Community Research and Development Information Service - CORDIS

Final Report Summary - HIPERCAP (High Performance Capture - HiPerCap)

Executive Summary:
1 Executive Summary
Several studies have concluded that Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) should play a major role in the effort to mitigate the effect of CO2 emissions. CCS is needed for the transition to sustainable energy systems as it allows for continued use of fossil energy sources without CO2 emissions.

There has in recent years been substantial research on CO2 capture technologies to reduce the substantial energy requirement associated with the capture process and to reduce the cost of CO2 capture. Several different process concepts have been suggested and each concept often has a great variation of chemicals and materials that may be employed. At present, it can, however, be very difficult to assess the relative performance and potential of different capture technologies. Claims made concerning the performance and potential of a given technology will often rely on many assumptions and may not be comparable to numbers reported by others. When claims are made concerning potential of a technology, it is not always clear if thermodynamic and process limitations of the technology are considered and some numbers may be unrealistic.

The HiPerCap project aimed to develop novel post-combustion CO2 capture technologies and processes, which are environmentally benign and have high potential to lead to breakthroughs in energy consumption and overall cost. The project included all main separation technologies for post-combustion CO2 capture; absorption, adsorption and membranes. For each technology, the project has been focusing on a chosen set of promising concepts (four for absorption, two for adsorption and two for membranes). The call was focused on novel technologies, starting at a relatively low TRL.

A key focus in HiPerCap has been to demonstrate the potential of the various capture technologies. This means showing that all key aspects of a technology are feasible and that the technology can provide a real breakthrough in terms of energy use. Though the materials required for the three types of separation technologies studied in this project are different, a synergy between them is the need for development of feasible process concepts based on a similar set of assumptions. This ensures a fair comparison can be made between the various technologies. In so doing, the results of the assessment will identify the priorities for the future development of these materials.

HiPerCap targeted four major goals for the total project in addition to several goals associated with each of the specific work-packages. A combination of experimental work and process simulation was conducted in order to reach these targets. Experiments were used to demonstrate key performance indicators and to validate process models and were tailored to each separation technology. Validated process models were used to demonstrate the energy potential of a given technology at industrial scale.

Having completed of the work, it can be concluded that many of the objectives for the HiPerCap project were reached. However, one of the key commitments related to improvement in the total energy efficiency penalty of 25% compared to state-of-the art technology based on absorption, was not. This was quite disappointing as preliminary results in previous projects for some of the technologies had shown very promising results indicating that this strict requirement was feasible.
There are several explanations for this and the most important reasons are: 1) the reference case was more energy efficient for the specific case than first assumed, 2) high risk associated with low TRL development, and 3) many of the process models used for the assessment were less optimized than planned. The cost reduction target was not met either, which can partly be explained by lower energy reduction than the expected 25%. However, the best performing process concepts indicates similar cost levels as the reference, but not all cost implications are fully explored.

Nevertheless, it is planned to further develop and improve on several of the studied technologies and process concepts and to explore in more detail the performance in connection with other CO2 sources. Though the assessment methodology developed in HiPerCap was demonstrated for a coal power case, it can further be exploited in assessment of similar technology development processes for application in other industrial sectors.


Project Context and Objectives:
2 Project context and Objectives
HiPerCap is a FP7 project launched within the call topic ENERGY.2013.5.1.2. "New generation high-efficiency capture processes." The project period was four year starting 1st January 2014 and ended 31st December 2017.

The project aimed to develop high-potential novel and environmentally benign technologies and processes for post-combustion CO2 capture leading to real breakthroughs. The aim was to achieve 25% reduction in efficiency penalty compared to a demonstrated state-of-the-art capture process in the EU project CESAR and deliver proof-of-concepts for each technology.

HiPerCap included all main separation technologies for post-combustion CO2 capture; absorption, adsorption and membranes. Furthermore, only environmentally benign technologies were considered, meaning technologies with no emissions or where the emissions are low and limited to environmentally benign components.

