $22,079 $20
4 Cement Kiln Accessories
4.1 Selective Catalytic Reduction
$5,660 $0 $3,225 $0 $8,885 $1,555 $0 $2,088 $12,528 $12
System
Subtotal $5,660 $0 $3,225 $0 $8,885 $1,555 $0 $2,088 $12,528 $12
5 Flue Gas Cleanup
FGD Absorber Vessels &
5.2 $64,703 $0 $13,834 $0 $78,537 $13,744 $0 $18,456 $110,737 $102
Accessories
5.3 Other FGD $290 $0 $327 $0 $617 $108 $0 $145 $870 $1
Subtotal $137,018 $26,595 $70,257 $0 $233,869 $40,927 $22,148 $59,389 $356,334 $327
7 Ductwork & Stack
7.3 Ductwork $0 $1,608 $1,117 $0 $2,725 $477 $0 $640 $3,842 $4
7.4 Stack $7,712 $0 $4,482 $0 $12,194 $2,134 $0 $2,866 $17,194 $16
Subtotal $7,712 $1,778 $5,802 $0 $15,293 $2,676 $0 $3,594 $21,563 $20
9.1 Cooling Towers $1,343 $0 $415 $0 $1,759 $308 $0 $413 $2,480 $2
$130 $0 $100 $0 $230 $40 $0 $54 $324 $0
System
$0 $93 $154 $0 $246 $43 $0 $58 $347 $0
Foundations
Subtotal $3,614 $927 $1,929 $0 $6,470 $1,132 $0 $1,520 $9,122 $8
11.5 Wire & Cable $0 $1,387 $2,479 $0 $3,866 $677 $0 $909 $5,451 $5
Subtotal $6,624 $1,911 $4,910 $0 $13,444 $2,353 $0 $3,159 $18,957 $17
114

Description
Subtotal $890 $320 $2,415 $0 $3,625 $634 $0 $852 $5,111 $5
13.3 Site Facilities $142 $0 $149 $0 $291 $51 $0 $68 $410 $0
Subtotal $142 $150 $845 $0 $1,136 $199 $0 $267 $1,602 $1
Subtotal $0 $48 $38 $0 $86 $15 $0 $20 $122 $0
Total $171,489 $33,095 $93,884 $0 $298,468 $52,232 $22,148 $74,570 $447,417 $411
115
Exhibit 6-32. Owners’ costs for cement cases with FGD and SCR
(CO2) (CO2)
6 Months All Labor $2,484 $2 $2,420 $2
2% of TPC $9,269 $8 $8,948 $8
Total $12,958 $11 $12,505 $11
Total $6,086 $5 $5,694 $5
Land $30 $0 $30 $0
Financing Costs $12,514 $10 $12,080 $11
TOC $564,581 $471 $544,839 $500
TASC Multiplier (Cement, 33 year) 1.054 1.054
TASC $594,983 $497 $574,178 $527
116
Exhibit 6-33. Initial and annual O&M costs for cement greenfield site with FGD and SCR at 99 percent capture
Case: Cement with FGD and SCR Cost Base: Dec 2018
Representative Plant Size: 1.3 M tonnes/year Capacity Factor (%): 85

Total: 2.3
Annual Cost
Total: $14,237,746 $11.89
Consumables
Water (/1000 gallons): 0 775 $1.90 $0 $457,112 $0.45
0 2.6 $550.00 $0 $440,049 $0.43
Chemicals (ton):
SCR Catalyst (ft3): w/equip. 0.0 $150.00 $0 $104,464 $0.10
Limestone (ton): 0 0 $22.00 $0 $0 $0.00
Ammonia (19 wt%, ton): 0.00 10.8 $300.00 $0 $1,008,681 $0.99
Subtotal: $0 $3,733,121 $3.67
Waste Disposal
SCR Catalyst (ft3): 0 $2.50 $0 $1,741 $0.00
Subtotal: $0 $114,550 $0.11
Fuel Cost
Total: $0 $15,941,580 $15.66

2
117
Exhibit 6-34. Initial and annual O&M costs for cement greenfield site with FGD and SCR at 90 percent capture
Case: Cement with FGD and SCR Cost Base: Dec 2018
Representative Plant Size: 1.3 M tonnes/year Capacity Factor (%): 85

Total: 2.3
Annual Cost
Total: $13,788,190 $12.66
Consumables
Water (/1000 gallons): 0 717 $1.90 $0 $422,931 $0.46
0 2.4 $550.00 $0 $410,207 $0.44
Chemicals (ton):
SCR Catalyst (ft3): w/equip. 0.0 $150.00 $0 $104,464 $0.11
Limestone (ton): 0 0 $22.00 $0 $0 $0.00
Ammonia (19 wt%, ton): 0.00 10.8 $300.00 $0 $1,008,681 $1.09
Subtotal: $0 $3,560,548 $3.85
Waste Disposal
SCR Catalyst (ft3): 0 $2.50 $0 $1,741 $0.00
Subtotal: $0 $111,823 $0.12
Fuel Cost
Total: $0 $14,493,467 $15.66

2
118
The COC for the greenfield FGD + SCR sensitivity cases at 99 and 90 percent capture are
presented in Exhibit 6-35 alongside corresponding values for the base case cement plants.
Exhibit 6-35. COC for 1.3 M tonnes/year cement greenfield cases (base cases and FGD + SCR cases)
COC at 99 percent capture, COC at 90 percent capture,

$/tonne CO2 $/tonne CO2
Component Base Case FGD + SCR Case Base Case FGD + SCR Case
Capital 21.8 29.7 22.8 31.5
Fixed 10.6 14.0 11.1 14.9
Variable 5.9 8.2 6.1 8.6
Total COC 60.8 74.8 62.7 78.0
The result of this sensitivity is that the total COC increases by $14.0/tonne CO2 and $15.3/tonne
CO2 for 99 and 90 percent capture, respectively, with the addition of FGD and SCR systems for
flue gas treating prior to AGR. At $78.0/tonne CO2, this cement sensitivity case with 90 percent
capture is the highest COC of any of the processes considered in this report. This COC sensitivity
is an approximation, as actual plant SOx/NOx concentrations were not available, and it is not
clear whether this sensitivity would be common occurrence in U.S. cement plants, or a special
isolated case due to raw materials used in a specific plant or region.
6.2.11 Cement Conclusion

The low purity CO2 stream produced in a cement plant results in a higher COC when compared
to the high purity cases evaluated in this report, but the quantity of CO2 to be captured from
such a process makes them attractive industrial processes for CCS as it would represent a
significant GHG reduction. A CO2 capture and compression system for a 1.3 M tonnes/year
cement plant was modeled to estimate the COC of capturing CO2 from the kiln off-gas. The
results showed the COC of CO2 to be $60.8/tonne CO2 and $62.7/tonne CO2 for a greenfield site
with 99 and 90 percent capture, respectively. For a retrofit application, the COC is $62.4/tonne
CO2 and $64.3/tonne CO2 for 99 and 90 percent capture, respectively. The small disparities
between greenfield and retrofit cases are the result of unknown difficulties required for a
retrofit installation versus a greenfield application as discussed in Section 3.3, assuming
adequate plot plan space for the retrofit case exists.
The plant size sensitivity showed that as plant size decreased from 1.5 M tonnes/year to 0.5 M
tonnes/year of cement production, the COC increased by $15.0/tonne CO2 and $15.8/tonne
CO2, for 99 and 90 percent capture, respectively. As the plant size is decreased, less CO2 is
produced, and economies of scale are lost, resulting in a higher COC. As demonstrated by the
resulting COCs and the sensitivity analysis, the normalized cost of 99 percent CO2 capture is less
than that of 90 percent capture.
119
For plants with SOx and/or NOx contaminants above that which is acceptable at the inlet of the
AGR, an FGD and/or SCR system would be required to purify the stream before entering the CO2
capture unit. An approximation of the additional cost of adding these systems showed an
increase in greenfield COC by 23–25 percent. This approximation does not account for actual
SOx/NOx concentrations in the kiln off-gas, and could be substantially higher or lower,
depending on off-gas conditions and specific requirements of the AGR system deployed.
6.3 IRON/STEEL
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, in 2019 the industrial sector emitted 1.51 B
tonnes of CO2, representing 23 percent of U.S. GHG emissions. [50] The Iron and Steel industry
accounted for 4.8 percent or about 72 M tonnes of CO2 emissions in 2019. [6] Due to the large
amounts of emissions available for capture from the iron and steel industry, these facilities
present a great opportunity for the consideration of industrial decarbonization.
6.3.1 Size Range

According to the World Steel Association, there were 132 steel plants in the United States,
accounting for approximately 86.6 M tonnes of steel production in 2018. Of these 86.6 M
tonnes of steel produced, 32 percent was produced using an electric arc furnace (EAF) and the
balance was produced using the more traditional BOF. [51] The main difference between the
EAF and BOF processes involves the raw materials used as inputs as well as the furnace design.
The resulting steel product from an EAF process contains approximately 100 percent recycled
steel, whereas the BOF product contains 25 percent recycled steel on average. [51] The
utilization of scrap steel results in lower CO2 emissions for an EAF process (0.6–0.9 tonne CO2
per tonne steel) versus the BOF process (2.2 tonne CO2 per tonne steel). [52] The combination
of generally smaller EAF plants and lower concentration of EAF plant CO2 emissions projects to a
higher COC from an EAF process. Therefore, this study focuses on CO2 capture from BOF process
steel plants. The total production capacity, as given by the World Steel Association for BOF
plants in the United States in 2018, was 58.9 M tonnes. [51]

A study by Wiley, et al., (“Wiley Study”) published in 2010, assessed the opportunities for CO 2
capture in Australian iron and steel mills. [52] The Wiley Study utilized stream data from an
Australian BOF steel mill, and within the base plant, the largest source of CO2 comes from the
top gas of the blast furnace as is typical in an integrated steel mill; however, this stream is not
directly vented. Instead, the blast furnace gas is cleaned and used in the plant as low-grade fuel,
and instead of having a high-content CO2 point source from the blast furnace gas, the CO2 is
distributed throughout the plant as smaller CO2 point sources. The resulting CO2 point sources
available to be captured include the power plant stack (PPS), coke oven gas (COG), blast furnace
stove (BFS), sinter stack, blown oxygen steelmaking stack, hot strip mill stack, plate mill stack,
and lime kiln, based on the configuration detailed in the Wiley Study. [52] The three highest CO2
concentrations of these point sources are the COG at 27 volume percent, the BFS at 21 volume
percent, and the PPS at 23 volume percent.
120
Of the eight CO2 point sources listed by the Wiley Study, five have CO2 concentrations that
would have capture costs comparable to those in a typical coal-fired power plant flue gas
stream and are not included in this analysis. Only the three higher CO2 concentration streams,
the PPS, COG, and BFS are evaluated, as shown in Exhibit 6-36.
Exhibit 6-36. BOF iron and steel plant characteristics [52]
Description PPS COG BFS

CO2 Emitted/Tonne Steel produced 0.74 0.35 0.39
Pressure (psia) 14.7 14.7 14.7
Composition (vol %)
N2 67.00 67.00 68.00
H2O 8.00 5.00 10.00
CO2 23.00 27.00 21.00
O2 1.00 1.00 1.00
Personal communication with a former U.S. Steel Braddock, PA, facility employee indicated that
while the coke ovens are approximately five miles from the blast furnace, the COG is circulated
back to the blast furnace to preheat the incoming air. Therefore, these two streams are located
relatively close to one another and may be combined. Exhibit 6-37 is a simplified BFD of the plot
plan description of the Braddock steel mill.
Exhibit 6-37. Braddock steel mill plot plan
5 Mile Distance
COKE BLAST
COKE OVEN GAS FOR PREHEATING AIR COG/BFS
OVENS FURNACE
Distance between COG PPS and BFS PPS too

large to be combined – Must be treated separately
COG POWER COG PPS

PLANT STACK GAS

The following is a list of design inputs and assumptions made specific to the iron/steel process
for the purpose of this study:
121
• The representative BOF integrated steel mill has a production capacity of 2.54 M
tonnes/year
• There are three high purity point sources: COG, BFS, and COG PPS. The COG and BFS will
be combined into one stream due to plot plan and totals 1,864,388 tonnes CO2/year (at
100 percent CF); COG PPS will utilize its own separation and compression facility and
generates 1,874,540 tonnes CO2/year at 100 percent CF
• Since there are two separate capture systems, 4.6 operators are considered (i.e., 2.3
operators per capture system)
• As a low purity source, separation, compression, and cooling are required. Separation is
accomplished using a Cansolv AGR unit

The COG/BFS and COG PPS stream CO2 concentrations require purification before compression
to meet EOR pipeline standards. The purification system used is Shell’s Cansolv post-combustion
capture system discussed in Section 4.2.1. Steam for solvent regeneration is provided by the
industrial boiler discussed in Section 4.3. A separate capture unit, boiler, and ancillary
equipment is modeled for each COG/BFS and COG PPS stream. One integrally geared centrifugal
compression train as discussed in Section 4.1.2 is employed for the COG/BFS stream and a
second is used to compress the COG PPS stream. Costs for the compressors are scaled based on
product CO2 flow.

For the COG/BFS case, the COG stream and BFS stream are mixed and sent to the CO2 capture
system. Water and solids recovered from the AGR process are sent to waste treatment. The CO2
stream is then compressed with interstage cooling and after-cooled before reaching the EOR
pipeline. Exhibit 6-38 shows the BFD for this process, and Exhibit 6-39 and Exhibit 6-40 show the
stream table for this process with 99 percent and 90 percent capture, respectively.
Exhibit 6-38. CO2 capture BFD for COG/BFS
COG 1 Cansolv
Stream CO2 Desired
Mixer Capture Usage
BFS 2 System
122
Exhibit 6-39. Iron/steel COG/BFS stream table with 99 percent capture
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
V-L Mole Fraction
AR 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CH4 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CO 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CO2 0.2700 0.2100 0.2346 0.9879 0.9995 0.9995 0.0034
SO2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
H2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
H2O 0.0500 0.1000 0.0795 0.0121 0.0005 0.0005 0.0237
H2S 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
N2 0.6700 0.6800 0.6759 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.9588
O2 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0141
Total 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
V-L Flowrate (kgmol/hr) 8,443 12,173 20,616 4,845 4,788 4,788 14,533
V-L Flowrate (kg/hr) 269,106 370,224 639,331 211,692 210,637 210,637 405,309
Temperature (°C) 100 300 219 31 80 30 38
Pressure (MPa, abs) 0.10 0.1 0.1 0.2 15.3 15.3 0.1
Steam Table Enthalpy (kJ/kg)A 3,700 3,593 3,638 8,793 8,758 8,755 309.0
Aspen Plus Enthalpy (kJ/kg)B -3,638 -3,217 -3,394 -8,961 -9,042 -9,195 -240.1
Density (kg/m3) 1.0 0.6 0.8 3.5 432.5 630.1 1.1
V-L Flowrate (lb/hr) 593,278 816,205 1,409,483 466,701 464,375 464,375 893,553
Temperature (°F) 212 572 426 88 177 86 100
Pressure (psia) 14.7 14.7 14.7 28.9 2,216.9 2,214.7 14.8
Steam Table Enthalpy (Btu/lb)A 1,591 1,545 1,564 3,780 3,765 3,764 132.8
Aspen Plus Enthalpy (Btu/lb)B -1,564 -1,383 -1,459 -3,852 -3,887 -3,953 -103.2
Density (lb/ft3) 0.065 0.040 0.048 0.217 27.0 39.3 0.069
123
Exhibit 6-40. Iron/steel COG/BFS stream table with 90 percent capture
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
V-L Mole Fraction
AR 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CH4 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CO 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CO2 0.2700 0.2100 0.2346 0.9881 0.9995 0.9995 0.0322
SO2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
H2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
H2O 0.0500 0.1000 0.0795 0.0119 0.0005 0.0005 0.0237
H2S 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
N2 0.6700 0.6800 0.6759 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.9303
O2 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0137
Total 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
V-L Flowrate (kgmol/hr) 8,443 12,173 20,616 4,405 4,354 4,354 14,978
V-L Flowrate (kg/hr) 269,106 370,224 639,331 192,516 191,573 191,573 424,582
Temperature (°C) 100 300 219 31 80 30 38
Pressure (MPa, abs) 0.10 0.1 0.1 0.2 15.3 15.3 0.1
Steam Table Enthalpy (kJ/kg)A 3,700 3,593 3,638 8,793 8,758 8,755 691.0
Aspen Plus Enthalpy (kJ/kg)B -3,638 -3,217 -3,394 -8,960 -9,042 -9,195 -636.8
Density (kg/m3) 1.0 0.6 0.8 3.5 432.5 630.1 1.1
V-L Flowrate (lb/hr) 593,278 816,205 1,409,483 424,424 422,347 422,347 936,044
Temperature (°F) 212 572 426 88 177 86 100
Pressure (psia) 14.7 14.7 14.7 28.9 2,216.9 2,214.7 14.8
Steam Table Enthalpy (Btu/lb)A 1,591 1,545 1,564 3,780 3,765 3,764 297.1
Aspen Plus Enthalpy (Btu/lb)B -1,564 -1,383 -1,459 -3,852 -3,887 -3,953 -273.8
Density (lb/ft3) 0.065 0.040 0.048 0.217 27.0 39.3 0.070
In the same manner, the COG PPS stream is sent to the Cansolv CO2 capture system. Water and
solids recovered from the AGR process are sent to waste treatment. The CO2 stream is then
compressed with interstage cooling and after-cooled before reaching the EOR pipeline. Exhibit
124
6-41 shows the BFD for this process, and Exhibit 6-42 and Exhibit 6-43 show the stream table for
this process with 99 percent and 90 percent capture, respectively.
Exhibit 6-41. CO2 capture BFD for COG PPS
Cansolv
COG CO2 Desired
PPS Capture Usage
System
Exhibit 6-42. Iron/steel COG PPS stream table with 99 percent capture
1 2 3 4 5
V-L Mole Fraction
AR 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CH4 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CO 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CO2 0.2323 0.9875 0.9995 0.9995 0.0034
SO2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
H2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
H2O 0.0808 0.0125 0.0005 0.0005 0.0242
H2S 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
N2 0.6768 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.9581
O2 0.0101 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0142
Total 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

V-L Flowrate (kg/hr) 648,081 212,873 211,784 211,784 412,236
Temperature (°C) 300 31 80 30 38
Pressure (MPa, abs) 0.1 0.2 15.3 15.3 0.1
Steam Table Enthalpy (kJ/kg)A 3,630 8,794 8,758 8,755 314.2
Aspen Plus Enthalpy (kJ/kg)B -3,292 -8,961 -9,042 -9,195 -244.5
3
Density (kg/m ) 0.7 3.5 432.5 630.1 1.1

V-L Flowrate (lb/hr) 1,428,775 469,304 466,905 466,905 908,825
125
1 2 3 4 5
V-L Mole Fraction
Temperature (°F) 572 88 177 86 100
Pressure (psia) 14.7 28.9 2,216.9 2,214.7 14.8
Steam Table Enthalpy (Btu/lb)A 1,561 3,781 3,765 3,764 135.1
Aspen Plus Enthalpy (Btu/lb)B -1,415 -3,853 -3,887 -3,953 -105.1
Density (lb/ft3) 0.041 0.217 27.0 39.3 0.069
Exhibit 6-43. Iron/steel COG PPS stream table with 90 percent capture
1 2 3 4 5
V-L Mole Fraction
AR 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CH4 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CO 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CO2 0.2323 0.9878 0.9995 0.9995 0.0319
SO2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
H2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
H2O 0.0808 0.0122 0.0005 0.0005 0.0243
H2S 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
N2 0.6768 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.9300
O2 0.0101 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0138
Total 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

V-L Flowrate (kg/hr) 648,081 193,589 192,617 192,617 431,610
Temperature (°C) 300 31 80 30 38
Pressure (MPa, abs) 0.1 0.2 15.3 15.3 0.1
Steam Table Enthalpy (kJ/kg)A 3,630 8,793 8,758 8,755 691.6
B
Aspen Plus Enthalpy (kJ/kg) -3,292 -8,961 -9,042 -9,195 -636.6
Density (kg/m3) 0.7 3.5 432.5 630.1 1.1

V-L Flowrate (lb/hr) 1,428,775 426,791 424,647 424,647 951,538
126
1 2 3 4 5
V-L Mole Fraction
Temperature (°F) 572 88 177 86 100
Pressure (psia) 14.7 28.9 2,216.9 2,214.7 14.8
Steam Table Enthalpy (Btu/lb)A 1,561 3,781 3,765 3,764 297.3
Aspen Plus Enthalpy (Btu/lb)B -1,415 -3,853 -3,887 -3,953 -273.7
Density (lb/ft3) 0.041 0.217 27.0 39.3 0.070
The performance summary for both 90 and 99 percent capture cases in the COG/BFS section of
the steel mill is provided in Exhibit 6-44, while that of the COG PPS section is shown in Exhibit
6-45.
Exhibit 6-44. Performance summary for iron/steel COG/BFS section
Performance Summary
2.54 M tonnes steel/year with 90 2.54 M tonnes steel/year with 99
Item
Circulating Water Pumps 1,480 1,610
Exhibit 6-45. Performance summary for iron/steel COG PPS section
Performance Summary
2.54 M tonnes steel/year with 90 2.54 M tonnes steel/year with 99
Item
Circulating Water Pumps 1,490 1,620
127

The BOF process integrated steel mill makes use of the BFS and COG as low-grade fuel for
electricity generation. Due to this set-up, integrating equipment with additional auxiliary needs,
such as power, steam, or cooling loads for the capture system, into the existing plant systems
may be capacity limited.
The cooling water system considered in this study is a stand-alone unit; however, there is
potential to integrate make-up water to feed or partially feed the cooling system thereby
reducing the unit’s size or replacing it completely with a simple HX. This would be evaluated on
case-by-case basis depending on the size of the plant, its layout, and size of the plant’s current
cooling system, and such an evaluation is outside of the scope of this study.
6.3.7 Power Source

The compressor power consumption for the 90 and 99 percent capture cases in the COG/BFS
section of the plant are 14.66 MW and 16.12 MW, respectively. The compressor power
consumption for the 90 and 99 percent capture cases in the COG PPS section of the plant are
14.75 MW and 16.21 MW, respectively. Power consumption estimates for the cooling water
system in each case were scaled as described in Section 4.4. The total power requirements were
calculated to be 22.22 MW and 24.52 MW for the 90 and 99 percent capture rates in the
COG/BFS section, respectively, while the total power requirements were calculated to be 22.43
MW and 24.63 MW for the 90 and 99 percent capture rates in the COG PPS section,
respectively. These estimates include all power required by the compression train, cooling water
system, and Cansolv capture unit. Purchased power cost is estimated at a rate of $60/MWh as
discussed in Section 3.1.2.4. To satisfy the steam requirements of the AGR system, an industrial
boiler was modeled, and fuel consumption costs were estimated at a rate of $4.42/MMBtu as
discussed in Section 3.1.2.4.

The economic results of CO2 capture application in an iron/steel mill are presented in this
section. Owner’s costs, capital costs, and O&M costs are calculated as discussed in Section 3.1.
Retrofit costs were determined by applying a retrofit factor to TPC as discussed in Section 3.3.
The retrofit TOC for the iron/steel case at 99 percent capture is $1,151 M, while for 90 percent
capture, a retrofit TOC of $1,055 M is estimated. The corresponding retrofit COC for the 99
percent and 90 percent capture cases are $65.4/tonne CO2 and $65.9/tonne CO2, respectively.
Greenfield cost estimates for the iron/steel case are not estimated, as BOF steel mills are no
longer being constructed; thus, any capture application in a BOF mill as evaluated in this study
would be implemented as a retrofit. Capital and O&M costs for each section (COG/BFS and COG
PPS) are presented separately (Exhibit 6-47 through Exhibit 6-50), while owners costs and COCs
are presented in whole for 99 and 90 percent capture cases in Exhibit 6-46 and Exhibit 6-53,
respectively.
It should be noted that line-item capital costs were not estimated for retrofit cases, as the
retrofit costs were estimated by applying a retrofit factor to the TPC of a greenfield plant as
described in Section 3.3. As such, the account specific capital costs reported in this section are
128
for a hypothetical greenfield plant but could be estimated for each account by applying a
retrofit factor TPC as described in Section 3.3. As some O&M and owner’s costs are estimated
based on TPC, the retrofit TPC value was used to estimate the owner’s costs and O&M costs
presented in Exhibit 6-46 through Exhibit 6-52; thus, those values are indicative of a retrofit
installation.
Exhibit 6-46. Owners’ costs for iron/steel retrofit cases
(CO2) (CO2)
6 Months All Labor $5,095 $3 $4,776 $3
2% of TPC $19,171 $10 $17,151 $10
Total $26,003 $14 $23,536 $14
Inventory Capital
Total $6,120 $3 $5,637 $3
Other Costs
Land $0 $0 $0 $0
Financing Costs $25,880 $14 $23,728 $14
TOC $1,160,313 $627 $1,063,524 $632
TASC Multiplier (Iron/Steel, 33 year) 1.091 1.091
TASC $1,266,188 $684 $1,160,567 $690
129
Exhibit 6-47. Capital costs for iron/steel COG/BFS section retrofit with 99 percent capture
Case: Iron/Steel COG/BFS Section Estimate Type: Conceptual
Representative Plant Size: 2.54 M tonnes steel/year Cost Base: Dec 2018
Description
3.2 Water Makeup & Pretreating $2,239 $224 $1,269 $0 $3,732 $653 $0 $877 $5,263 $3
3.3 Other Feedwater Subsystems $448 $147 $139 $0 $734 $128 $0 $173 $1,035 $1
$5,968 $0 $1,735 $0 $7,703 $1,348 $0 $1,810 $10,861 $6
w/Deaerator
$808 $35 $26 $0 $869 $152 $0 $204 $1,226 $1
System
$4,113 $0 $2,521 $0 $6,633 $1,161 $0 $1,559 $9,353 $5
Equipment
3.9 Miscellaneous Plant
$109 $14 $56 $0 $179 $31 $0 $42 $253 $0
Equipment
Subtotal $14,680 $1,979 $6,604 $0 $23,263 $4,071 $0 $5,467 $32,801 $18
5 Flue Gas Cleanup
Subtotal $104,419 $38,893 $82,017 $0 $225,328 $39,432 $32,591 $59,470 $356,822 $193
7 Ductwork & Stack
7.3 Ductwork $0 $2,303 $1,600 $0 $3,903 $683 $0 $917 $5,503 $3
7.4 Stack $7,869 $0 $4,573 $0 $12,442 $2,177 $0 $2,924 $17,543 $10
Subtotal $7,869 $2,479 $6,382 $0 $16,731 $2,928 $0 $3,932 $23,590 $13
9.1 Cooling Towers $1,990 $0 $615 $0 $2,605 $456 $0 $612 $3,673 $2
$179 $0 $138 $0 $317 $55 $0 $74 $447 $0
System
$0 $124 $207 $0 $331 $58 $0 $78 $467 $0
Foundations
Subtotal $5,126 $1,275 $2,674 $0 $9,076 $1,588 $0 $2,133 $12,797 $7
130

Description
11.3 Switchgear & Motor Control $4,955 $0 $860 $0 $5,815 $1,018 $0 $1,366 $8,199 $4
11.5 Wire & Cable $0 $1,706 $3,049 $0 $4,755 $832 $0 $1,117 $6,704 $4
Subtotal $8,147 $2,350 $6,039 $0 $16,535 $2,894 $0 $3,886 $23,315 $13
Subtotal $948 $340 $2,571 $0 $3,859 $675 $0 $907 $5,441 $3
13.3 Site Facilities $156 $0 $164 $0 $320 $56 $0 $75 $451 $0
Subtotal $156 $165 $930 $0 $1,251 $219 $0 $294 $1,764 $1
Subtotal $0 $65 $52 $0 $117 $20 $0 $28 $165 $0
Total $141,345 $47,546 $107,269 $0 $296,160 $51,828 $32,591 $76,116 $456,696 $248
Retrofit Values $310,968 $54,419 $34,221 $79,922 $479,530 $260
Case: Iron/Steel COG PPS Section Estimate Type: Conceptual
Description
3.3 Other Feedwater Subsystems $450 $148 $140 $0 $738 $129 $0 $173 $1,040 $1
$5,998 $0 $1,744 $0 $7,741 $1,355 $0 $1,819 $10,915 $6
w/Deaerator
3.6 NG Pipeline and Start-Up System $811 $35 $26 $0 $872 $153 $0 $205 $1,229 $1
3.7 Waste Water Treatment Equipment $4,144 $0 $2,540 $0 $6,683 $1,170 $0 $1,571 $9,424 $5
Subtotal $14,759 $1,986 $6,641 $0 $23,387 $4,093 $0 $5,496 $32,975 $18
5 Flue Gas Cleanup
131

Description
Subtotal $104,053 $38,722 $81,649 $0 $224,424 $39,274 $32,415 $59,223 $355,337 $192
7 Ductwork & Stack
7.3 Ductwork $0 $2,591 $1,800 $0 $4,391 $768 $0 $1,032 $6,191 $3
7.4 Stack $7,877 $0 $4,577 $0 $12,455 $2,180 $0 $2,927 $17,561 $9
Subtotal $7,877 $2,767 $6,587 $0 $17,232 $3,016 $0 $4,049 $24,297 $13
9.1 Cooling Towers $1,998 $0 $618 $0 $2,616 $458 $0 $615 $3,689 $2
$0 $125 $207 $0 $332 $58 $0 $78 $468 $0
Foundations
Subtotal $5,146 $1,280 $2,684 $0 $9,110 $1,594 $0 $2,141 $12,845 $7
11.3 Switchgear & Motor Control $4,965 $0 $861 $0 $5,826 $1,020 $0 $1,369 $8,215 $4
11.5 Wire & Cable $0 $1,709 $3,055 $0 $4,764 $834 $0 $1,120 $6,718 $4
Subtotal $8,163 $2,355 $6,051 $0 $16,568 $2,899 $0 $3,893 $23,361 $13
Subtotal $948 $340 $2,573 $0 $3,861 $676 $0 $907 $5,445 $3
13.3 Site Facilities $156 $0 $164 $0 $320 $56 $0 $75 $451 $0
Subtotal $156 $166 $931 $0 $1,252 $219 $0 $294 $1,766 $1
Subtotal $0 $66 $52 $0 $117 $21 $0 $28 $166 $0
Total $141,103 $47,682 $107,167 $0 $295,952 $51,792 $32,415 $76,032 $456,190 $246
Retrofit Values $310,749 $54,381 $34,036 $79,833 $479,000 $258
132
Exhibit 6-49. Capital costs for iron/steel COG/BFS section retrofit with 90 percent capture
Description
$5,483 $0 $1,594 $0 $7,077 $1,238 $0 $1,663 $9,979 $6
w/Deaerator
$772 $33 $25 $0 $830 $145 $0 $195 $1,170 $1
System
$3,935 $0 $2,412 $0 $6,346 $1,111 $0 $1,491 $8,948 $5
Equipment
3.9 Miscellaneous Plant
$107 $14 $54 $0 $175 $31 $0 $41 $247 $0
Equipment
Subtotal $13,753 $1,853 $6,214 $0 $21,819 $3,818 $0 $5,127 $30,765 $18
5 Flue Gas Cleanup
Subtotal $92,956 $34,294 $72,333 $0 $199,583 $34,927 $28,536 $52,609 $315,655 $188
7 Ductwork & Stack
7.3 Ductwork $0 $2,303 $1,600 $0 $3,903 $683 $0 $917 $5,503 $3
7.4 Stack $7,883 $0 $4,581 $0 $12,464 $2,181 $0 $2,929 $17,575 $10
Subtotal $7,883 $2,478 $6,389 $0 $16,751 $2,931 $0 $3,936 $23,619 $14
9.1 Cooling Towers $1,874 $0 $580 $0 $2,454 $429 $0 $577 $3,460 $2
9.4 Circulating Water Piping $0 $1,096 $993 $0 $2,089 $365 $0 $491 $2,945 $2
$171 $0 $131 $0 $302 $53 $0 $71 $426 $0
System
$0 $119 $198 $0 $317 $55 $0 $74 $446 $0
Foundations
Subtotal $4,860 $1,215 $2,544 $0 $8,619 $1,508 $0 $2,026 $12,153 $7
133

Description
11.5 Wire & Cable $0 $1,635 $2,923 $0 $4,558 $798 $0 $1,071 $6,427 $4
Subtotal $7,810 $2,253 $5,789 $0 $15,851 $2,774 $0 $3,725 $22,350 $13
Subtotal $936 $336 $2,538 $0 $3,810 $667 $0 $895 $5,372 $3
13.3 Site Facilities $153 $0 $161 $0 $314 $55 $0 $74 $442 $0
Subtotal $153 $162 $912 $0 $1,227 $215 $0 $288 $1,730 $1
Subtotal $0 $62 $49 $0 $112 $20 $0 $26 $158 $0
Total $128,351 $42,652 $96,769 $0 $267,772 $46,860 $28,536 $68,634 $411,802 $245
Retrofit Values $281,161 $49,203 $29,963 $72,065 $432,392 $258
Description
3.4 Industrial Boiler Package w/Deaerator $5,510 $0 $1,602 $0 $7,112 $1,245 $0 $1,671 $10,028 $6
3.6 NG Pipeline and Start-Up System $774 $33 $25 $0 $832 $146 $0 $196 $1,173 $1
3.7 Waste Water Treatment Equipment $3,965 $0 $2,430 $0 $6,396 $1,119 $0 $1,503 $9,018 $5
Subtotal $13,827 $1,860 $6,249 $0 $21,937 $3,839 $0 $5,155 $30,931 $18
5 Flue Gas Cleanup
134

Description
Subtotal $96,249 $35,705 $75,287 $0 $207,241 $36,267 $29,814 $54,665 $327,987 $194
7 Ductwork & Stack
7.3 Ductwork $0 $2,591 $1,800 $0 $4,391 $768 $0 $1,032 $6,191 $4
7.4 Stack $7,891 $0 $4,586 $0 $12,477 $2,183 $0 $2,932 $17,593 $10
Subtotal $7,891 $2,766 $6,594 $0 $17,252 $3,019 $0 $4,054 $24,325 $14
9.1 Cooling Towers $1,882 $0 $582 $0 $2,465 $431 $0 $579 $3,475 $2
9.4 Circulating Water Piping $0 $1,100 $996 $0 $2,096 $367 $0 $493 $2,955 $2
$0 $119 $198 $0 $318 $56 $0 $75 $448 $0
Foundations
Subtotal $4,879 $1,219 $2,553 $0 $8,652 $1,514 $0 $2,033 $12,199 $7
11.5 Wire & Cable $0 $1,642 $2,935 $0 $4,577 $801 $0 $1,076 $6,453 $4
Subtotal $7,841 $2,262 $5,813 $0 $15,916 $2,785 $0 $3,740 $22,441 $13
Subtotal $937 $336 $2,542 $0 $3,815 $668 $0 $897 $5,379 $3
13.3 Site Facilities $153 $0 $161 $0 $314 $55 $0 $74 $443 $0
Subtotal $153 $162 $913 $0 $1,229 $215 $0 $289 $1,733 $1
Subtotal $0 $63 $50 $0 $112 $20 $0 $26 $158 $0
Total $131,779 $44,373 $100,001 $0 $276,154 $48,327 $29,814 $70,859 $425,154 $252
Retrofit Values $289,961 $50,743 $31,305 $74,402 $446,411 $265
135
The initial and annual O&M costs for an iron/steel retrofit site were calculated and are shown in
Exhibit 6-51 and Exhibit 6-52 for 99 percent and 90 percent capture, respectively, while Exhibit
6-53 shows the retrofit COC of the representative iron/steel plants at both capture rates.
Exhibit 6-51. Initial and annual O&M costs for iron/steel site with 99 percent capture
Case: Iron/Steel Cost Base: Dec 2018
Representative Plant Size: 2.54 M tonnes steel/year Capacity Factor (%): 85

Total: 4.6
Annual Cost
Administrative & Support Labor: $2,037,852 $1.10
Total: $29,359,868 $15.87
Consumables
Water (/1000 gallons): 0 2,397 $1.90 $0 $1,413,167 $0.90
Makeup and Waste Water Treatment 0 8.0 $550.00 $0
$1,369,239 $0.87
Chemicals (ton):
Triethylene Glycol (gal): w/equip. 743 $6.80 $0 $1,567,150 $1.00
Subtotal: $0 $8,182,530 $5.20
Waste Disposal
Subtotal: $0 $338,756 $0.22
Fuel Cost
Total: $0 $49,275,013 $31.33

2
136
Exhibit 6-52. Initial and annual O&M costs for an iron/steel retrofit site with 90 percent capture
Case: Iron/Steel Cost Base: Dec 2018
Representative Plant Size: 2.5 M tonnes steel/year Capacity Factor (%): 85

Total: 4.6
Annual Cost
Administrative & Support Labor: $1,910,289 $1.14
Total: $27,127,511 $16.12
Consumables
Water (/1000 gallons): 0 2,218 $1.90 $0 $1,307,481 $0.91
0 7.5 $550.00 $0 $1,276,955 $0.89
Chemicals (ton):
Triethylene Glycol (gal): w/equip. 676 $6.80 $0 $1,425,314 $1.00
Subtotal: $0 $7,645,197 $5.35
Waste Disposal
Subtotal: $0 $329,251 $0.23
Fuel Cost
Total: $0 $44,798,673 $31.32

2
Exhibit 6-53. COC for 2.54 M tonnes/year iron/steel retrofit cases
Component 99% capture COC, $/tonne CO2 90% capture COC, $/tonne CO2
Capital 27.8 28.0
Fixed 9.3 9.5
Variable 5.6 5.7
Purchased Power and Fuel 22.6 22.6
Total COC 65.4 65.9
137

An analysis of the sensitivity of retrofit COC to iron/steel plant capacity is shown in Exhibit 6-54.
As the plant capacity increases, more CO2 is available for capture, thus realizing economies of
Exhibit 6-54. Iron/steel plant capacity sensitivity
by independent modeling performed by the CCSI team at NETL and has been reported
independently in literature. [4] Exhibit 6-55 shows the error in the calculated capture system
BEC associated with the vendor’s quoted uncertainty rate (-25/+40 percent) alongside the
amount of CO2 captured in the cement case from 90 to 99 percent capture rate.
138
Exhibit 6-55. Iron/steel capture system BEC and amount of CO 2 captured versus capture rate
6.3.10 Iron/Steel Conclusion

The low purity CO2 streams produced in an iron/steel mill results in a higher COC when
compared to the high purity cases evaluated in this report, but the quantity of CO 2 to be
captured from such a process makes them attractive industrial processes for CCS as it would
represent a significant GHG reduction. Two CO2 capture and compression systems for a 2.54 M
tonnes/year integrated steel mill were modeled to estimate the COC of capturing CO2 from the
COG and BFS combined flue gas stream and from the COG PPS exhaust. The results showed the
COC of CO2 to be $65.4/tonne CO2 and $65.9/tonne CO2 for a retrofit site with 99 and 90
percent capture, respectively. No greenfield COC is calculated, as BOF steel mills are no longer
being constructed; thus, any application of CO2 capture in such a facility would be a retrofit
application.
The plant size sensitivity showed that as plant size decreased from 6.8 M tonnes/year to 0.5 M
tonnes/year of iron/steel production, the COC increased by $36.9/tonne CO2 and $37.6/tonne
CO2, for 99 and 90 percent capture, respectively. As the plant size is decreased, less CO2 is
produced, and economies of scale are lost, resulting in a higher COC. As demonstrated by the
resulting COCs and the sensitivity analysis, the normalized cost of 99 percent CO2 capture is less
than that of 90 percent capture.
139
7 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
7.1 ECONOMIC RESULTS
Exhibit 7-1 shows the COC results of each industry considered in this study. When comparing
high purity to low purity industrial sources, the former show lower COCs, as they require less
equipment (i.e., no capture unit or boiler) and consumables (i.e., no solvents or NG fuel and less
purchased power) than the low purity industrial sources. The low purity sources higher COC is
notable not only in the additional capital costs, but in the O&M and purchased power and fuel
costs as well. These cases require an industrial boiler, which is fueled by purchased NG, and the
CO2 capture systems add consumables and additional electrical auxiliary loads that increase
purchased power costs over that of high purity sources.
Exhibit 7-1. COC summary
Evaluating the capital portion of the COC for each source shows the effects of capital intensity.
The financial assumptions assumed in this report are industry specific. For instance, ethanol
financial factors suggest that ethanol facilities would incur higher capital intensity compared to
the cement, steel, and refining industries due to the return on equity and financing scenarios
prevalent within the ethanol production market. Another interesting observation regarding
capital intensity is the relationship between the EO and ethanol results. Although ethanol
presents a higher amount available CO2 for capture, its capital and power costs are higher than
EO. This is counter-intuitive to the notion of economies of scale but illustrates the role that
capture stream conditions (i.e., temperature, pressure, composition, and flow rate) plays on
capture costs. In the ethanol case, the pure CO2 stream must first be cooled, due to the high
temperature from the fermentation process, and then has a higher compression ratio
(compared to the EO case) to reach the required pipeline pressure of 2,200 psig. The additional
140
stage of compression and the additional HX impact the auxiliary load as well as the capital
expenditure.
Lastly, the CO2 available for capture is both process and market dependent. The process
emissions detailed for each case throughout the report are average constants; however, as each
individual market dictates production capacities, the total CO2 available from a plant could, with
increasing market demand (e.g., plant expansions, increased CF, etc.), drive down the COC for
that representative case. This trend could be estimated from the results of the plant size
sensitivities for each case, but it should be noted that these estimates, and the sensitivities to
plant size for each case, are dependent upon the assumption that equipment is available at any
and every capacity or rating. However, equipment is often manufactured in discrete sizes, which
would possibly affect the advantages of economies of scale and skew the results of the
estimates provided herein. A general observation made under the assumptions of this report is
demonstrated in the normalized COC elements and the total normalized COCs calculated: more
CO2 available results in lower normalized costs and realizes economies of scale.
7.1.1 Cost and Performance Summaries

The cost and performance results presented in this study are summarized in Exhibit 7-2 and
Exhibit 7-3 for the high purity and low purity cases, respectively. Of all cases examined in this
study, the lowest COC of $5.6/tonne CO2 is achieved in a representative CTL facility. There are
no CTL facilities currently in operation in the United States, but the low COC in such a facility
implies that any new builds would include carbon capture in its greenfield design.
Of the existing industrial plant types available in the United States, the lowest COC of
$16.1/tonne CO2 is indicated at a representative NGP facility. The amount of CO2 available for
capture in an NGP facility is dependent upon the raw gas CO2 content at the inlet of the plant.
Capture costs for such a facility account for costs of CO2 compression and cooling, based on the
design assumptions regarding the base NGP plant. Although COC would increase with
decreasing CO2 availability, it is expected that integrating CO2 capture for EOR would be feasible
in most NGP facilities since the AGR unit is often inherent to the facility design.
Of the low purity cases, which require CO2 purification (i.e., AGR units) along with compression
and cooling, the pre-combustion capture in the refinery hydrogen 99 percent capture case
represents the lowest COC at $57.3/tonne CO2. In pre-combustion capture units, variable costs
such as consumables, waste disposal, purchased power, and fuel are lower on a normalized
basis when compared to post-combustion capture applications. It should be noted that the pre-
combustion capture system described in Section 4.2.2 would not be installed for design capture
rates lower than approximately 99 percent. As such, the values reported for the 90 percent
capture rate in the refinery hydrogen case are meant for comparison purposes only and likely
represent a deviation from the optimal design operation.
141
Exhibit 7-2. Cost and performance summary comparison – high purity cases
Industrial Source Facilities
Ammonia EO Ethanol NGP CTL GTL
PERFORMANCE
Capacity Factor 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85%
394,000 364,500 50 M gallons 330 MMSCFD 50,000 barrels 50,000 barrels
Representative Plant Size
tonnes EO/year tonnes EO/year ethanol/year natural gas F-T liquids/day F-T liquids/day
CO₂ Captured (at 85% CF), tonnes/yearA 413,163 103,275 121,588 551,815 7,431,825 1,579,952
CO₂ Captured (at 85% CF), tonnes/hour 47 12 14 63 848 180
CO₂ Compressor Load, kW 5,770 1,180 1,810 6,010 43,480 6,700
Cooling Water Flowrate, gpm 2,994 673 1,098 3,479 25,172 3,823
Cooling Tower Duty, MMBtu/hour 30 7 11 35 252 38
COST
TPC, $/1,000 37,347 16,636 20,187 46,690 162,840 49,170
BEC 26,487 11,799 14,317 33,114 115,490 34,872
Home Office Expenses 4,635 2,065 2,505 5,795 20,211 6,103
Project Contingency 6,225 2,773 3,364 7,782 27,140 8,195
Process Contingency 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOC, $M 46 20 25 57 197 60
TOC, $/1,000 45,587 20,385 24,672 56,764 196,924 59,661
Owner's Costs 8,240 3,749 4,485 10,074 34,084 10,491
TASC, $/1,000 47,162 20,892 25,840 58,977 207,583 62,890
Capital Costs, $/tonne CO2 6.1 9.4 14.1 6.2 2.0 2.9
Fixed Costs, $/tonne CO2 3.9 9.8 9.2 3.4 0.7 1.2
Variable Costs, $/tonne CO2 2.7 1.7 1.7 1.5 0.3 0.3
Purchased Power and/or Fuel, $/tonne CO2 6.3 5.2 6.8 5.0 2.6 1.9
COC (ex. T&S), $/tonne CO2 19.0 26.0 31.8 16.1 5.6 6.4
ADue to simplification of BFDs and stream tables throughout the body of the report where minor process streams are omitted, actual CO2 captured as calculated in summary
tables may be slightly less than that calculated at the capture rates applied in each case. This is due primarily to trace amounts of CO2 entrained in water vapor generated during
dehydration. Such differences, where they appear, are not expected to have any meaningful impact on the key results of this study, as they account for less than 1 percent of the
CO2 generated by the emitter.
142
Exhibit 7-3. Cost and performance summary comparison – low purity cases
Industrial Source Facilities
Iron/Steel Iron/Steel
Refinery H2 99% Refinery H2 90% Cement 99% Cement 90%
(Retrofit) 99% (Retrofit) 90%
PERFORMANCE
Capacity Factor 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85%
87,000 tonnes 87,000 tonnes 1.29 M tonnes 1.29 M tonnes 2.54 M tonnes 2.54 M tonnes
Representative Plant Size
H2/year H2/year cement/year cement/year steel/year steel/year
CO₂ Captured (at 85% CF), tonnes/yearA 340,550 309,548 1,017,920 925,793 3,145,352 2,860,681
CO₂ Captured (at 85% CF), tonnes/hour 39 35 116 106 359 327
CO₂ Compressor Load, kW 3,470 3,160 10,460 9,570 32,330 29,410
Cooling Water Flowrate, gpm 11,367 9,757 50,096 46,356 154,873 143,309
Cooling Tower Duty, MMBtu/hour 11 10 20 18 61 56
COST
TPC, $/1,000 130,630 127,184 338,949 322,871 958,530 878,803
BEC 85,303 82,950 220,519 210,137 621,718 571,122
Home Office Expenses 14,928 14,516 38,591 36,774 108,801 99,946
Project Contingency 21,772 21,197 56,491 53,812 159,755 146,467
Process Contingency 8,627 8,520 23,348 22,148 68,257 61,268
TOC, $M 159 155 414 394 1,160 1,064
TOC, $/1,000 159,244 154,978 413,960 394,192 1,160,313 1,063,524
Owner's Costs 28,614 27,794 75,011 71,320 201,783 184,720
TASC, $/1,000 164,929 160,510 436,252 415,418 1,266,188 1,160,567
Capital Costs, $/tonne CO2 21.3 22.8 21.8 22.8 27.8 28.0
Fixed Costs, $/tonne CO2 14.4 15.6 10.6 11.1 9.3 9.5
Variable Costs, $/tonne CO2 5.1 5.3 5.9 6.1 5.6 5.7
Purchased Power and/or Fuel, $/tonne CO2 16.5 16.2 22.6 22.6 22.6 22.6
COC (ex. T&S), $/tonne CO2 57.3 59.9 60.8 62.7 65.4 65.9
ADue to simplification of BFDs and stream tables throughout the body of the report where minor process streams are omitted, actual CO2 captured as calculated in summary
tables may be slightly less than that calculated at the capture rates applied in each case. This is due primarily to trace amounts of CO2 entrained in water vapor generated during
dehydration. Such differences, where they appear, are not expected to have any meaningful impact on the key results of this study, as they account for less than 1 percent of the
CO2 generated by the emitter.
143
7.2 SENSITIVITY ANALYSES

In addition to the sensitivity analyses regarding plant capacities presented throughout Section 5
and Section 6 for each case, evaluations of the COC effects of varying assumptions made in this
report are presented in this section.
7.2.1 Capital Charge Factor

The CCFs used to estimate the capital portion of the COC for each case were determined by the
NETL Energy Markets Analysis Team and are market dependent. The financial assumptions are
detailed in Section 3.2, but those factors could vary depending on economic conditions, among
other aspects. For instance, changing payback period assumptions (i.e., 20-year payback period
instead of 30-year), debt-to-equity ratios, rates of return and taxes could each affect the capital
charge factor. Ultimately, the result of the financial assumptions would be applied as the capital
charge factor. As such, the COC for each case was evaluated across a range of CCFs of 5–35
percent (Exhibit 7-4).
Exhibit 7-4. COC vs. CCF
144
The results show that changing financial assumptions can have a very large effect on the COC. In
the high purity cases, the largest change when varying the CCF over a range of 5–35 percent is
observed in the ethanol case, where an increase of $60.9/tonne CO2 is noted. In the low purity
cases, the effect is larger, as the low purity cases require more capital investment due to the
need for AGR equipment. The largest COC increase in the low purity cases when varying the CCF
occurs in the refinery hydrogen cases, where a $140.3/tonne CO2 change in the COC is observed
for the 99 percent capture case and a $150.2/tonne CO2 increase is noted in the 90 percent
capture case.
The CCFs used for the high purity and low purity cases, details of which have been given
previously in Section 3.2, are representative of a project-specific CCF in each individual
industrial sector. In addition to the industrial sectors’ market influences on CCF, the maturity of
a technology, specifically a capture technology like the AGR units employed in this study, may
also affect the CCF. As capture systems are becoming more prevalent, and the project learning
curve has improved, the low end of the CCF sensitivity curve demonstrated in this analysis may
be a more reasonable representation.
7.2.2 Retrofit Factor

