See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/319411831

Carbon Capture and Utilization in the Industrial Sector

Article in Environmental Science and Technology · August 2017

DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b01723

CITATIONS READS

81 1,540

6 authors, including:

Peter.C. Psarras Stefan Reichelstein

University of Pennsylvania Stanford University
32 PUBLICATIONS 1,103 CITATIONS 122 PUBLICATIONS 4,594 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jennifer Wilcox
Southern New Hampshire University
163 PUBLICATIONS 8,716 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Utilization of mineral carbonation products: current state and potential View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Peter.C. Psarras on 22 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Article

pubs.acs.org/est

Carbon Capture and Utilization in the Industrial Sector

Peter C. Psarras,† Stephen Comello,‡ Praveen Bains,§ Panunya Charoensawadpong,§
Stefan Reichelstein,‡ and Jennifer Wilcox*,†
†
Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado 80401, United States
‡
Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, United States
§
Department of Energy Resources Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, United States
*
S Supporting Information

ABSTRACT: The fabrication and manufacturing processes of industrial

commodities such as iron, glass, and cement are carbon-intensive, accounting
for 23% of global CO2 emissions. As a climate mitigation strategy, CO2 capture
from flue gases of industrial processesmuch like that of the power sector
has not experienced wide adoption given its high associated costs. However,
some industrial processes with relatively high CO2 flue concentration may be
viable candidates to cost-competitively supply CO2 for utilization purposes
(e.g., polymer manufacturing, etc.). This work develops a methodology that
determines the levelized cost ($/tCO2) of separating, compressing, and
transporting carbon dioxide. A top-down model determines the cost of
separating and compressing CO2 across 18 industrial processes. Further, the study calculates the cost of transporting CO2 via
pipeline and tanker truck to appropriately paired sinks using a bottom-up cost model and geo-referencing approach. The results
show that truck transportation is generally the low-cost alternative given the relatively small volumes (ca. 100 kt CO2/a). We
apply our methodology to a regional case study in Pennsylvania, which shows steel and cement manufacturing paired to suitable
sinks as having the lowest levelized cost of capture, compression, and transportation.

■ INTRODUCTION
The capture of CO2 from flue gases is viewed as one potential
paper, refining, silicon carbide manufacturing, soda ash
production, titanium oxide, and zinc smelting (Figure 1).
Industrial processes often yield exhaust streams containing
instrument to reduce global CO2 emissions. In terms of
higher CO2 content than the flue exhausts from fossil-fuel fired
research, development and deployment, most of the existing
electricity production (e.g., coal and natural gas). It is generally
work on carbon capture has focused on fossil-fuel based power
accepted that there is an inverse relationship between cost of
generation (coal and natural gas). Yet abatement from CO2 separation and initial dilution of a mixed feed stream.4,5 As
industrial emissions has been largely overlooked, ignoring a a consequence, carbon capture from industrial processes may
substantial source of carbon dioxide. In 2013, the global offer more economical abatement than what is projected in
industrial sector emitted approximately 5.5 gigatonnes of similar applications within the power sector.
carbon dioxide (GtCO2), or 23% of total global CO2 emissions1 To assess the economic potential of carbon capture applied
(see Supporting Information (SI) Figure S1 for U.S. break- to EIPs, this study provides a cost analysis that aggregates the
down).2 These emissions are the byproduct of the production three major components of the carbon capture supply chain:
of commodities such as glass, cement, ammonia, and steel separation, compression, and transport. We estimate the full
materials that form the essential fabric of the modern economy economic cost, referred to as the levelized cost of CO2
(2). To date, these commodities have few viable substitutes. separation (in dollars per tonne of CO2 captured). We then
Further, unlike the electricity sector, where mitigation can be employ a geo-referencing approach, which links industrial
achieved through a shift to cleaner, low-carbon energy sources sources to current and potential future CO2 sinks (utilization
such as wind or solar, there are no economic pathways that lead opportunities), to identify least cost pathways for abatement,
to zero CO2 emissions for most industrial commodity given a local mix of supply and demand.6 The aim is to classify
manufacturing. While overall production from such Essential these EIPs based on economic viability for carbon capture,
Industrial Processes (EIPs) has declined in the U.S., it is which is ultimately a combination of industry- and site-specific
projected to increase globally 45−60% by 2050 to meet the factors. Overall, our study identifies opportunities for CO2
demands of a rising global population and economic activity.3
We identify the following processes (products) as EIPs: Received: April 5, 2017
aluminum, ammonia synthesis, mixed carbonate use, cement, Revised: August 17, 2017
biofuels (e.g., ethanol), ferroalloys, glass, iron and steel, lead, Accepted: August 31, 2017
lime, magnesium, petrochemicals, phosphoric acid, pulp and Published: August 31, 2017

© XXXX American Chemical Society A DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b01723

Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Environmental Science & Technology Article

Figure 1. National distribution of essential industrial processes. Graduated symbols denote potential CO2 capture volume (at 90% capture rate).