Another focus area was to develop a methodology for making a balanced assessment of new and emerging technologies for specific applications for which limited data are available and the maturity level varies substantially. In Table 2-1 in the attached document a list of all the chosen technologies with the associated process concepts is given together with their major benefits, major differences to the other concepts and challenges regarding assessment. By including the chosen technologies within the same project, we were able to evaluate the methodology along with the development. The aim was to establish one methodology independent of the type of application. In HiPerCap, only one application was chosen as a case and since two of the industrial partners are power companies, a coal power station was chosen. Though we had already seen that the idea of applying CCS to power stations had started to decline in Europe and that other industrial sources of CO2 could be of interest, we felt confident at the start of the project that this application had applicability at least world-wide. Furthermore, by choosing the coal case we felt confident that the correct data to model the process could be obtained. This also allowed easier comparison with earlier studies, in which this technology had been used.

In addition to assessing and comparing the technologies based on energy requirement, other softer criteria as e.g. environmental impact and risk of technology up-scaling for large scale application were considered. Based on the relative performance using various performance indicators, a selection of two breakthrough technologies were made. These two technologies were further studied to conduct a more thorough benchmarking assessment against demonstrated state-of-the-art technologies. A technological roadmap for industrial demonstration was established for the two technologies based on a thorough gap analysis.

The overall objectives of the HiPerCap project were the following:
• Develop CO2 capture processes with the aim of reducing the total efficiency penalty by 25% compared to state-of-the-art capture technology demonstrated in the EU project CESAR and deliver proof-of-concepts for each technology.
• Improve the process designs to reduce capital and operating costs considering aspects such as environmental impact, operability and flexibility, size of equipment, and choice of materials.
• Assessment of new and emerging technologies and processes for identification/selection of the two most promising breakthrough capture processes.
• Establish a technological roadmap for the further development of the two selected breakthrough capture processes.

To realise these objectives, the project work was divided into five R&D work-packages (WP) as shown in Figure 2-1 in the attached document (D6.9), of which all had separate objectives. While WP4 and 5 focused on cross-cutting issues, the three main technology and process development WPs on; absorption-, adsorbent-, and membrane-based technologies were developed in WP 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Though the target was that all concepts developed in WP1-3 should meet a certain reduction in energy requirement, the two most promising selected technologies were further studied in WP5. The roadmap for testing at industrial scale pilot was also developed in WP5 for the two technologies. Based on the work in WP5 a more detailed benchmarking for the chosen concepts was performed in WP4.

HiPerCap involved 16 partners (Table 2-2 in the attached document, D6.9), world's leading organisations within Research and Development (RTD) of CO2 capture technology, from both the public and private sectors (research, academia, and industry), from 7 different EU Member States and Associated States, and three International Cooperation Partner Countries (Russia, Australia, and Canada). The HiPerCap consortium included all essential stakeholders in the technology supply chain for CCS: power companies, RTD providers, suppliers, manufacturers (of power plants, industrial systems, equipment, and materials), and engineering companies. The involved RTD providers cover the whole range of scientific and technical knowledge and skills needed to make the HiPerCap project successful. All industrial partners, of which, three were SMEs, have contributed actively with distinct assignments and contributions.
Project Results:
3 Main R&D Results and Foregrounds

3.1 Overall achievements

The overall achievement of the project is reviewed based on the four distinct objectives for the project.

3.1.1 Objective 1
• Develop CO2 capture processes with the aim of reducing the total efficiency penalty by 25% compared to state-of-the-art capture technology demonstrated in the EU project CESAR and deliver proof-of-concepts for each technology.

Background for the objective:
To show the progress achieved within the solvent based research, it was chosen to use the best performing system demonstrated in pilot plants within the CESAR project as the reference for the HiPerCap project instead of the often-used reference process with MEA as solvent system. This solvent system, later named CESAR1, was a mixture of AMP and piperazine and it was shown that the reboiler duty for the conventional absorber/stripper configuration was almost 25% lower than for MEA (1).

As we also considered membrane and adsorbent based technologies in HiPerCap it was necessary to assess the total energy requirement, rather than just reporting improved reboiler duty. To allow comparisons between all the technologies, the CO2 capture process needed to be developed for integration with the CO2 source process. As mentioned in Chapter 2, the choice of a coal power station as the CO2 source was based on availability of models and data amongst the partners and in the proposal, we therefore applied the commonly used term "total efficiency penalty" for comparison of the technologies. Later in the HiPerCap project we decided to use a more dedicated term better covering the energy-based key performance indicator used in the assessment methodology developed in the project.

In retrospect the 25% improvement is indeed highly ambitious, but at the time of establishing the proposal in 2012 it seemed relevant and approachable. We realised that we were not able to reach the goal for all the various processes addressed, but we felt confident that we would be able to reach the goal for at least one of the membrane and adsorption cases based on very promising results reported in the literature (2). For the solvent systems we were more reluctant since we knew the development had improved substantially already (see separate objectives for the processes developed within WP1). However, we discussed that it was feasible by combining the solvent systems in the same process. In 2012 it was still common to promise considerable energy reduction, but usually the reference was not so clearly identified or the conventional process with MEA was used. By moving to a more future-oriented reference case we acknowledged the progress of research in this area, but still posed some ambitious goals.

Results achieved in the project related to objective 1:
After approximately two to three years with intense development of the solvent-based, adsorption and membrane technologies, associated processes and the assessment methodology, we started to worry that the main objective of 25% reduction in the total efficiency penalty could be difficult to achieve. Firstly, we discovered in the OCTAVIUS project (2011-2015) the best process configuration for the CESAR1 solvent system based on cost was the conventional absorber/stripper configuration (3). The cost improvement compared to MEA was 20% and this design was therefore used in HiPerCap as the benchmark. Within HiPerCap it was possible to identify solvent systems with better heat requirement than CESAR1, but they tended to require increased packing height and/or a more complex process which again would increase the cost of CO2 capture (thus conflicting with objective 2 of the project, see next).

For the adsorption system, the modelling part tended to be more time-consuming than first assumed. We chose to concentrate on the development of advanced mathematical models of the two chosen adsorption processes (FBTSA and MBTSA), and not to develop new adsorbents in the project (4). Data for an adsorbent family we knew was stable, has low cost, and were possible to produce in large quanta and make shaped versions of was therefore used. Activated carbons fitted well to our criteria. MAST Carbon, which was responsible for the activated carbon material (both granules and monoliths) development went into administration and had to leave the consortium before they had developed and produced the optimised sorbent material. This affected the input data for the associated process models, and delayed the effort into the model development and process design optimisation. Furthermore, the modelling turned out in general to be more complex (the adsorption-based swing processes require dynamic models to be developed). Especially, the moving bed concept was not able to fulfil the requirement of capture rate and CO2 product purity before the assessment and benchmarking in WP4 had to be done. This was later achieved, but there was no time and budget left for a complete analysis in WP4. However, ultimate results suggest that these processes are worth further investigation

It was disappointing that the membrane processes were not able to show better performance, especially since Xuezhong He and May-Britt Hägg in a paper published in 2015 (5), reported a cost reduction of 34% compared to MEA for a similar case as used in HiPerCap. In HiPerCap the developed membrane model was based on the solution-diffusion mechanism with the targeted values for the permeance and selectivity as input data for the model parameters. This type of model is adequate for most of the membranes considered in HiPerCap. For the facilitated membrane, the effect of the amine functionalised nanoparticles was not modelled due to the prohibitive complexity of this type of reactive CO2 transport within the project context. As it turned out to be difficult to achieve the effect by testing this specific membrane in HiPerCap (see WP3 later), it would have in any case been difficult to validate an eventual rigorous model. Nevertheless, the developed process model for the membranes considered in HiPerCap was useful, though it could also have been more optimised.

For both the adsorbent and the membrane-based processes, it was difficult to achieve the capture rate specification of 90%, which is regarded as cost-optimal for solvent based capture processes. Thus, it was decided to relax this requirement to 85%, but allow technologies to aim for the higher rate. For that reason, it was furthermore decided to use the specific energy penalty of avoided CO2 (SEPAC) to analyse each technology category. This measure compares the power output of the reference power plant with and without the novel capture process in place, normalised for the emission of CO2 avoided through application of capture technology.

It must be emphasised that the reference case has considerable less uncertainty in the performance than the technologies addressed in HiPerCap. For example, for the best technology further addressed in WP5 of HiPerCap, the relatively high CAPEX of the absorber cancelled out the benefit of reduced energy consumption, but the height of this column is highly uncertain and could be very conservative. A second example applies to the precipitating solvent system based process, which was the second technology studied in WP5. It was found that the more detailed analysis in WP5 resulted in a less favourable, but more accurate energy performance.

Both the higher uncertainty level as well as the specific application had an impact on the performance for the other technologies addressed. For example, the adsorption-based processes may perform better if lower temperature heat is available in the upstream process and likewise the membrane-based processes may perform better if the gas to be treated is available at higher pressure or the partial pressure of CO2 is higher than seen in the power plant case used in HiPerCap (13-14%). We have also seen that the energy performance improves drastically for the two latter types of technologies if the CO2 capture rate requirement can be reduced below 85%. The same trend is not so obvious for absorption-based processes. From this, it is difficult to conclude regarding applicability of these type of technologies for post-combustion capture, but at least the performance of the process should be utilised differently than absorption-based technologies.

Though the energy target of 25% reduction was not obtained in HiPerCap, we were able to reach the target of developing CO2 capture processes (12 different) and deliver proof-of-concepts for each technology. We have also seen that there is room for improvement with respect to the chemicals, the materials and the process models and capture processes developed within the HiPerCap project. The assessment in HiPerCap might not be considered as fair for all the technologies since it was done only for one type of CO2 source. However, this was agreed upon by all developers prior to the start of the project and at least the same methodology was used for the assessment and benchmarking. It must also be emphasized that the assessment methodology was developed within the project and as such the technologies considered were used as a case to also assess and validate the methodology.

3.1.2 Objective 2
• Improve the process designs to reduce capital and operating costs considering aspects such as environmental impact, operability and flexibility, size of equipment, and choice of materials.

Background for the objective:
Though energy requirement is an important factor influencing the CO2 capture cost, there are also other important factors to address when developing the design of the capture process. For instance, when evaluating a novel solvent, the kinetics of the reaction of CO2 absorption are of great importance, as they will greatly influence the height of the absorber column. This was clearly demonstrated in HiPerCap. Another important factor is the pressure at which CO2 is produced, since this will impact the cost and electricity of the CO2 compression train.

Results achieved in the project related to objective 2:
Though the processes were assessed based on the major cost drivers as indicated, none of them outperformed the reference case with respect to cost.

For some of the solvent-based technologies, the influence of the solvent properties on the capital costs was a prohibiting factor. For the solvent based on an amine blend with carbonic anhydrase, the system kinetics was lower than expected, and the absorber column turned out to be excessively high - with 75,2m of packing needed. This factor alone deems the solvent unviable, regardless of the energy number. For the precipitating systems, the low solvent capacity led to high solvent circulation and thus relatively high CAPEX. Due to the low capacity, the taurine-based solvent would require two absorbent columns. While we have demonstrated successful plant operation with the alanine-based system during HiPerCap, the operability of the plant required the rich loading to be limited, thus lowering the system capacity with respect to the thermodynamic optimal, and consequently increasing the capital and operational costs.

Since the energy requirement highly influence the operating cost of a capture plant, the associated cost assessment would have been better if the energy target in HiPerCap had been fulfilled. However, it is also difficult to estimate how the cost of advanced chemicals and materials as those considered in HiPerCap will develop in the future. As mentioned in the previous section related to Objective 1, the most cost-effective process for the solvent system CESAR1 is the conventional absorber/stripper configuration. The cost for this process is easier to estimate, but it must also be noted that in the HiPerCap project, it was required to look solely for environmental benign chemicals and materials. There are some environmental concerns related to the CESAR1 solvent system but with proper emission countermeasures it should be possible to avoid emission of any harmful components when plants are operated with the CESAR1 solvent system. The latter needs further investigation (presently ongoing in the ACT project ALIGN-CCUS), but undoubtedly it will influence on the cost of such plants. This cost effect was not taken into consideration in HiPerCap.

3.1.3 Objective 3
• Assessment of new and emerging technologies and processes for identification/selection of the two most promising breakthrough capture processes.

Background for the objective:
Though the project budget was distributed among the four major focus areas (WP1-4) in the project, a small portion of the budget was allocated for further studies of two of the best performing capture processes in the project. This was an internal "competition" within the project to guarantee that the various processes were developed so that the assessment methodology could be validated. Due to the large variation in maturity level we were aware that we most likely would not be able to develop completely optimised processes for all of them and thus the ranking leading to the two most promising breakthrough technologies may not be regarded as fair. However, this was agreed by all partners.

Results achieved in the project related to objective 3:
13 various capture processes (including the reference process), based on all the major separation technologies addressed in HiPerCap, were assessed and ranked according to their individual KPI scores (energy, cost and environmental impact). None of the adsorbent and membrane-based processes outperformed the reference case with respect to the energy KPI, while many of the absorption-based processes performed better. As already mentioned, the reference case got the highest score with respect to the cost KPI. Based on the overall ranking, it was decided to recommend two of the solvent based process for further studies in WP5. As mentioned for main objective 1, the results were quite disappointing especially for the adsorbent and membrane-based processes. Though we realised that the processes could have been even more optimised, all partners (in the General Assembly meeting) decided to proceed with the results based on the assessment technology.

One of the chosen technologies was the precipitating solvent system based on alanine, based on the promising energy number – however above the target of objective 1 - showed in the initial evaluation. The additional budget was spent on gathering additional data for the system, to close the identified knowledge gaps and enhance the model accuracy. Unfortunately, the new data and the improved thermodynamic and kinetics models revealed that the system performance was worse than first estimated.

Nevertheless, the exercise in which the people responsible for the technology development work closely together with those who are responsible for the assessment was very useful. Thus, we will recommend such tight interaction between process development for specific applications and technology development even at very low TRL.

3.1.4 Objective 4
• Establish a technological roadmap for the further development of the two selected breakthrough capture processes.


Background for the objective:
To establish a technological roadmap for further development seemed realistic within the dedicated budget for the two selected breakthrough capture processes.

Results achieved in the project related to objective 4:
Though a roadmap for solvent based processes seems easier than for the other type of processes addressed in HiPerCap because pilots are already established, there are certain gaps (e.g. emission and solvent management and necessary process modifications) that need to be addressed and resolved before such processes can be demonstrated at larger scale. These gaps are identified as part of WP5.

3.2 Introduction to results from WP1-5

WP 1-5 have directly or indirectly been described in 26 deliverables, see Table 3-1 in the attached document (D6.9). The results of these WPs are therefore only shortly presented and discussed here in D6.9. In the following sections a general introduction to each WP is given describing the main results (real data) and the partners involved followed by an overview of objectives, main results achievements (related to objectives, but also for further development), deviations (what, why and solution) and potential for further development.

3.3 WP1: Absorption based technologies

An overview of the tasks in WP1 and the HiPerCap partners involved in the specific task is given in Table 3-2 in the attached document (D6.9).