The retrofit factors used to estimate retrofit COC for each case, excluding CTL and GTL, were
applied as a multiplier to TPC. The basis for this methodology is detailed in Section 3.3, but such
an overall retrofit factor could vary depending on installation specifics, technology
considerations, existing site constraints, and other determinants. As such, the COC for each case
was evaluated across a retrofit factor range of 1.0–1.35, where the values corresponding to a
1.0 retrofit factor are indicative of a greenfield COC in each case (Exhibit 7-5).
145
Exhibit 7-5. COC vs. retrofit factor
Because the retrofit factors in this study are applied as a multiplier to TPC, the effect of varying
those factors across a range of values is an increasing COC with increasing retrofit factor for all
cases. An interesting observation from this sensitivity analysis is the differing slopes of the lines
between the low purity and high purity cases, meaning that the retrofit factors applied do not
have equal magnitude of effect on all cases. For instance, the change in COC for the high purity
cases ranged $3.3–7.1/tonne CO2 with increasing retrofit factor, whereas that of the low purity
cases ranged $11.9–13.3/tonne CO2. This is due to the higher capital costs required for purifying
the CO2 prior to compression creating a larger TPC, which is the figure that is affected by the
addition of the retrofit difficulty factor.
7.2.3 Purchased Power Price

The purchased power cost for each case is directly dependent upon the purchased power price
assumed. For each case, a $60/MWh price was used to estimate the purchased power costs, but
price can vary widely depending upon market scenario, location, economic conditions, fuel
pricing, and more. As such, the total COC for each case was estimated across a range of $20–
140/MWh purchased power price. Purchased power price increase has the most dramatic effect
in the cement and iron/steel cases, where an increase of $16.4/tonne CO2 is observed across
the sensitivity range (Exhibit 7-6).
146
Exhibit 7-6. COC vs. purchased power price
7.2.4 Natural Gas Price

The fuel cost required for the industrial boiler in each low purity case is directly dependent
upon the NG price assumed. For each case, $4.42/MMBtu was used for the NG price but can
vary widely depending upon market scenario, location, economic conditions, fuel availability, oil
prices, and more. As such, the total COC for each case was estimated across a fuel price range of
$3–10/MMBtu. NG price increase has the most dramatic effect in the iron/steel 90 percent
capture case, where an increase of $30.6/tonne CO2 is observed across the sensitivity range
(Exhibit 7-7).
147
Exhibit 7-7. COC vs. NG price
7.2.5 Capacity Factor

Average capacity factors at industrial plants are variable, due to market fluctuations,
differences in production cycles, operational upsets and planned shutdown
requirements, regulatory constraints, and more. An 85 percent CF was assumed for the
cases in this study, but it is important to consider how CFs affect the COCs calculated in
this analysis. As CF varies from 65 to 95 percent, the COC for each case decreases, most
notably in the Refinery H2 90 percent capture case where a $18.0/tonne CO2 decrease is
observed across the sensitivity range.
148
Exhibit 7-8. COC vs. CF
149
8 CONCLUSION
Nine different industrial sources were examined in this study: ammonia, EO, ethanol, NGP, CTL,
GTL, refinery hydrogen, cement, and iron/steel. Plant sizes were chosen based on different
factors, including representative plant sizes expected to be built or already built in the industry
(ammonia, refinery hydrogen), plant sizes representative of most of the production for the
industry (ethanol, steel/iron, EO, cement), or plant sizes that would justify the addition of
capture equipment (NGP). Plant sizes for CTL and GTL were determined based on those
presented in previous NETL studies. Both greenfield and retrofit application costs were
determined. The retrofit costs were derived by application of a retrofit factor to calculated total
greenfield plant cost.
The results of this study show that CTL gives the lowest greenfield COC for the CO 2 product, a
value of $5.6/tonne. This result is driven by the highly pure CO2 sources produced from the CTL
plant, as well as the largest amount of CO2 available for capture across the cases considered.
This combination of high availability coupled with high purity results in the lowest COC. The
costliest option for capturing CO2 in the group of industrial plants evaluated is iron/steel
production, with a retrofit cost of $65.4/tonne CO2 and $65.9/tonne CO2 at 99 and 90 percent
capture rates, respectively. The low purity CO2 emission streams from iron and steel mills
require purification equipment to attain EOR pipeline standards.
The greenfield COCs for the remaining cases fall in between the maximum and minimum cases
as follows: GTL at $6.4/tonne, NGP at $16.1/tonne, ammonia at $19.0/tonne, EO at 26.0/tonne,
ethanol at $31.8/tonne, refinery hydrogen with 99 percent capture at $57.3/tonne and with 90
percent capture at $59.9/tonne, and finally, cement at $60.8/tonne and $62.7/tonne for 99 and
90 percent capture, respectively. The assumed CO2 concentrations for GTL, NGP, EO, ammonia,
and ethanol were relatively high purity, either equivalent to or nearly the same purity as the
lowest-COC CTL case. The reason for the increasing COC given similar purity is related to the
amount of CO2 available for capture, or economies of scale.
Economies of scale have a notable impact when comparing 99 and 90 percent capture rates in
the low purity cases. On a normalized (i.e., $/tonne CO2) basis, COC appears lower for higher
capture rates in the refinery hydrogen, cement, and iron/steel analyses. This is also indicated in
the plant size sensitivity analyses for each low purity case. As discussed in Section 6.1.8, Section
6.2.8, and Section 6.3.8, capital and O&M costs rise with increasing capture rates, but as there is
more CO2 captured, those costs result in a lower normalized costs at higher capture rates as
presented. It is important to note that given the margin of error associate with the AACE Class 4
estimates applied in this study, and the margin of error assigned to the quotation from the
capture system vendor (-25/+40 percent), the change in normalized cost from 90 to 99 percent
is insignificant.
Sensitivity analyses of retrofit factor and purchased power price show minimal change in the
COC for all cases. The most noticeable sensitivity effect is observed with plant size (economy of
scale). For all cases, as the plant size is increased and, therefore, the amount of CO2 available for
capture increased, the COC decreased. The largest effect is observed with the iron/steel plant
size sensitivity, where the COC increased by $36.9/tonne CO2 and $37.6/tonne CO2, for 99 and
150
90 percent capture cases, respectively, was observed when plant size was varied over the range
of 0.5–6.8 M tonnes of steel per year. The base case production was 2.54 M tonnes of steel per
year. All sensitivity analyses were evaluated in isolation, and it is possible that if individual
design assumption changes were considered in combination, impacts on the COCs would
potentially differ from the additive values of each change in design assumption.
CO2 purity, as expected, plays a large role in the normalized COC; however, the amount of CO2
and, therefore, the varying economies of scale from one industrial process to another, also has a
dramatic effect on the cost of capturing CO2. This analysis evaluated potential decarbonization
opportunities in representative industrial plant applications, and the results show that capturing
CO2 can be cost-effective in the industrial sector, especially when a facility has two specific
emissions stream characteristics: 1) high CO2 purity so that further purification is not required,
and (2) large amounts of CO2 available.
151
9 FUTURE WORK
Future work in this area should look to plants with the characteristics of relatively high CO2
purity and large CO2 supply to expand upon the findings in the report. Potential
recommendations include plants where CO2 removal is inherent to the base plant process. A
perfect example of this is ammonia and urea production, where not only is CO2 removal crucial
for maximizing ammonia synthesis loop efficiency and, therefore, production, but also reuse of
the CO2 for producing urea justifies this removal and recycle. The following items are potential
future work that could expand on the analysis presented in this study.
9.1 IN-DEPTH PROCESS ANALYSIS

There are several opportunities where the results herein could be used as a starting point for a
more in-depth analysis of the industries covered in this study. For example, the ammonia case
does not account for in calculations how the base ammonia plant might allocate CO2 for reuse
in the urea or other derivative production processes. In addition, lesser products such as food-
grade liquid CO2, presumably captured from the high purity stripping vent point source, may
also affect the amount of CO2 available for capture from any one plant. The potential for food-
grade liquid CO2 also appears in the literature as an option for ethanol plants. These types of
lesser-known factors could be investigated to better frame the amount of CO2 available from
different industries.
In addition to alternate CO2 uses in the base plants, heat integration opportunities may exist,
especially in greenfield cases or in plants where combined heat and power systems are in place
or considered in the plant design. In retrofit cases, heat integration opportunities might increase
retrofit difficulty factors, affecting capital expenditures, but lessening O&M costs. The heat
requirements of the capture systems employed in the low purity cases analyzed in this study
elicit the need for a standalone boiler, as discussed in Section 4.3. The flue gas from this NG-
fired boiler contains additional CO2 emissions over that of the base process, which were not
captured based on the assumptions made in this analysis. Future work might consider an
additional capture process or a mixing of this flue gas stream with the base plant emissions
source to reduce those greenhouse gas emissions necessary for steam generation. Such
scenarios may be evaluated with a more in-depth process analysis.
9.2 MULTIPLE PROCESS SCENARIO

Many chemical plants have two or more of the processes discussed in this analysis at the same
industrial facility location. This could decrease the cost for CO2 capture and make some
processes more feasible when combined with others. Combining processes could be viewed
from the perspective of mixing flue gas streams to take advantage of the economy of scale of
building a single, larger capture unit, versus multiple smaller units, or from the perspective of
combining CO2 product streams in a larger trunk line to limit transport costs. Transport costs
were not considered in this study.
152
9.3 ADDITIONAL PROCESSES

Methanol and a variety of other commodity chemical manufacturing facilities could be potential
processes for consideration, assuming appropriate feedstock to justify capture. Additionally, as
mentioned in Section 6.1, the fluid catalytic cracking unit at refineries is another viable point
source for CO2 capture. This may be investigated separately, or it could be included as a multiple
process scenario, where the fluid catalytic cracking unit and the refinery hydrogen unit are
combined to take advantages of economies of scale.
Another means of hydrogen production that could be considered for decarbonation is hydrogen
from coal gasification. NETL recently evaluated the cost of capturing CO2 in hydrogen production
via gasification applications as part of the report “Comparison of Commercial, State-of-the-Art,
Fossil-Based Hydrogen Production Technologies.” [40] Lastly, only the BOF steel plant
configuration was considered in this study, but EAF plants make up 32 percent of steel
production in current industry and are expected to be the only greenfield steel plants to be
constructed. An analysis of EAF steel production for decarbonization would likely be impactful.
9.4 TECHNO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF CO2 DISTRIBUTION TO EOR

