Carbon capture, sequestration, and usage for clean and green environment: challenges and opportunities

Figures & data

Figure 1. Overview of technologies (author’s elaboration).

Scheme of technologies used for carbon sequestration.

Table 1. CCS technology processing conditions (Lai, Ngu, and Hashim 2021).

CCS technology	Temperature (°C)	Processing pressure (bar)	CO2 concentration (%)
Pre-combustion	200–450	14–70	15–60
Direct air capture	25	1	~0.04
Post-combustion	40–60	1	3–20
Oxy combustion	−55	1	17–70

Figure 2. Pre-combustion capture technologies (Zhang, Borhani, and El-Naas 2018).

Scheme of capture procedure for pre-combustion processes.

Figure 3. Post-combustion CO₂ capture (Lai, Ngu, and Hashim 2021).

Scheme of capture procedure for post-combustion processes.

Figure 4. Oxy-fuel combustion (Zhang, Borhani, and El-Naas 2018).

Scheme of the oxy-fuel combustion process.

Figure 5. DAC approach (McQueen et al. 2021).

Graphical representation of the DAC technology in which the process of carbon capture from the air has been demonstrated.

Table 2. Cost estimate in power plans (Kazemifar 2022).

	US DOE NETL*		GCCSI** 2017
Technology	Capture cost (ex. T&S^a) CO2 $/tCO2	Avoided cost (incl. T&S^a) $/tCO2	First-of a-kind ($/tCO2)	Nth of a kind ($/tCO2)
Subcritical Post-combustion	44.6	76.3	N/A	N/A
Supercritical Post-combustion	45.7	73.5	74–83	55
Post-combustion NGCC	79.6	102.2	89	52
Oxy combustion	N/A	N/A	-	-
IGCC (Shell)	119.4	162.7	66–75	46
IGCC (E-Gas^TM)	96.0	126.9	97^b	43^b

^aT&S, transportation, and storage.

^bGeneric process design; not specific to Shell or E-Gas.

*US DOE NETL- U.S national Energy technological laboratory under the Department of Energy .

**global CCS institute.

Notes: For industrial operations, levelized costs are stated incrementally compared to current global commodity costs, which serve as a proxy for the expense of producing without CCS. The ranges for technologies that reflect a group of numerous reference plants are shown. This comprises the identified price variation for industrial commodities (such as iron and steel). Transport and storage expenses range from 7 to 12 US dollars per tonnes of CO₂ for all power producing methods. Transport and storage expenses are included at 11 USD/tonne CO₂ for industrial cases.

Figure 6. Classification of CO₂ use ((IEA), 2019a).

Graphical representation of techniques for Methanol, methane, CO, fuels, bicarbonate, carbohydrates, polymers, formic acids, and other valuable compounds that CO2 may be used.

Figure 7. CO₂ decomposition into CO and O₂ (Zhang et al. 2017).

Graphical representation of CO2 decomposition.

Figure 8. Conversion of CO₂ into chemical intermediates ((IEA), 2019a).

Scheme of the method of chemical conversion of CO₂ into other chemical products through the hydrogenation and syngas methods

Figure 9. CO₂ derived polymers ((IEA), 2019a).

Scheme of the method of chemical conversion of CO₂ into other chemical products through the hydrogenation and syngas methods

Figure 10. CO₂-derived building/construction materials ((IEA), 2019a).

Scheme of CO₂-derived building/construction materials

Table 3. Application potential and future opportunities in CO₂ capture.

Opportunities	Application area	Advantages	Efficiency/effect on the environment
Building materials, polymers, and industrial CO2 in greenhouses	Structural, composites, green houses	High potential, reduction of the use of conventional products	High
Implementation of projects near customer proximity	Industrial plants	High reduction in carbon footprint	High
R&D for hydrogen production containing low carbon	Research and development	Generation of new clean/green products	Low
Direct consumption and the transformation of CO2	Food and agriculture	Reduction in the storage cost as time reduction between production and consumption	high
Aviation fuel from biomass	In transportation	Reduction in usage of conventional fuels	Very high
Chemical and biological conversion to achieve Net-zero emission economy.	Production of chemicals such as methane and methanol	Enhanced use of harmless chemical reduction on greenhouse gases.	low

Lai, J. Y., L. H. Ngu, and S. S. Hashim. 2021. “A Review of CO2 Adsorbents Performance for Different Carbon Capture Technology Processes Conditions.” Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology 11 (5): 1076–1117. https://doi.org/10.1002/ghg.2112.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zhang, Z., T. N. G. Borhani, and M. H. El-Naas. 2018. “Carbon Capture.” Exergetic, Energetic and Environmental Dimensions 997–1016. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-813734-5.00056-1.

 Google Scholar

McQueen, N., K. V. Gomes, C. McCormick, K. Blumanthal, M. Pisciotta, and J. Wilcox. 2021. “A Review of Direct Air Capture (DAC): Scaling Up Commercial Technologies and Innovating for the Future.” Progress in Energy 3 (3): 032001. https://doi.org/10.1088/2516-1083/abf1ce.

 Google Scholar

Kazemifar, F. 2022. “A Review of Technologies for Carbon Capture, Sequestration, and Utilization: Cost, Capacity, and Technology Readiness.” Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology 12 (1): 200–230. https://doi.org/10.1002/ghg.2131.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

IEA (, I. E. A.) 2019a. Putting CO2 to usehttps://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/50652405-26db-4c41-82dc-c23657893059/Putting_CO₂_to_Use.pdf.

 Google Scholar

Zhang, K., G. Zhang, X. Liu, A. N. Phan, and K. Luo. 2017. “A Study on CO2 Decomposition to CO and O2 by the Combination of Catalysis and Dielectric-Barrier Discharges at Low Temperatures and Ambient Pressure.” Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 56 (12): 3204–3216. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.6b04570.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar