article · International Journal of Sustainable Energy
Capturing carbon dioxide from power plant emissions is an essential approach for reducing global warming. This review evaluates recent engineering advances across three main post-combustion capture methods: absorption, membrane separation, and adsorption. Each approach is assessed on the basis of energy consumption, overall costs, and carbon dioxide recovery levels, covering both fundamental operational mechanisms and recent technical refinements. By comparing single-stage, multi-stage, and hybrid configurations, the study identifies two-stage hybrid designs as the most promising operational route. These integrated setups achieve high performance standards, reaching carbon dioxide purity levels of at least 95 mole percent and recovery rates of at least 97 mole percent while lowering energy requirements and operational costs. Nevertheless, further detailed techno-economic assessments remain necessary to pinpoint the single most viable two-stage hybrid design.
Fossil-fuelled power stations remain major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Evaluating and refining post-combustion capture systems helps identify configurations that lower energy penalties and operating expenses. Demonstrating how hybrid technologies can reliably achieve very high capture purity and recovery provides a clearer technical pathway towards reducing industrial emissions sustainably.
This work directly targets fossil-fuel power plant operators and industrial emitters needing to capture flue gas emissions cost-effectively. The technology sits at a development stage where hybrid configurations show strong process viability, yet require comprehensive techno-economic analyses before commercial deployment. Clarifying these economic parameters will help technology vendors determine the best combination of absorption, adsorption, and membrane units for industrial-scale adoption.
AI-generated from the published abstract. Always read the original work before citing.
ABSTRACTA comprehensive review of recent process developments in the field of post-combustion carbon dioxide (CO2) capture from power plant flue gases is presented in this article. Different types of technologies for post-combustion CO2 capture namely: Absorption, Membrane, and Adsorption (AMA), were evaluated based on their CO2 recovery, energy efficiency, and cost. The study examines the fundamentals of each process, including their advantages and limitations, and highlights the recent advancements made in these areas. Specifically, the paper provides an overview of developments in each process area and discusses the development of new process configurations and the optimisation of existing ones with a view to identify the optimal process route. The two-stage-hybrid configurations were identified as the optimal process configurations that will meet the required needs in terms of energy efficiency, cost savings, and the desired CO2 purity and recovery of ≥95mol% and ≥97mol% respectively. However, techno-economic analyses are still needed to identify the best configuration. Thus the review concludes by emphasising the need for further research and development on techno-economic analyses to identify the best configuration in the two-stage-hybrid options for post-combustion carbon capture technology to be viable for commercialisation. HighlightsClimate change results from global warming caused by CO2 emissions, mainly from fossil fuel power plants.Post-combustion CO2 capture technologies involve absorption, adsorption, and membrane separations.The CO2 capture process configurations can be single-stage, multi-stage, or hybridThe combined two-stage-hybrid configurations were found to be the optimal process route for post-combustion CO2 capture in terms of CO2 recovery/purity, energy efficiency, and cost savings.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.1080/14786451.2024.2317137
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.
