Comprehensive evaluation of various CO₂ capture technologies through rigorous simulation: Economic, equipment footprint, and environmental analysis

The comprehensive evaluation of various CO₂ capture technologies from multiple perspectives remains limited, yet it is crucial for the successful implementation and deployment of carbon capture solutions to achieve carbon neutrality. This study presents a framework for assessing representative CO₂ capture processes from key point sources through rigorous simulation. Eight scenarios were developed and compared, comprising four standalone processes (i.e., physical absorption (PHYABS), chemical absorption (CHEABS), dual-reflux pressure swing adsorption (DRPSA) and pressure-temperature swing adsorption (PTSA)) and four hybrid processes that integrate different adsorption and absorption processes. To evaluate each scenario, an integrated indicator, the Economics, Equipment footprint, and Environmental Score (EEES), was introduced. Our results indicate that the standalone CHEABS exhibits the lowest EEES of 0.120, highlighting its technological readiness and superiority over other processes. In contrast, the standalone PHYABS (EEES=0.168) and the hybrid PHYABS/PTSA process (EEES=0.242) emerge as viable alternatives, balancing environmental performance with economic and spatial considerations. Standalone PTSA (EEES=0.465) and DRPSA (EEES=0.706) are less favorable because of their higher utility demands and larger equipment footprints. Similarly, hybrid processes, namely, DRPSA/CHEABS (EEES=0.891), CHEABS/PTSA (EEES=0.837), and DRPSA/PHYABS (EEES=0.784), are less advantageous across all three metrics. Furthermore, sensitivity analyses indicated that carbon permit prices exert a negligible effect on the process economics. Additionally, it appears that government subsidies may play a crucial role in facilitating the development of CO₂ capture technologies within the industrial sector. Overall, this study provides a robust framework for evaluating CO₂ capture processes and offers practical recommendations for technology deployment. © 2024 The Author(s).