A short overview of objectives, main results, achievements (objective perspective, further development perspective), deviations and potential for further development for WP1 is given below and in Table 3-3 in the attached document (D6.9).

• Short description of WP1
In WP1 the focus is on new breakthrough absorption technologies. For all concepts we will demonstrate key features needed to make the concepts work and demonstrate energy potential of each. Furthermore, we will demonstrate a concept with combined CO2 absorption and utilisation using algae and perform an assessment of Bio-mimicking for enhanced CO2 absorption.
• Objectives
The main objective in this work package was to develop novel breakthrough absorption processes. The idea was to combine the different concepts addressed in WP1 to achieve 25% reduction in efficiency penalty (compared to the CESAR1 technology).
• Main results
Although the absorption systems were best performing with respect to both Energy and Cost KPI with some of them better then CESAR 1, none of the investigated technologies fulfilled the 25% target. The research was very valuable though. Since CCUS in Europe is moving away from coal to other sectors, the energy KPI becomes less important and the cost KPI become much more important. That might lead to new insights were the results of HiPerCap can be used and be very valuable to the CCUS community.
• Achievements (objective perspective)
o Enzyme catalysis of CO2 absorption (Task 1.1):
Objective: 10% improvement in energy performance compared to system without catalysis.
Achievement: The capture rate is enhanced 9 times. From the benchmarking performed in WP4 an overall energy improvement of 1% was reported.
o Precipitating solvent systems (Task 1.2):
Objective: 15% reduction in efficiency penalty over absorption systems without precipitation.
Achievement: 7.3% energy improvement for the best performing system. The system performance is hindered by the relatively small capacity of the solvent. As demonstrated experimentally in a pre-pilot campaign, the capacity needs to be limited to ensure the system operability.
o Strong bicarbonate forming solvents (Task 1.3):
Objective: 5% higher cyclic capacity than MEA and 15% reduction in efficiency penalty over state-of-the-art solvent.
Achievement: Cyclic capacity target reached. 5.1% energy improvement for the best performing system.
o Combined CO2 absorption with CO2 utilisation in the form of algae production (Task 1.4):
Objective: demonstrate the process.
Achievement: The process of algae production on flue gas from a coal fired power station was successfully demonstrated.
o Study of Biomimicking systems (Task 1.5):
Achievement: Study and experiments performed. A Zn-CR complex gives a rate constant, which is about 2 times higher compared to the reference. However, compared to the carbonic anhydrase the rate enhancement is still very small.
• Achievements (further development perspective)
It is concluded that there might be some niche applications for enzyme catalysed CO2 absorption. However, there are no present plans from PROCEDE to develop this technology further (see Table 6-5 in the attached document (D6.9) or Table B-2). For the precipitating systems, the technique is promising but there are knowledge gaps, especially in the field of handling solids (which might be easier at larger scale). TNO looks at industrial parties to develop this further. For the strong bicarbonate solvents, both solvents are promising. An optimum process configuration should be developed, and tests should take place at a larger scale. See Section 6.3 in the attached document (D6.9) as well as Table B-2 for further plans. For the Algae process, TNO has filed a patent. A scale up project is investigated for Aruba (Section 6.3 in the attached document, D6.9).
• Deviations (plan, objectives: what, why and solution)
All the processes were demonstrated at sufficient scale to make the right conclusions. The reality is that it remains difficult to beat the classical amine solvents by 25% on energy performance. The results of HiPerCap point to the fact that a full plant optimisation, considering also the energy requirement in the compression train, would be a better strategy. Therefore, a capture system that produces CO2 at elevated pressures as compared to CESAR1 could lead to greater improvements than those observed during the HiPerCap project. Combining this with the other features investigated within HiPerCap may be challenging. In special, the requirement for working with environmentally benign chemicals poses a strong constrain on solvent development.
• Potential for further development (important knowledge gained and how this information could be used and by whom)
There are opportunities in other sectors than the power industry where CAPEX – OPEX are the driving factors, more than energy performance for essentially all technologies investigated in WP1. Some knowledge gaps are remaining, but the trend is towards new process design driven by the reduction in CAPEX – OPEX. The dissemination of WP1 activities and results was very good, the developed knowledge is available for the community.