Table 1. Chemistry and Scale of U.S. Essential Industrial Processes.a

CO2 (Mt/a)
commodity chemistry process combinedb
aluminum 2Al 2O3 + 3C → 4Al + 3CO2 2.79 3.33
ammonia 0.88CH4 + 1.26air + 1.24H 2O → 0.88CO2 + N2 + 3H 2 14.67 24.40
carbonates Ca/MgCO3 + heat → Ca/MgO + CO2 0.48 1.48
cement CaCO3 + heat → CaO + CO2 65.79 68.22
ethanol C6H12O6 + yeast → 2C2H5OH + 2CO2 + heat 40.80 40.80
ferroalloys Fe2O3 + 2SiO2 + 7C → 2FeSi + 7CO 2.09 2.13
Fe2O3 + 2MnO + 5C → 2FeMn + 5CO
Fe2O3 + 2CrO + 5C → 2FeCr + 5CO
glass various components + heat → CO2 + glass 1.18 5.34
iron and steel 2C + O2 → 2CO 30.71 83.03
3CO + Fe2O3 → 2Fe + 3CO2
lead 2PbO + C → 2Pb + CO2 0.75 1.06
lime CaCO3 + heat → CaO + CO2 18.94 38.37
magnesium 2MgO + C → 2Mg + CO2 0.71 0.71
petrochemicals C2H4 + 3O2 → 2H 2O + 2CO2 15.73 80.14
H3PO4 CaCO3 + H 2SO4 + H 2O → CaSO4 · 2H 2O + CO2 1.72 2.72
pulp and paper wood organics + O2 → CO2 ; CaCO3 + heat → CaO + CO2 121.96 143.33
refining CH1.33O0.43 + 0.26O2 → 0.65CH1.12 + 0.27H 2O + 0.34CO2 69.34 188.05
SiC SiO2 + 3C → SiC + 2CO 0.12 0.12
soda ash 2Na 2CO3 ·NaHCO3 ·2H 2O → 3Na 2CO3 + 5H 2O + CO2 1.40 5.44
TiO2 2FeTiO3 + 7Cl 2 + 3C → 2TiCl4 + 2FeCl3 + 3CO2 1.44 2.47
zinc ZnO + CO → Zn + CO2 0.63 0.69
total 391.25 691.84
a
Source: EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, 2014. bCombined emissions = process + stationary combustion.

emission reductions from industrial sources. The availability of an overall economy perspective.7 Because prices from current
low cost capture opportunities in a particular region may lead CO2 sources such as natural reservoirs and select industrial
to an expanded CO2 commodity market, potentially displacing facilities are low ($7/tCO2 to $25/tCO2),8 public policy in the
carbon dioxide production from natural reservoirs and/or form of carbon regulations and/or pricing may ultimately have
specialty chemical manufacturing facilities. This replacement to play a supportive role in enabling the kind of market we
would have the effect of reducing overall CO2 emissions from examine in this study.
B DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b01723
Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Environmental Science & Technology Article

Table 2. Minimum Work and Sherwood-Derived Separation/Capture Cost Estimations for Various Industries
CO2 content min. work (kJ/mol CO2 estimated cost (US$/tCO2 literature estimates (2016 US$/tCO2
source (mol %)a ref Captured)b captured) captured) ref
aluminum 4−10 6, 19, 20 8.2−10.8 45.8−65.6 68.2c,d − 76.3c,e 21
ammonia 30−99.9+ 22 0.0−5.0 0.0f − 29.0 21.2c,g 23
carbonates 20 24 6.2 36.0
cement 14−33 25, 26 4.7−7.3 28.1−39.2 57.3c,g, 68.4c,g, 54.8h − 95.3i, 23, 27,
28
ethanol 99.9+ 29 0.0 0.0f 12.7j 30
(biofuels)
ferroalloys 8−10 31−33 8.3−8.9 46.3−50.6
glass 7−12 31, 34 7.7−9.3 44.4−54.9
iron and steel 20−27 25, 35 5.5−6.2 31.4−34.2 21.7k − 24.4k, 32.6l − 44.0l, 57.3c,g 23, 36,
37
lead 15 38 7.1 40.5
lime 20 31 6.2 34.4
magnesium 15 31, 39 7.1 40.7
petrochemicals 30−99.9+ 35, 40 0.0−5.0 0.0f − 28.6
pulp and paper 8 41 8.9 48.0 31.1m − 35.0m 61.7n 42, 43
refining 3−20 44, 45 6.2−11.7 33.5−70.4 44.8o, 57.0p, 92.8q 45−47
silicon carbide 8 48 8.9 51.4
soda ash 36−40 49 4.0−4.4 25.6−26.7
TiO2 13 50 7.5 41.2
zinc 15 38 7.1 40.2
natural gas 3−5 10, 40 10.3−11.7 57.2−69.9 76.3r 51
petroleum 3−8 10, 25 8.9−11.7 47.0−69.0
coal 10−15 40, 52, 7.1−8.3 36.5−42.7 37.1−54.6s 54
53
a
Range in composition due to different processes or different capture points within the same process. When not directly reported, values were
estimated from a complete mass balance assuming NG fuel and 15% excess air. bCalculated assuming 99.5% purity and 90% capture, ref 10. cIncludes
cost of compression. dCalculated at 10% CO2 purity. eCalculated at 4% CO2 purity. fFor near pure streams, separation costs are considered in the
compression and dehydration stage. gIncludes costs for transport and storage. hOxycombustion. iPostcombustion MEA. jIncludes compression and
dehydration. kSelexol capture from the blast furnace. lPostcombustion capture from blast furnace; mCapture using precombustion shift technology.
n
Amine capture from boiler. oPCC from gasifier exhaust. pSMR with CCS, cost avoided. qPCC on combined stack (9% CO2), cost avoided. rMEA
PCC, 90% efficiency, cost avoided. sPCC from supercritical pulverized coal, includes compression.