FIELDS
As stated previously in Section 4.1.2, pressures as low as 1,200 psig may be acceptable for EOR
field usage. Reducing the pressure to which CO2 needs to be compressed would reduce the
COC. A reduction in pressure would result in a lower compressor capital cost, as well as reduced
power consumption resulting in a lower cost associated with purchasing power from the grid.
The economics of CO2 transport with the existing pipeline infrastructure was not part of this
analysis but does contribute to the true COC.
9.5 LIFE EXTENSION COSTS FOR EXISTING FACILITIES

The implicit assumption for the cases presented in this report is that the plants that have been
retrofitted (i.e., cement, steel, etc.) have sufficient remaining life, such that the base plant
remaining life will match the expected life of the retrofitted equipment (i.e., capture system,
compression), assumed to be 30 years. This study does not consider, or include any costs to
represent, life extension projects that a plant (i.e., a cement plant) may consider if adding
capture and compression. Future work could include an analysis to identify the average age of
the various industry’s plants, characterize the standard expected life for these plants by
industry, and characterize the cost of typical life extension projects that would be considered as
part of a capture retrofit. This would allow for a more complete cost for a retrofit project, when
considering factors outside of just the capture and/or compression equipment.
153
10 REFERENCES
[1] NETL, "Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies: CO2 Impurity Design
Parameters," U.S. DOE/NETL, Pittsburgh, 2019.
[2] Shell, Proprietary Quote: CO2 Capture System, 2021.
[3] NETL, "Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies: Capital Cost Scaling
Methodology: Revision 4 Report," U.S. DOE/NETL, Pittsburgh, 2019.
[4] Y. Du, T. Gao, G. T. Rochelle and A. S. Bhown, "Zero- and negative-
emissions fossil-fired power plants using CO2 capture by conventional
aqueous amines," International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, vol.
111, October 2021.
[5] NETL, "Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Volume 1:
Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity," U.S. DOE/NETL, Pittsburgh,
2022.
[6] EPA, "Facility Level Information on Greenhouse Gases Tool (FLIGHT)," EPA,
2020. [Online]. Available:
https://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do#/facility/?q=Find%20a%20Facilit
y%20or%20Location&st=&bs=&et=&fid=&sf=11001100&lowE=-
20000&highE=23000000&g1=1&g2=0&g3=0&g4=0&g5=0&g6=0&g7=0&g8=
0&g9=0&g10=0&g11=0&g12=0&s1=0&s2=0&s3=1&s4=0&s5=0&s6=0&s7=0&s
8=0&s9=0&s10=0. [Accessed 3 September 2021].
[7] NETL, "Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies: Carbon Dioxide
Transport and Storage Costs in NETL Studies," U.S. DOE/NETL, Pittsburgh,
2019.
[8] NETL, "Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies: Process Modeling
Design Parameters," U.S. DOE/NETL, Pittsburgh, 2019.
[9] NETL, "Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies: Cost Estimation
Methodology for NETL Assessments of Power Plant Performance," U.S.
DOE/NETL, Pittsburgh, 2019.
[10] AACE International, Cost Estimate Classification System – As Applied in
Engineering, Procurement, and Construction for the Process Industries;
TCM Framework 7.3 – Cost Estimating and Budgeting, AACE International,
2005.
[11] Chemical Engineering, Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index, Access
Intelligence, LLC, Ed., 2021.
154
[12] Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), "Technical Assessment Guide

(TAG®) – Power Generation and Storage Technology Options, EPRI
Product ID No. 1017465," EPRI, Palo Alto, 2009.
[13] NETL, "Retrofit Cost Analysis for Post-combustion CO2 Capture," U.S.
DOE/NETL, Pittsburgh, 2021.
[14] NETL, "Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery: Untapped Domestic
Energy Supply and Long Term Carbon Storage Solution," U.S. DOE/NETL,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 2010.
[15] Shell, "The Quest for less CO2: Learning from CCS Implementation in
Canada," 2015. [Online]. Available:
https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/archive/hub/publications/196788/qu
est-less-co2-learning-ccs-implementation-canada.pdf. [Accessed 29
October 2021].
[16] CleaverBrooks, Quotation for Industrial Water Boiler, Pittsburgh:
CleaverBrooks, 2021.
[17] NETL, "Eliminating the Derate of Carbon Capture Retrofits," U.S. DOE/NETL,
Pittsburgh, 2021.
[18] R. Turton, W. Whiting, J. Shaeiwitz and D. Bhattacharyya, Analysis, Synthesis
and Design of Chemical Processes, New York: Pearson, 2018.
[19] Ammonia Industry, "Ammonia Capacity in North America," 5 August 2014.
[Online]. Available: https://ammoniaindustry.com/download-ammonia-
capacity-in-north-america/. [Accessed 19 May 2020].
[20] Coninck, Hellen, et. al, Carbon Capture and Storage in Industrial
Applications: Technology Synthesis Report., United Nations Industrial
Development Organization, 2010.
[21] K. Van Alphen, CO2 Capture: Industrial Sources - Global Technology
Roadmap for CCS in Industry, 2010.
[22] R. Strait and M. Nagvekar, "Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage in the
Nitrogen and Syngas Industries," Carbon Capture, no. January-February,
2010.
[23] T. Kuramochi, "CO2 Industries and Distributed Energy Systems: Possibilities
and Limitations," Kanagawa, Japan, 2011.
[24] P. Zakkour, "CCS Roadmap for Industry: High-purity CO2 sources," Carbon
Counts Company, UK, 2010.
[25] United Nations Industrial Development Organization, "Carbon Capture
and Storage in Industrial Applications: Technology Synthesis Report,"
UNIDO, 2010.
155
[26] D. K. van Alphen, "CO2 Capture: Industrial Sources Technology

Roadmap," IEAGHG Summer School, 2011.
[27] F. Mirasol, "US Chemical Profile: Ethylene Oxide," ICIS, 11 June 2007.
[Online]. Available: http://www.icis.com/Articles/2010/08/02/9380662/us-
chemical-profile-ethylene-oxide.html. [Accessed September 2021].
[28] Huang, "Ethylene Oxide Reactor System," jEO & Associates, 8 October
1999. [Online]. Available:
http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~ceng403/gr1599/finalreport3.html#details.
[Accessed September 2021].
[29] M. Rostam-Abadi, "Assessment of Carbon Capture and Sequestration
Options for Power Plants," Madison, Wisconsin, 2006.
[30] NETL, "Archer Daniels Midland Company: CO2 Capture from Biofuels
Production and Sequestration into the Mt. Simon Sandstone," U.S.
DOE/NETL, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 2011.
[31] Renewable Fuels Association (RFA), "Where is Ethanol Made?," RFA,
February 2021. [Online]. Available: https://ethanolrfa.org/where-is-
ethanol-made/. [Accessed 3 September 2021].
[32] DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, "Alternative Fuels
Data Center, Ethanol Production and Distribution," DOE, [Online].
Available: https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol_production.html.
[Accessed 15 May 2020].
[33] Y. Lu, D. Garner, C. Korose, S. Chen and M. Rostam-Abadi, "Inventory of
Industrial Stationary CO2 Emissions in the Illinois Basin," Illinois State
Geological Survey, Champaign, 2007.
[34] H. Karlsson and L. Bystrom, Global Status of BECCS Projects 2012, Australia:
Global CCS Institute, 2010.
[35] Y. Lin and S. Tanaka, "Ethanol Fermentation from Biomass Resources:
Current State and Prospects," Springer-Verlag, vol. 69, 2006.
[36] USDA, "Corn for Grain 2011 Production by County and Location of Ethanol
Plants as of March 8, 2012," 2012. [Online]. Available:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/CORN-FOR-GRAIN-PRODUCTION-BY-
COUNTY-AND-ETHANOL-PLANTS-2011_fig1_342421027. [Accessed 29
October 2021].
[37] Gas Research Institute, Variability of Natural Gas Composition in Select
Major Metropolitan Areas of the United States, Springfield: U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1992.
156
[38] NETL, "Baseline Technical and Economic Assessment of a Commercial

Scale Fischer-Tropsch Liquids Facility," U.S. DOE/NETL, Pittsburgh, 2014.
[39] NETL, "Analysis of Natural Gas-to Liquid Transportation Fuels via Fischer-
Tropsch," U.S. DOE/NETL, Pittsburgh, 2013.
[40] NETL, "Comparison of Commercial, State-of-the-Art, Fossil-Based Hydrogen
Production Technologies," U.S. DOE/NETL, Pittsburgh, 2021.
[41] DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, "Hydrogen
Production: Natural Gas Reforming," DOE, [Online]. Available:
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-natural-gas-
reforming. [Accessed 3 September 2021].
[42] Shell Canada, "Quest CCS Facility Captures and Stores Five Million Tonnes
of CO2 Ahead of Fifth Anniversary," Shell Canada, 10 July 2020. [Online].
Available: https://www.shell.ca/en_ca/media/news-and-media-
releases/news-releases-2020/quest-ccs-facility-captures-and-stores-five-
million-tonnes.html. [Accessed 7 September 2021].
[43] USGS, "National Minerals Information Center - Cement Statistics and
Information," January 2021. [Online]. Available:
https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2021/mcs2021-cement.pdf.
[Accessed 3 September 2021].
[44] Portland Cement Association, "Plant Information Summary," PCA, Skokie,
2019.
[45] Portland Cement Association, "Overview of the Cement Industry: Portland
Cement Association," December 2009. [Online]. Available:
http://www.cement.org/basics/cementindustry.asp. [Accessed 4
December 2012].
[46] Portland Cement Association, "History & Manufacture of Portland Cement:
Portland Cement Association," December 2009. [Online]. Available:
http://www.cement.org/basics/concretebasics_history.asp. [Accessed 4
December 2012].
[47] N. S. Hassan, "Techno-Economic Study of CO2 Capture Process for
Cement Plants," Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2005.
[48] Portland Cement Association (PCA), "Environmental Product Declaration:
Portland Cement," PCA, Skokie, 2021.
[49] D. Barker, S. Turner, P. Napier-Moore, M. Clark and J. Davison, "CO2
Capture in the Cement Industry," Energy Procedia, vol. 1, no. 1, 2009.
157
[50] EPA, "Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions," EPA, 2019. [Online].

Available: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-
emissions#colorbox-hidden. [Accessed 7 September 2021].
[51] World Steel Association, "World Steel in Figures," World Steel Association,
[Online]. Available: https://www.worldsteel.org/steel-by-
topic/statistics/steel-statistical-yearbook/World-Steel-in-Figures.html.
[Accessed 19 May 2020].
[52] D. E. Wiley, M. T. Ho and A. Bustamante, "Assessment of Opportunities for
CO2 Capture at Iron and Steel Mills: An Australian Perspective," 2011.
[53] Statista, "Ethylene oxide production in the United States from 1990 to 2019,"
Statista, 28 January 2022. [Online]. Available:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/974787/us-ethylene-oxide-production-
volume/. [Accessed 2 June 2022].
158
APPENDIX: CARBON BALANCES

Note: All convergence tolerance values in the tables within this appendix are calculated by
difference.
The carbon balancei for the ethanol case is shown in Exhibit A-1.
Exhibit A-1. Ethanol case carbon balance
Carbon In Carbon Out

kg/hr (lb/hr) kg/hr (lb/hr)
Fermentation Stream 4,457 (9,825) CO2 Captured Stream 4,457 (9,825)
Total 4,457 (9,825) Total 4,457 (9,825)
The carbon balance for the ammonia case is shown in Exhibit A-2.
Exhibit A-2. Ammonia case carbon balance

Stripping Vent 15,149 (33,398) CO2 Captured Stream 15,140 (33,379)
TEG Vent 9 (19)
Total 15,149 (33,398) Total 15,149 (33,398)
The carbon balance for the natural gas processing (NGP) case is shown in Exhibit A-3.
Exhibit A-3. NGP case carbon balance

TEG Vent 4 (9)
Total 26,266 (44,590) Total 26,226 (44,590)
The carbon balance for the ethylene oxide (EO) case is shown in Exhibit A-4.
iCarbon balances may show carbon content of minor process streams, including the CO2 entrained in the water vapor
vent from the TEG dehydration system and CO2 entrained in process water knockouts, that are not represented in the
block flow diagrams throughout the report body. These process streams were omitted from the report body for simplicity
and brevity. Cases where this simplification applies include ammonia, NGP, refinery H 2, iron/steel, and cement.
159
Exhibit A-4. EO case carbon balance

Rectisol Stream 3,785 (8,345) CO2 Captured Stream 3,785 (8,345)
Total 3,785 (8,345) Total 3,785 (8,345)
The carbon balance for the coal-to-liquids (CTL) case is shown in Exhibit A-5.
Exhibit A-5. CTL case carbon balance

Gasification AGR Unit 110,862 (244,411) CO2 Captured Stream 272,397 (600,525)
FT AGR Unit 161,536 (356,114)
Total 272,397 (600,525) Total 272,397 (600,525)
The carbon balance for the gas-to-liquids (GTL) case is shown in Exhibit A-6.
Exhibit A-6. GTL case carbon balance

Total 57,905 (127,665) Total 57,905 (127,665)
The carbon balance for the refinery hydrogen case with 99 percent capture is shown in Exhibit
A-7.
Exhibit A-7. Refinery hydrogen case with 99 percent capture carbon balance
SMR Off-Gas Stream 16,102 (35,499) CO2 Captured Stream 12,480 (27,513)
Amine Recycle 405 (893) TEG Vent 1 (2)
Gas to PSA 3,543 (7,812)
Recycle 378 (832)
Process Knockout Entrainment 106 (233)
Total 16,507 (36,392) Total 16,507 (36,392)
The carbon balance for the refinery hydrogen case with 90 percent capture is shown in Exhibit
A-8.
160
Exhibit A-8. Refinery hydrogen case with 90 percent capture carbon balance
SMR Off-Gas Stream 16,102 (35,499) CO2 Captured Stream 11,343 (25,008)
Amine Recycle 368 (811) TEG Vent 6 (14)
Gas to PSA 4,675 (10,307)
Recycle 378 (832)
Process Knockout Entrainment 67 (149)
Total 16,470 (36,310) Total 16,470 (36,310)
The carbon balance for the iron/steel case coke oven gas (COG)/blast furnace stove (BFS) stream
with 99 percent capture is shown in Exhibit A-9.
Exhibit A-9. Iron/steel case COG/BFS stream with 99 percent capture carbon balance
COG Stream 27,380 (60,363) CO2 Captured Stream 57,475 (126,710)
BFS Stream 30,704 (67,690) TEG Vent 10 (23)
Clean Flue Gas 599 (1,320)
Total 58,084 (128,053) Total 58,084 (128,053)
The carbon balance for the iron/steel case COG/BFS stream with 90 percent capture is shown in
Exhibit A-10.
Exhibit A-10. Iron/steel case COG/BFS stream with 90 percent capture carbon balance
COG Stream 27,380 (60,363) CO2 Captured Stream 52,273 (115,242)
BFS Stream 30,704 (67,690) TEG Vent 9 (21)
Clean Flue Gas 5,802 (12,790)
Total 58,084 (128,053) Total 58,084 (128,053)
The carbon balance for the steel case COG power plant stack (PPS) stream with 99 percent
capture is shown in Exhibit A-11.
161
Exhibit A-11. Steel case COG PPS stream with 99 percent capture carbon balance
COG PPS Stream 58,400 (128,751) CO2 Captured Stream 57,788 (127,400)
TEG Vent 10 (23)
Clean Flue Gas 602 (1,328)
Total 58,400 (128,751) Total 58,400 (128,751)
The carbon balance for the steel case COG PPS stream with 90 percent capture is shown in
Exhibit A-12.
Exhibit A-12. Steel case COG PPS stream with 90 percent capture carbon balance
COG PPS Stream 58,400 (128,751) CO2 Captured Stream 52,558 (115,870)
TEG Vent 9 (21)
Total 58,400 (128,751) Total 58,400 (128,751)
The carbon balance for the cement 99 percent capture case is shown in Exhibit A-13.
Exhibit A-13. Cement 99 percent capture case carbon balance

Kiln Off-Gas Stream 37,697 (83,108) CO2 Captured Stream 37,302 (82,237)
TEG Vent 7 (15)
Clean Flue Gas 389 (857)
Total 37,697 (83,108) Total 37,697 (83,108)
The carbon balance for the cement 90 percent capture case is shown in Exhibit A-14.
Exhibit A-14. Cement 90 percent capture case carbon balance

Kiln Off-Gas Stream 37,697 (83,108) CO2 Captured Stream 33,926 (74,794)
TEG Vent 6 (13)
Total 37,697 (83,108) Total 37,697 (83,108)
162
www.netl.doe.gov
Albany, OR • Anchorage, AK • Morgantown, WV • Pittsburgh, PA • Sugar Land, TX
(800) 553-7681

Cost of Capturing Co From Industrial Sources: July 15, 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cost of Capturing Co From Industrial Sources: July 15, 2022

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cost of Capturing Co From Industrial Sources: July 15, 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COST OF CAPTURING CO2

FROM INDUSTRIAL SOURCES

July 15, 2022

Sydney Hughes1,2: Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal Analysis, Writing –

*Corresponding contact: [email protected], 304-285-1341

The authors wish to acknowledge the excellent guidance, contributions, and

Timothy Fout, Technical Lead, Energy Process Analysis Team

This page intentionally left blank.

5.1.9 Plant Capacity Sensitivity Analysis ......................................................... 42

5.5.1 Size Range................................................................................................ 68

6.2.3 Design Input and Assumptions ............................................................... 99

10 References .......................................................................................................... 154

Exhibit 5-11. EO CO2 capture BFD ............................................................................. 45

Exhibit 6-2. CO2 capture BFD ..................................................................................... 84

Exhibit A-6. GTL case carbon balance ................................................................... 160

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

NaOH Sodium hydroxide SCR Selective catalytic reduction

Exhibit ES-1. Industrial sources of CO2 case summary

Base Plant CO2 Available for Capture

364,500 Acid gas removal CO2

High Ethanol 50 M gal/year Fermenter off-gas: 17.40 psia 0.143

Gas-to-Liquids 50,000 BPD AGR CO2 stream: 265 psia 1.86

Refinery Raw syngas from SMR: 399.9

$ 𝑇𝑂𝐶 ∗ 𝐶𝐶𝐹 + 𝐹𝑂𝑀 + 𝑉𝑂𝑀 + 𝑃𝐹 + 𝑃𝑃 Equation ES-1

Exhibit ES-2. COC from industrial sources

Fixed Variable Purchased

Refinery 90% Capture 22.8 15.6 5.3 16.2 59.9 61.7

Note: Marker size is relatively indicative of CO2 captured (tonnes/year).

Exhibit ES-5. U.S. industrial CO2 emissions by industry

U.S. Total CO2 Emissions in 2020

$ 𝑇𝑂𝐶 ∗ 𝐶𝐶𝐹 + 𝐹𝑂𝑀 + 𝑉𝑂𝑀 + 𝑃𝐹 + 𝑃𝑃 Equation 1-1

Exhibit 1-1. Process design assumptions

2 PLANT SITES AND CO2 END-USE

3 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OVERVIEW

3.1 COST ESTIMATING METHODOLOGY

3.1.1 Capital Costs

Exhibit 3-1. Capital cost levels and their elements

3.1.1.1 Cost Estimate Basis and Classification

3.1.1.2 System Code-of-Accounts

3.1.1.3 Price Fluctuations

3.1.1.4 Owner’s Costs

Exhibit 3-2. Estimated amounts for owner’s costs

Owner’s Cost Estimated Amount

Owner’s Cost Estimated Amount

3.1.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs

3.1.2.1 Operating Labor

3.1.2.2 Maintenance Material and Labor

3.1.2.3 Administrative Support and Labor

3.1.2.5 Waste Disposal

3.2 CAPITAL CHARGE FACTORS

Exhibit 3-3. Financial assumptions for high purity sources

Financial Parameter Ammonia EO Ethanol NGP CTL/GTL

Exhibit 3-4. Financial assumptions for low purity sources

3.3 RETROFIT FACTORS

4.1.1 Reciprocating Compressor

Exhibit 4-1. Reciprocating compressor cases specifications

Number of Inlet Flow to Suction Suction Discharge

4.1.2 Centrifugal Compressor

Exhibit 4-2. Integrally geared centrifugal compressor cases specifications