Add heat, reduce risk

While a range of carbon capture (CC) technologies are available to the cement industry, the costs and risks involved are significant. We caught up with Burcin Temel Mckenna, Global Head of Carbon Capture, to discuss the benefits of an integrated amine-based solution. For more detailed insights, download our technical paper.

facebook linkedin twitter

Carbon capture is a complex technology. Can you help simplify it for me?

Carbon capture is an energy demanding technology, whether we use cryogenics, amines, or hot potassium carbonate. In the case of amines, to separate CO₂ from the amine solution, you need to be able to heat it until the CO₂ gas stream and the liquid solvent can be recovered. The overall amount of energy needed to strip CO₂ from the solvent is very large.

Depending on the facility, there might be available energy present. Being able to integrate that existing excess energy from the facility into the capture unit improves the capital expenditure (CAPEX) and operating expenditure (OPEX) of the project, as well as being significant from a sustainability perspective.

This type of medium to high temperature heat needed is usually not available at cement plants. Can you explain how to overcome this challenge?

That's right. If you were establishing a carbon capture plant on, for example, a biomass or waste-to-energy power plant, you would instantly have access to high temperature steam that could be used as a heat source for the carbon capture unit. At a cement plant, there are other streams at a lower temperature. That is where innovative technologies such as a waste heat recovery unit can help collect the energy from that low temperature stream so it can be used in the carbon capture process.

There are also more advanced solvents available now. What kind of advantages do they offer?

There are widely used amine types, like MEA, that have been used for many years, but now there are new advanced types available that include more complex chemicals to capture more CO₂ per unit volume. They have a lower degradation rate, meaning that the carbon capture is more effective while less amines are lost during operation. Usually, the amine solution needs to be replenished continuously, meaning that the new types of amines can help reduce the operational expenditure even though they might cost more initially. Many of these are proprietary amines, so independent testing is not always possible, and it is necessary to rely on the data sheets provided by the manufacturers.

“Being able to integrate existing excess energy from the facility into the capture unit improves the CAPEX and OPEX of the project, as well as being significant from a sustainability perspective.”

Burcin Temel Mckenna

Global Head of Carbon Capture, Ramboll

What other innovative technologies can help carbon capture plants achieve efficiency improvements?

There are many different technologies that can be used to make efficiency improvements, but these often involve an initial CAPEX investment. So, it is up to the client to decide how they want to balance their CAPEX and OPEX. We discuss some of the very technical step changes that can be made in our paper, so I recommend anyone interested in the technical details to download it. Innovative technologies, like heat pumps, can help recover energy from low temperature streams, and this heat can in turn be used to power the carbon capture process. It is a proven technology but is still new when it comes to use in industrial operations.

The cooling systems are needed at different stages of the carbon captured process. Water-based cooling is more effective, but it depends on the environmental permits that the plant has. Otherwise, air coolers can be a feasible option.

I guess there is always an element of risk when trying to finetune your process and introduce new technologies. What would you say is the best way to mitigate this risk?

There are different types of risks. One is the technology risk, where you need to assess which to choose. As we discussed, it could be choosing an air cooler system over a water one, or deciding which heat pump better suits the specific system. Next, is the risk around how to execute the project. For a cement plant, the carbon capture technology and EPC providers originate from the oil and gas industries where there is a very particular way of working. So, it is about bringing experience from very different industries and configuring it at the standards, quality, and cost that fits the cement industry.

The biggest risk is, of course, the financial risk. It is difficult to predict unforeseen engineering or supply chain related costs, as well as market expectations. With EPC companies and technology providers, there are ways to structure the project so that each party can minimise the risk on their own part so that risk for the whole plant is reduced.

In all, there are a lot of structural and financial risk considerations while executing the carbon capture plant. I really recommend accessing the more detailed paper to learn much more!

Download paper

Want to know more?

Burçin Temel McKenna
Global Head of Carbon Capture
+45 51 61 40 19

View all

6 tips to de-risk carbon capture at cement plants

Carbon capture utilisation and storage (CCUS) helps cement producers when it comes to closing in on decarbonisation, but its adoption is challenged by technical and commercial risks. Here are our expert’s top 6 tips to manage risks using well-tested project delivery models.

A new procurement challenge for the cement industry

Project procurement is considered one of the biggest challenges to implementing CCUS in the cement industry. We caught up with Burcin Temel Mckenna, Global Head of Carbon Capture at Ramboll, to understand why.

6 tips to de-risk carbon capture at cement plants

A new procurement challenge for the cement industry

Let’s decarbonise cement with carbon capture

By scaling carbon capture technogologies, we can decarbonise the cement industry and our world to achieve net zero emissions

Discover more