■ MATERIALS AND METHODS

Estimating the Levelized Cost of CO2 Capture for
[$/tCO2], LCT is the levelized cost of CO2 transportation
[$/tCO2].
Utilization. We calculate the full economic cost of carbon Generally, the cost of separation represents 60−80% of the
dioxide capture for utilization by using the general levelized total LCO2, with the cost of transportation being the most
product cost concept introduced in refs 7 and 9. Specifically, we variable component based on the distance between source and
refer to LCO2 as the levelized cost, measured in dollars per sink. We now describe the calculation of each of these cost
tonne of CO2 of separating/capturing, compressing and components.
transporting CO2. Our model does not include storage costs, Levelized Cost of CO2 Separation. An inventory of the
because our end route is CO2 utilization, not geologic storage. reactions for each EIP is provided in Table 1. These industrial
This cradle-to-gate approach assigns all costs associated with processes can produce exhaust streams with higher CO2
utilization (e.g., further sweetening for use as a feedstock or content than power generation (typically 4−35% concen-
injection in the case of EOR) to the sink operator. The LCO2 tration), a factor that lends to a lower theoretical minimum
metric considers all fixed, variable and capacity related costs, in work of separation10 (see SI). Though the ratio of minimum
addition to discount rates and the effect of corporate income work to real work (embodied in the second-law efficiency)
taxes, that must be incurred in order to deliver one tonne of scales nonlinearly with dilution, CO2 separation costs are
purified CO2. The LCO2 concept is modular by construction generally found to be inversely related to the CO2 purity of the
and thus can be calculated for each element the carbon dioxide treated stream. This principle was first illustrated in the works
value chain (separation, compression and transport). The of Thomas Sherwood, whereby the market price of various
LCO2 is essentially a break-even metric, that is, the average minerals were shown to scale inversely with concentration of
price that would need to be received per tonne of CO2 over the that mineral.11 Naturally, a single-parameter model is blind to
lifetime of a facility to achieve a net present value of zero on the several distinguishing process characteristics, such as separation
initial investment in equipment and facilities. The three technology or stream impurities. However, in a CO2 separation
components of the levelized cost of CO2 capture and utilization process, the balance of energy consumption (and thus cost)
are represented formally as resides in the first steps of physical separation and−when
LCO2 = LCS + LCC + LCT applicable−regeneration of the separating agent. For these f irst-
(1)
step dominant processes, energy and cost is shown to be most
where LCS is the levelized cost of CO2 separation from flue gas sensitive to target dilution, hence the effectiveness of the single-
[$/tCO2], LCC is the levelized cost of CO2 compression parameter Sherwood approach, and its continued use in cost
C DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b01723
Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Environmental Science & Technology Article

modeling.4,12−14 We expand upon this principle to build a cost costs (including fuel and electricity) and operational conditions.
model based on current capture costs and conditions. Given Analysis of model sensitivity to several factors has been
cost estimates for CO2 capture technologies from power conducted and is presented in the SI. Moreover, Sherwood
generation, we use the Integrated Environmental Control estimates align with processes with relatively low energy penalty
Module (IECM)15 to calibrate the model. Specifically, the and should be considered a lower bound in instances that
IECM provides estimates for the facility and operating costs deviate from this system design.16 As an example, compare
(including fuel costs) of electricity generation and carbon oxyfiring with calcium loopingshown to integrate well in
dioxide capture equipment for natural gas combined cycle cement facilitiesagainst PCC MEA capture.17,18
(NGCC), subcritical pulverized coal (PC) and integrated Levelized Cost of CO2 Compression. The IECM also
gasification combined cycle (IGCC) systems of various provides estimates for the equipment and operating costs
capacities (net power outputs), capture efficiencies and flow required to compress separated CO2. It is understood that the
rates. Based on the methodology described and data provided CO2 product is H2O saturated and compression costs include
in the SI, these model output costs are used to determine the dehydration. To calculate the LCC as a function of capture
levelized cost of separation, LCS, for each combination of efficiency and flow rate (similar to the calculation of LCS), the
generation technology, peak capacity, capture efficiency, and procedure for NGCC, PC and IGCC outlined above is
flow rate. In this study, 24 estimates of LCS (and LCC, repeated, however this time with compression equipment
discussed in the next section) were generated, based on the present. The capacity and operational costs calculated for
three generation technologies (NGCC, PC, IGCC), two separation are subtracted from the corresponding values that
capacities each (large and small) and four capture rate (90%, include both separation and compression costs. Using the total
80%, 70%, 60%). These estimates became the basis for a cost mass of CO2 separated for each calibrating case, we determine
equation using a multivariate regression, with LCS as the the LCC. Finally, in the same approach using a multivariate
independent variable and capture rate (%), flue CO 2 regression the resulting relationship to each EIP, the levelized
concentration (%) and flow rate (tonnes/day) as the cost of compression is determined. Results show a range
dependent variables (see also SI). The resulting linear between approximately $4 per tCO2 and $10 per tCO2.
estimation yields Levelized Cost of CO2 Transportation. Generally, there
LCs = 80.94 − 0.25caprate − 80.63conc − 0.0006flowrate are two methods of transport: pipeline and tanker delivery
(trucking). Transport via rail could be viable if the source and
(2)
sink were located proximal to railheads, though economics
This relationship is applied to each EIP to estimate LCS, rarely prove favorable over short distances (<700 miles.). The
assuming a 90% capture rate. These results, together with majority of CO2 transport studies have focused on pipeline
typical EIP conditions, are summarized in Table 2 and span a transport, primarily based on the assumptions of large
range of $0 per tCO2 (for pure stream capture) to $70 per quantities of CO2 produced (e.g., electricity generation) and
tCO2. While the cost of separation shows a clear inverse utilized (e.g., EOR).55−57 For example, a PC power plant can
relationship with concentration, flow rate plays a smaller role as produce 3.5−4 MtCO2 per year. Under these conditions,
industrial flow rates are comparable in scale and cost of pipeline delivery exhibits a lower unit cost attributed primarily
separation is less sensitive to variations in flow rate as CO2 to economies of scale. However, these studies do not account
concentration increases (Figure 2). Note that literature costs of for smaller-scale operations where pipeline transport may be
capture may deviate from calculated estimates based on cost prohibitive. Situations exist where the volume of CO2 is
differing assumptions regarding cost of capacity, operational simply too low to avoid high cost pressurization of the stream.
For pipeline transport, CO2 must be compressed to a liquid
dense phase, typically at pressures ranging from 9−15 MPa and
temperatures between 10−35 °C.10 For tanker delivery,
liquefied CO2 is stored in cryogenic vessels and transported
by tank trucks with a capacity range of 2−30 tonnes. Here, CO2
is compressed to 1.7 MPa and −30 °C. Generally, the
theoretical power required to compress CO2 to a suitable level
for transport can be calculated (SI Table S10). For these low-
volume CO2 applications (<0.1 MtCO2 per year), which are
typical for EIPs, trucking is more cost-effective for any distance,
compared to an appropriately sized piping infrastructure (SI
Figure S4). As such, we focus solely on truck transportation for
our case study provided in SI Section 5. The standard cost
model of Berwick and Farooq58 is used as the basis for trucking
transport levelized cost estimates, LCT (refer to SI). There are
two key variables that affect the cost of transportation; distance
and tanker utilization. While LCT increases with greater
distances, it is inversely related to the proportion of the tanker
used per delivery.
Figure 2. Prediction of capture costs from power (black circles) of
varying gas flow rates (low to high). This data is used to predict Importantly, our calculation of LCT is based on a static
levelized costs of capture for several irreplaceable industries (colored market, whereby total supply from a given source is fully
circles and diamonds). Not shown are cost points for streams of 99.9+ accommodated by available sinks within a 100 mile radius. This
% CO2 purity, for which the cost of capture is assumed to approach formulation represents a best-case setting, whereby partial
zero. supply to a set of sinks is not considered. A case where some
D DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b01723
Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Environmental Science & Technology Article

Figure 3. National distribution of CO2 utilization opportunities. Graduated symbols denote CO2 demand. Enhanced oil recovery dominates demand
but is geographically isolated from industrial emitters in the Northeast and West coast, where smaller scale opportunities may play a more prominent
role.

portion of the captured carbon dioxide is not delivered would To supply current utilization operations, CO2 is largely
have the effect of increasing the levelized cost of truck sourced naturally or created intentionally. A direct impact on
transportation, given the utilization of a truck (or fleet of emissions abatement could be realized if these natural or
trucks) would decrease. In this simple model, while variable intentionally generated sources were replaced with EIP-sourced
costs would decrease, the unit cost of capacity and fixed costs CO2. For example, the CO2 used for EOR is mainly supplied
would increase. via natural reservoirs delivered by an extensive CO2 pipeline

■ RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

CO2 Utilization Opportunities. In 2011, the US EPA
network at a collective rate of ca. 145 tCO2/day (85% of total
demand).66,67 Jackson Dome and McElmo Dome each supply
roughly 20 MtCO2 per year to the Gulf and Permian Basin
estimated the scale of U.S. CO2 utilization at 67 MtCO2 per regions, respectively (SI Figure S5). Currently, industrial
year,59 approximately 1% of total U.S. emissions. At the same processes account for only 4% of the EOR CO2 supply chain
time, the CO2 emissions from EIPs constitute around 10% of (CO2 sourced from natural gas processing accounts for the
total U.S. emissions (∼700 MtCO2 per year). Currently, the remaining 11%). Given an average industrial output of
scale of CO2 utilization is small, yet continued research and approximately 0.8 MtCO2 per year, these natural sources
development, coupled with expanded demand in current could be replaced with the combined output of 25 such
technologies leads to more tangible projections of near to facilities. However, in high-output regions like the Gulf Coast,
midterm CO2 utilization growth.60 For example, the U.S. (and EIPs from refining and petrochemical production can yield
global) CO2 reuse market is dominated by enhanced oil greater than 6 MtCO2 per year; thus, as few as three industrial
recovery (EOR), primarily within the U.S. Permian basin, the sources could effectively replace the naturally sourced CO2.
majority of which is located in West Texas.61 Though current For the purposes of this study, only existing utilization sites
demand stands at ca. 62 MtCO2 per year (101 U.S. operations) are considered. Further, this study considers only those
some estimates believe this number could rise to as high as 500 opportunities where CO2 demand is directly quantifiable
MtCO2 per year.62 (refer to SI for methodology). Three technologies that exhibit
Outside of EOR, CO2 utilization opportunities are much great potential in CO2 reuse are mineral carbonation, algae
smaller in scale, numerous and dispersed (Figure 3). Growth in cultivation and use in greenhouses. However, due to the lack of
non-EOR utilization applications is anticipated as more existing sites and information pertaining to CO2 demand
captured CO2 becomes available. For example, CO2 is currently associated with these technologies, we consider these
being explored extensively as a chemical feedstock (a partial opportunities out of scope for the current work. The total
listing of CO2 feedstock thermodynamics is provided in SI addressable CO2 demand can be split into two groups: first
Table S9). Another option involves the use of CO2 as a solvent order opportunities (EOR, urea manufacturing, soft-drink
or technological fluid. In particular, CO2 has been thoroughly manufacturing, soda bicarbonate production, fireproofing and
investigated as a replacement for organic solvents, as a decaffeination) are characterized as mature processes that
refrigerant, in chemical extractions,63,64 and as a substitute for currently accept CO2 as a commodity feedstock. Industrial
potentially harmful solvents such as phosgene.65 A detailed facilities would be motivated to install and operate appropriate
discussion of these and other viable CO2 utilization options is capture facilities only if the captured CO2 is cost-competitive
presented in the SI. with the incumbent provider. In most cases, a policy
E DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b01723
Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Environmental Science & Technology Article

Table 3. Statistics and Cost Estimation (Capture, Compression, And Transport) For Pennsylvania-Based Essential Industrial
Sources (Top 10 and Bottom 10 LCO2)
levelized cost (US$/tCO2)
plant output regional demand (ktCO2/ average distance (source to maximum deliverable capture/
industry (ktCO2/a)a a)b (count)c sink) (mi.) (ktCO2/a)d compression transport total
iron and 3033.9 43.3 (76) 40.4 43.3 31.53−35.67 5.43 36.96−41.10
steel
iron and 33.7 44.6 (76) 39.6 33.7 32.58−36.85 4.72 37.30−41.57
steel
iron and 342.6 44.9 (78) 41.9 44.9 32.03−36.24 5.51 37.54−41.75
steel
iron and 137.0 44.9 (77) 49.3 44.9 32.25−36.48 5.94 38.19−42.42
steel
iron and 194.5 43.4 (75) 47.3 43.4 32.17−36.39 6.05 38.22−42.44
steel
iron and 48.5 50.4 (82) 43.3 48.5 32.49−36.76 5.77 38.26−42.53
steel
iron and 196.9 207.4 (268) 59.1 196.9 32.16−36.38 6.49 38.65−42.87
steel
iron and 59.5 41.4 (73) 54.0 41.4 32.44−36.70 6.26 38.70−42.96
steel
cement 120.8 41.1 (73) 53.2 41.1 32.28−36.51 6.48 38.76−42.99
iron and 154.0 178.3 (238) 63.8 154.0 32.22−36.45 6.82 39.04−43.27
steel

glass 25.5 44.9 (77) 49.8 25.5 45.55−56.84 5.31 50.86−62.15

glass 61.9 44.4 (77) 44.6 44.4 45.26−56.48 5.69 50.95−62.17
glass 200.5 88.7 (103) 66.1 88.7 44.87−56.00 6.84 51.71−62.84
glass 32.4 13.2 (15) 57.3 13.2 45.47−56.74 7.86 53.33−64.60
glass 155.1 48.1 (89) 75.2 48.1 44.96−56.10 9.03 53.99−65.13
glass 71.1 20.6 (33) 84.7 20.6 45.21−56.42 10.27 55.48−66.69
glass 24.3 20.8 (32) 86.6 20.8 45.57−56.86 10.47 56.04−67.33
pulp and 1029.2 130 (161) 69.4 130.0 52.38 7.16 59.54
paper
pulp and 296.4 39.8 (47) 76.6 39.8 52.86 8.52 61.38
paper
pulp and 781.9 7.4 (10) 71.7 7.4 52.49 12.41 64.90
paper
a
Annual CO2 available assuming 90% capture of plant emissions. bSum of CO2 demand for all sinks identified within the 100 mile service area.
c
Number of sink opportunities within a 100-mile radius of source. dTaken as the lesser of Column 2 (90% source output) and Column 3 (Regional
Demand). Bold indicates full source offset potential.

mechanism such as a tax credit, carbon tax or other incentive average EIP facility emissions are approximately 800 ktCO2 per
would be required to achieve cost-competitiveness of such year, while the average demand from all sinks is far smaller (ca.
captured CO2, given the wedge between calculated costs in this 15 ktCO2 per year). To establish source/sink relationships, we
study and incumbent offer prices (recall $7/tCO2 − $25/ define a service area encompassing all sink opportunities within
tCO2). Second-order opportunities (refrigeration, polymers, a 100 mile driving radius. Pennsylvania has 47 facilities that
methanol, gum, and wood chemicals and gas manufacturing) meet the aforementioned criteria for the manufacturing of
can potentially accept CO2, but additional considerations serve irreplaceable commodities, including cement (7), glass (7), iron
to complicate deployment and may require substantial and steel (19), lead (1), lime (4), pulp and paper (3), refining
investment in the receiving facility. For example, CO2 is (4), and zinc (2). Carbon dioxide produced in these industrial
known to produce methanol via hydrogenation; however, the processes has the potential to be offset by 772 sink
CO2 route to methanol requires one additional mole of H2 per opportunities identified as traversable within the 100 mile
mole of methanol produced when compared to the carbon cutoff radius and include decaffeination (extraction) (42),
monoxide route. In this case, a reliable low-carbon source of H2 fireproofing materials (5), industrial gas manufacturing (41),
is necessary to ensure that CO2 substitution in methanol gum and wood chemicals (4), polymer manufacturing (35),
production is carbon negative. CO2 in refrigeration applications commercial/industrial refrigeration (461), soda bicarbonate
is another example whereby equipment retrofitting may be manufacturing (1), and soft-drink manufacturing (183).
required. Transport costs are then calculated for the cumulative driving
Case-Study: Ranking Essential Industrial Processes in routes required for full transport of the deliverable CO2. These
Pennsylvania. We apply our cost methodology through an individual CO2 transportation routes serve as the input to the
assessment of the LCO2 associated with source/sink scenarios transport model, and taken together with the capture and
in the state of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania has a range of EIPs compression cost models, define a physically viable cost
and sink opportunities, and a geographical mix of urban and scenario for each EIP (see the SI for a full description of the
rural areas that make it well suited for a general example. The methodology). Locations for all 47 Pennsylvania EIPs, as well
F DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b01723
Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Environmental Science & Technology Article

Figure 4. LCO2 and relative quantity delivered to sinks, PA case study.

as the 772 utilization opportunities within the 100 mile radius hence, for a given source, the best-case scenario occurs when all
are presented in SI Figure S6. Levelized separation, captured CO2 can be sunk, subject to a minimization of
compression, and transport costs are calculated for delivering transport costs. We note that in a given region, the CO2 supply
captured industrial CO2 to surrounding utilization opportu- with the lowest LCO2 would be fully absorbed by the sink(s),
nities, and the 20 lowest LCO2 are reported in Table 3 (column and in the event there is excess sink capacity available, the next
8). A large-scale iron and steel plant represents the lowest lowest LCO2subject to transportation constraints and
LCO2 of $38 to $42/tCO2. The LCO2 is based on a given quantity of CO2 producedwould be made available. To
source (in this case an iron and steel plant) being able to fully more fully account for supply and demand within a region, and
transfer its supply to the available sink(s) within the defined to understand what opportunities would arise should adjacent
region. regions become available, a dynamic model is required. We
Figure 4 presents a plot of all cost estimates and the note that in the case where all captured CO2 from EIP is unable
associated mass of carbon dioxide captured and transported. to be fully disposed of within a sink, it becomes “isolated” and,
This result compares to $55−$90/tCO2 for PC and NGCC assuming no alternative disposal, may be released (curtailed).
power generation with carbon capture technologies; see Figure This is presumably the case for the majority of examples
2 and ref 68. These costs represent first-of-a-kind technologies, provided in Table 3; the output from the EIP far exceeds the
and thus are presumed to be substantially lower than more sink capacities. Conversely, only 5 of the 20 examples show all
mature versions.7 It could be anticipated that costs would EIP emissions being fully accommodated by sinks. If it is
reduce as a function of learning and capability building (See anticipated thaton average, over the lifetime of the capture
Comello and Reichelstein (2014) model such a dynamic in the unita portion of the captured carbon dioxide will not be
case of CO2 capture at NGCC facilities). As a calibration, the transferred to a sink, the decision ceteris paribus could be to
levelized cost of capture (separation, compression and either (i) idle the capture process or (ii) build a smaller unit at
transportation) of high purity EIPs such as ethanol production the outset. The result of either would have the implication of a
or from tapping natural reservoirs is ∼$15/tCO2.68 higher LCO2.
As indicated in Table 3, the total LCO2 is minimized for high This case study shows that a set of source/sink pairings can
CO2 purity separation. The least cost options in this region are be identified that jointly minimizes the LCO2 and EIP
dominated by iron and steel manufacturing, anchored by higher emissions. While it may be necessary to increase the geographic
CO2 purity (20−27%) and assisted by low transport costs−a area to achieve such a joint optimization, policy support
function of the average distance required for CO2 delivery mechanisms would be able to offset any rise in LCO2. Such
(Table 3 column 4) and the theoretical maximum amount of incentives ought to be designed to make the capture of CO2
CO2 delivered per year (Table 3 column 5). The latter quantity from EIPs cost competitive with current utilization oppor-
is limited by either the amount of CO2 captured or the tunities from natural reservoirs.
cumulative sink demand. However, for this study, the range in Implications of a Merit-Order Ranking for Essential
transport cost (LCT) is small ($5 − $12/tCO2), while the range Industrial Processes. Despite the apparent urgency of climate
in cost for capture and compression is significant ($32 − $57/ change mitigation, carbon capture and utilization remains slow
tCO2); thus, one would expect a merit-order ranking to follow to uptake. Several barriers remain to commercialization and
closely to those industries with capture points that yield high rapid deployment of carbon capture and utilization (CCU).
CO2 purity, with further sorting due to small discrepancies in These barriers are both economic and technical in nature. A
LCT. At first glance, this would appear to suggest that coherent understanding of the costs of capturing CO2 from the
geographical considerations have minimal influence on LCO2. exhaust streams of industrial sources and delivering purified
However, this observation would necessarily change if the CO2 to industrial utilization sinks is vital to the acceleration of
source were to establish a contract price for delivered CO2; CCU uptake. This study estimates the levelized product cost of
G DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b01723
Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Environmental Science & Technology Article

delivering purified carbon dioxide, which requires separating, ORCID

compressing and transporting purified CO2 from industrially Peter C. Psarras: 0000-0002-5302-3412
sourced capture to regional utilization (sink) opportunities. Jennifer Wilcox: 0000-0001-8241-727X
Our method and findings contribute to the carbon capture
Author Contributions
literature by directly addressing EIPs, which have higher
P.P., J.W., S.C., and S.R. designed the research; P.P., P.B., P.C.,
exhaust CO2 concentrations, lower flow rates, lower overall
and S.C. performed the research; P.P., J.W., S.C., and S.R.
volumes of transport and presumed lower sink opportunities
analyzed and organized the findings, and P.P., P.B., P.C., J.W.,
than power-plant carbon capture studies.
S.C., and S.R. wrote the paper.
We provide a comprehensive inventory of geo-referenced
utilization opportunities to derive a cost model that accounts Notes
for differences in source flue gas CO2 concentration, source- The authors declare no competing financial interest.
sink geographical relationships, flow rate and capture rate. The
latter two variables have not widely been considered in previous
studies (e.g., Sherwood and others). Therefore, our method-
■ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank David Medeiros (Stanford Geospatial Center) for
ology allows for a more accurate application of the relationship assistance with GIS mapping and analysis workflow, Mark
between separation cost and CO2 concentration to EIP Carrington for contributions to the introduction, and Sean
scenarios. Further, this work concludes that for relatively McCoy (LLNL) for assistance with the compression model.

■
small quantities of CO2 to be transported over short distances,
tanker truck is the cost-effective delivery method. This is REFERENCES
particularly important in areas where a “pipeline or bust”
(1) IPCC Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of
mentality has stalled or complicated the logistics of sensible Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
CCU planning. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Core Writing Team;
There are three important avenues of future work. First and Pachauri, R.K., Meyer, L.A., Eds.; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014; p
foremost is a bottom-up study of actual CO2 capture, 25.
compression and trucking costs from relatively smaller scale (2) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; (EPA). US GHG
industrial processes. While the top-down approach provided in Inventory Chapter 2: Trends in Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 2015
this work offers a working degree of accuracy, our model would (accessed January 16, 2016).
be improved with field-collected operational and cost data. (3) Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change; (IPCC) Emissions
Second, a detailed survey of actual sources of commodity CO2 Scenarios. Available at http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/emission/
per region would enable a prioritization of capture technology index.php?idp=99 Accessed September 2, 2015; 2015.
(4) House, K. Z.; Baclig, A. C.; Ranjan, M.; van Nierop, E. A.; Wilcox,
deployment for CO2 abatement purposes. Where EIP scenarios J.; Herzog, H. J. Economic and energetic analysis of capturing CO2
significantly reduce the prevalence of supply from mined CO2, from ambient air. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2011, 108 (51), 20428−
these opportunities should receive the highest consideration for 20433.
inducement of capture technology deployment. Finally, the set (5) Grübler, A. Technology and global change. Cambridge University
of utilization opportunities to be examined ought to be Press: 2003.
expanded to include such processes as algae cultivation, mineral (6) Solomon, S. Climate Change 2007-the Physical Science Basis:
carbonation and greenhouse use. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the

■
IPCC; Cambridge University Press, 2007; Vol. 4.
ASSOCIATED CONTENT (7) Comello, S.; Reichelstein, S. Incentives for early adoption of
carbon capture technology. Energy Policy 2014, 74, 579−588.
*
S Supporting Information (8) Denbury Resources 2016 Annual Report; Plano, TX, 2016.
The Supporting Information is available free of charge on the (9) Reichelstein, S.; Rohlfing-Bastian, A. Levelized Product Cost:
ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b01723. Concept and Decision Relevance. Accounting Review 2014, 90 (4),
1653−1682.
Carbon dioxide utilization opportunities; from data- (10) Wilcox, J. Carbon Capture; Springer: New York, 2012.
mining to geo-referencing in ArcGIS; geo-referencing (11) Sherwood, T. K. Mass Transfer Between Phases, Phi Lambda
CO2 sources and sinks; Pennsylvania case study; Upsilon; Penn State University, University Park, PA, 1959.
levelized cost of carbon dioxide capture; theoretical (12) Verma, S.; Kim, B.; Jhong, H. R.; Ma, S.; Kenis, P. J. A. A Gross-
minimum work of separation; model sensitivity (PDF) Margin Model for Defining Technoeconomic Benchmarks in the
Excel spreadsheet for calculation of LC_C Compression Electroreduction of CO2. ChemSusChem 2016, 9 (15), 1972−1979.
(13) Ng, S. Y.; Ong, S. Y.; Ng, Y. Y.; Liew, A. H. B.; Ng, D. K. S.;
(PDF)
Chemmangattuvalappil, N. G. Optimal Design and Synthesis of
Excel macros for calculation of LC_S Calculator PC Sustainable Integrated Biorefinery for Pharmaceutical Products from
(PDF) Palm-Based Biomass. Process Integration and Optimization for
Excel macros for calculation of LC_S Calculator NGCC Sustainability 2017, 1 (2), 135−151.
(PDF) (14) Dahmus, J. B.; Gutowski, T. G. What Gets Recycled: An
Excel macros for calculation of LC_S Calculator IGCC Information Theory Based Model for Product Recycling. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 2007, 41 (21), 7543−7550.
(PDF) (15) Rubin, E. S.; Chen, C.; Rao, A. B. Cost and performance of fossil
Excel macros for calculation of LC_T Truck Transport fuel power plants with CO2 capture and storage. Energy Policy 2007, 35
(PDF) (9), 4444−4454.

■
(16) Leeson, D.; Mac Dowell, N.; Shah, N.; Petit, C.; Fennell, P. S. A
AUTHOR INFORMATION Techno-economic analysis and systematic review of carbon capture
and storage (CCS) applied to the iron and steel, cement, oil refining
Corresponding Author and pulp and paper industries, as well as other high purity sources. Int.
*E-mail: [email protected]. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 2017, 61, 71−84.

H DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b01723
Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Environmental Science & Technology Article

(17) Fennell, P. S.; Florin, N.; Napp, T.; Hills, T. CCS from (42) Möllersten, K.; Gao, L.; Yan, J. CO2 capture in pulp and paper
industrial sources. Sustainable Technologies, Systems and Policies 2012, mills: CO2 balances and preliminary cost assessment. Mitigation and
2012, 17. Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 2006, 11 (5−6), 1129−1150.
(18) Dean, C.; Hills, T.; Florin, N.; Dugwell, D.; Fennell, P. S. (43) McGrail, B. P.; Freeman, C. J.; Brown, C. F.; Sullivan, E. C.;
Integrating calcium looping CO2 capture with the manufacture of White, S. K.; Reddy, S.; Garber, R. D.; Tobin, D.; Gilmartin, J. J.;
cement. Energy Procedia 2013, 37, 7078−7090. Steffensen, E. J. Overcoming business model uncertainty in a carbon
(19) Tsai, I. T.; Al Ali, M.; El Waddi, S.; Zarzour, O. A. Carbon dioxide capture and sequestration project: Case study at the Boise
Capture Regulation for The Steel and Aluminum Industries in the White Paper Mill. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 2012, 9, 91−102.
UAE: An Empirical Analysis. Energy Procedia 2013, 37, 7732−7740. (44) Romano, M. C.; Anantharaman, R.; Arasto, A.; Ozcan, D. C.;
(20) Das, S. K. Improving Energy Efficiency in Aluminum Melting. 2007. Ahn, H.; Dijkstra, J. W.; Carbo, M.; Boavida, D. Application of
http://www.phinix.net/services/Energy_Management/Improving_ Advanced Technologies for CO2 Capture From Industrial Sources.
Energy_Efficiency.pdf (accessed October 14, 2015. Energy Procedia 2013, 37, 7176−7185.
(21) Mathisen, A.; Sørensen, H.; Eldrup, N.; Skagestad, R.; Melaaen, (45) van Straelen, J.; Geuzebroek, F.; Goodchild, N.; Protopapas, G.;
M.; Müller, G. I. Cost Optimised CO2 Capture from Aluminium Mahony, L. CO2 capture for refineries, a practical approach. Int. J.
Production. Energy Procedia 2014, 51, 184−190. Greenhouse Gas Control 2010, 4 (2), 316−320.
(22) Zakkour, P., Cook, G. CCS Roadmap for Industry: High-Purity (46) Ho, M. T.; Allinson, G. W.; Wiley, D. E. Comparison of MEA
CO2 Sources; Carbon Counts Company (UK) Ltd., 2010. capture cost for low CO2 emissions sources in Australia. Int. J.
(23) Parsons, W. Economic Assessment of Carbon Capture and Storage Greenhouse Gas Control 2011, 5 (1), 49−60.
Technologies: 2011 Update, Report for the Global CCS Institute. (47) Motazedi, K.; Abella, J. P.; Bergerson, J. A. Techno−Economic
Canberra, Australia; Global CCS Institute 2011. Evaluation of Technologies to Mitigate Greenhouse Gas Emissions at
(24) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; (EPA). US GHG North American Refineries. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51 (3), 1918−
Inventory Chapter 4: Industrial Processes and Product Use. 2015. 1928.
(accessed January 16, 2016). (48) Varghese, O. K.; Paulose, M.; LaTempa, T. J.; Grimes, C. A.
(25) Steele, W. A. The physical interaction of gases with crystalline High-rate solar photocatalytic conversion of CO2 and water vapor to
solids: I. Gas-solid energies and properties of isolated adsorbed atoms. hydrocarbon fuels. Nano Lett. 2009, 9 (2), 731−737.
Surf. Sci. 1973, 36 (1), 317−352. (49) Roy, S. C.; Varghese, O. K.; Paulose, M.; Grimes, C. A. Toward
(26) Hoenig, V.; Hoppe, H.; Emberger, B., Carbon capture solar fuels: photocatalytic conversion of carbon dioxide to hydro-
technology-options and potentials for the cement industry. Tannen- carbons. ACS Nano 2010, 4 (3), 1259−1278.
strasse: European Cement Research Academy. 2007, 96. (50) Xiong, S.-F.; Yuan, Z.-F.; Cong, X. U.; Liang, X. I. Composition
(27) Hegerland, G.; Pande, J. O.; Haugen, H. A.; Eldrup, N.;
of off-gas produced by combined fluidized bed chlorination for
Tokheim, L. A.; Hatlevik, L. M. Capture of CO2 from a Cement Plant−
preparation of TiCl 4. Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China 2010, 20 (1),
technical Possibilities and Economical Estimates 2006, 19−22.
128−134.
(28) Barker, D. J.; Turner, S. A.; Napier-Moore, P. A.; Clark, M.;
(51) Rubin, E. S.; Zhai, H. The Cost of Carbon Capture and Storage
Davison, J. E. CO2 Capture in the Cement Industry. Energy Procedia
for Natural Gas Combined Cycle Power Plants. Environ. Sci. Technol.
2009, 1 (1), 87−94.
2012, 46 (6), 3076−3084.
(29) Rushing, S. A. Merchant Carbon Dioxide Sourcing: The Ethanol
(52) Elanchezhian, C.; Saravanakumar, L.; Ramnath, B. V. Power
Perspective. CryoGas International 2007, 45 (5), 28−29.
(30) Levina, E.; Bennett, S.; McCoy, S. Technology Roadmap: Carbon Plant Engineering. I.K; International Publishing House, 2007.
(53) Merkel, T. C.; Lin, H.; Wei, X.; Baker, R. Power plant post-
Capture and Storage; OECD/IEA, 2013.
(31) Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change; (IPCC), 2006 combustion carbon dioxide capture: an opportunity for membranes. J.
IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. 2006. Membr. Sci. 2010, 359 (1), 126−139.
(32) Holappa, L. Towards sustainability in ferroalloy production. (54) Rubin, E. S.; Davison, J. E.; Herzog, H. J. The cost of CO2
South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Journal 2010, 110 capture and storage. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 2015, 40, 378−400.
(12), 703−710. (55) Metz, B.; Davidson, O.; de Coninck, H.; Loos, M.; Meyer, L.
(33) Ladam, Y.; Tangstad, M.; Ravary, B., Energy Mapping of Carbon dioxide capture and storage. 2005.
Industrial Ferroalloy Plants. thirteenth International Ferroalloys (56) Hasan, M. M. F.; Boukouvala, F.; First, E. L.; Floudas, C. A.
Congress. 2013. Nationwide, regional, and statewide CO2 capture, utilization, and
(34) Díaz-Ibarra, O.; Abad, P.; Molina, A. Design of a day tank glass sequestration supply chain network optimization. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
furnace using a transient model and steady-state computation fluid 2014, 53 (18), 7489−7506.
dynamics. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2013, 52 (2), 555−565. (57) Knoope, M. M. J.; Guijt, W.; Ramírez, A.; Faaij, A. P. C.
(35) Farla, J. C. M.; Hendriks, C. A.; Blok, K. Carbon dioxide Improved cost models for optimizing CO2 pipeline configuration for
recovery from industrial processes. Clim. Change 1995, 29 (4), 439− point-to-point pipelines and simple networks. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas
461. Control 2014, 22, 25−46.
(36) Gielen, D. CO2 removal in the iron and steel industry. Energy (58) Berwick, M. D.; Farooq, M., Truck costing model for
Convers. Manage. 2003, 44 (7), 1027−1037. transportation managers. Mountain-Plains Consortium 2003.
(37) IEA CO2 capture and storage: a key carbon abatement option; (59) United States Environmental Protection Agency; (EPA) Carbon
International Energy Agency, Paris, France, 2008. Dioxide Capture and Sequestration. 2011. http://www3.epa.gov/
(38) Wu, J. C. S. Photocatalytic reduction of greenhouse gas CO2 to climatechange/ccs/ (accessed 11/1/2015).
fuel. Catal. Surv. Asia 2009, 13 (1), 30−40. (60) Mikkelsen, M.; Jorgensen, M.; Krebs, F. C. The teraton
(39) Gao, F.; Liu, Y.; Nie, Z.-R.; Gong, X.; Wang, Z. Variation Trend challenge. A review of fixation and transformation of carbon dioxide.
and Driving Factors of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Chinese Energy Environ. Sci. 2010, 3 (1), 43−81.
Magnesium Production. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49 (21), 12662− (61) Melzer, L. S., Carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery (CO2
12669. EOR): Factors involved in adding carbon capture, utilization and
(40) Xu, Y.; Isom, L.; Hanna, M. A. Adding value to carbon dioxide storage (CCUS) to enhanced oil recovery. Center for Climate and
from ethanol fermentations. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101 (10), 3311− Energy Solutions 2012.
3319. (62) Brinckerhoff, P., Accelerating the uptake of CCS: industrial use
(41) International Energy Agency; (IEA), Tracking Industrial Energy of captured carbon dioxide. 2011, https://www.globalccsinstitute.
Efficiency and CO 2 Emissions. 2007. https://www.iea.org/ com/sites/www.globalccsinstitute.com/files/publications/14026/
publications/freepublications/publication/tracking_emissions.pdf . accelerating-uptake-ccs-industrial-use-captured-carbon-dioxide.pdf.

I DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b01723
Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Environmental Science & Technology Article

(63) Beckman, E. J. Supercritical and near-critical CO2 in green

chemical synthesis and processing. J. Supercrit. Fluids 2004, 28 (2),
121−191.
(64) Wai, C. M.; Hunt, F.; Ji, M.; Chen, X. Chemical reactions in
supercritical carbon dioxide. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75 (12), 1641.
(65) Sakakura, T.; Choi, J.-C.; Yasuda, H. Transformation of Carbon
Dioxide. Chem. Rev. 2007, 107 (6), 2365−2387.
(66) DiPietro, P.; Balash, P.; Wallace, M., A Note on Sources of CO2
Supply for Enhanced-Oil-Recovery Operations, 2012.
(67) DiPietro, P., Murrell, G., North American CO2 Supply and
Developments. presented at the 19th Annual CO2 Flooding
Conference, 2013).
(68) Fout, T.; Gerdes, K.; Shultz, T. Cost and Performance Baseline for
Fossil Energy Plants Volume 1a: Bituminous Coal (PC) and Natural Gas
to Electricity Revision 3; 2015.

J DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b01723
Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

View publication stats