3.4 WP2: Adsorption based technologies

An overview of the tasks in WP2 and the HiPerCap partners involved in the specific task is given in Table 3-4 in the attached document (D6.9).

A short overview of objectives, main results, achievements (objective perspective, further development perspective), deviations and potential for further development for WP2 is given below and in Table 3-5 in the attached document (D6.9).

• Short description of WP2
The focus within HiPerCap was put on carbon materials development as it has shown very promising performance results for post-combustion CO2 capture. In addition, two types of adsorption process concepts have been developed in parallel based on temperature swing adsorption (TSA): fixed-bed and moving bed. Thus, two main approaches in the conformation of the carbon sorbents were selected: particulates (for the moving bed) and structured solid sorbents (for the fixed bed).
• Objectives
The main objective in WP2 was to prove adsorption with low-temperature solid sorbents as a high efficiency and environmentally benign technology for post-combustion CO2 capture by means of experimental and modelling work.
• Main results
o Solid sorbent development (Task 2.1):
15 carbon samples were produced and thoroughly characterised. Globally, carbons produced within HiPerCap show suitable characteristics to be applied to post-combustion CO2 capture. More details can be found in deliverable D2.1.
o Process development (Task 2.2):
Two types of adsorption technologies have been developed in parallel: fixed-bed TSA (FBTSA) and moving bed TSA (MBTSA) based on carbons produced in HiPerCap. FBTSA dynamic model built in Aspen Adsorption and validated with experimental results (details in deliverable D2.2). MBTSA implemented in gPROMS (details in deliverable D2.3). Testing with real flue gas at TNO’s pilot with a large-scale monolith module from MCI. No loss in capture performance of the monolith module was observed during that period (details in deliverable D2.6b).
o Process modelling (task 2.3):
Two FBTSA configurations further assessed in WP4 that met targets in CO2 recovery (85%) and CO2 purity (95%) but did not in energy consumption. FBTSA and MBTSA were further evaluated and final configurations with enhanced performances were achieved: HE5/HE6 and Conf. D Details about the FBTSA and MBTSA capture units in deliverable D2.5.
• Achievements (objective perspective)
o Proof of concept for low temperature solid sorbents under post-combustion conditions:
▪ Targeted thermal conductivity of MCI monoliths achieved: 18 W m-1 K-1
▪ MCI monolithic carbons with fast adsorption/desorption kinetics, with CO2 adsorption capacities of 1.2-1.4 mmol g-1 at 30 °C and 150 mbar
▪ MCI carbon beads can withstand a 100 °C temperature change within 3-4 minutes. CO2 adsorption capacities higher than 2.5 mmol g-1 at 1 bar and 30 ºC were achieved.
o Development of innovative TSA processes for post-combustion CO2 capture:
▪ Performance of carbon sorbents evaluated with simulated flue gas in fixed-bed adsorption units at CSIC and MCI facilities. Data set produced for model validation.
▪ Large-scale carbon honeycomb monolith (MCI) evaluated under post-combustion capture conditions with real flue gas at TNO facilities
▪ CSIC and SINTEF developed detailed models for fixed bed and moving bed adsorption, respectively.
o Production of the modelling data for process assessment in WP4
▪ Design of full scale adsorption based post-combustion CO2 capture process by fixed bed TSA (FBTSA, CSIC) and moving bed (MBTSA, SINTEF) TSA.
▪ Up-scaled processes sent to WP4 for process assessment. Improvements conducted but not assessed in WP4 due to time restrictions.
▪ Targets of CO2 capture rate and CO2 purity were met. Energy penalty still higher than benchmark technology but room for further improvements and optimization.
• Achievements (further development perspective)
o Compared to other carbon materials, the CO2 adsorption capacity of the carbons produced within HiPerCap is high; it is in the most cases above that of commercial activated carbons (i.e. above ~ 1 mmol g-1 at 150 mbar and 25 ºC). These data suggest that the carbons produced within HiPerCap are very competitive to existing carbon adsorbents for CO2 capture purposes.
o TSA is a flexible technology; the capture rate and product purity can be tailored by tuning process design (particularly in fixed-bed operation and operating parameters. This gives versatility to changes in product requirements.
o Adsorption based processes has the potential to reduce the energy requirements compared to the reference absorption technology addressed in HiPerCap through further materials and process development.
• Deviations (plan, objectives: what, why and solution)
MCI withdrew HiPerCap mid-2016. The main implication to the project was that the solid sorbents to be tested in real flue gas and used as basis for the simulation of the adsorption-based TSA capture units were not fully optimised. An alternative work plan was implemented: five large scale non-optimised carbon monoliths samples were finally supplied by MCI, characterised by CSIC and tested at TNO. In addition, deliverable D2.6 was merged with D2.4 in a new version, D2.6b, to report the results from the extra characterisation and the testing with real flue gas. MCI is no longer into operation. However, this situation does not have major consequences for the deployment of the adsorption technology. It was an outstanding supplier of tailored-made carbon materials, but worldwide there are other manufacturers.
• Potential for further development (important knowledge gained and how this information could be used and by whom)
o Adsorbent developers: in HiPerCap we have shown that materials with high selectivity (MBTSA) and fast kinetics (FBTSA) may be required. This is feasible to achieve with carbon materials. Structured materials from low-cost precursors show promising performance.
o Technology developers: in HiPerCap, WP2 has demonstrated the versatility of the adsorption technology and how a proper process design enables a significant reduction in the energy penalty of the related capture unit. Next steps should focus at reducing the carbon footprint and this may require novel engineering developments.

3.5 WP3: Membrane based technologies

An overview of the tasks in WP3 and the HiPerCap partners involved in the specific task is given in Table 3-6 in the attached document (D6.9).

A short overview of objectives, main results, achievements (objective perspective, further development perspective), deviations and potential for further development for WP3 is given below and in Table 3 7 in the attached document (D6.9).

• Short description of WP3
Three different approaches were used to develop novel membranes for an optimised membrane CO2 separation process; one based on hybrid membranes and two different ionic liquid membranes. A model for the membrane unit was also developed, and used as a black-box model in Aspen Plus for the process simulation used in WP4
• Objectives
o Hybrid membrane development (T3.1): To develop a hybrid (mixed matrix) membrane with a targeted CO2 permeance of 2.5 m3(STP)/m2h bar and selectivity CO2/N2 >100
o Supported ionic liquid membranes (SILMs, T3.2): NTNU: To develop supported ionic liquid membranes (SILM) with a targeted CO2 permeance of 4 m3(STP)/m2h bar and selectivity CO2/N2 >100, TIPS: To develop supported ionic liquid membranes (SILM) with a targeted CO2 permeance of 12-15 m3(STP)/m2h bar and selectivity CO2/N2 = 20 – 30
o Process modelling and simulation (T3.3): To develop a membrane simulation model for the hybrid membrane and SILM membranes
• Main results
Best results achieved was CO2 permeance of 0.4 m3(STP)/m2h bar and selectivity CO2/N2 ~60. No carrier effect of nanoparticles could be documented (facilitated transport)
T3.2 (NTNU): Best results achieved was CO2 permeance of ~2 m3(STP)/m2h bar (151 Barrer) and selectivity CO2/N2 ~64.
T3.2: (TIPS): Best results achieved was CO2 permeance of ~22 m3(STP)/m2h bar and selectivity CO2/N2 ~35.
T3.3: A membrane simulation model was successfully developed; however, the facilitated transport was incorporated only based on predicted data, and not as algorithms based on reactions.
• Achievements (objective perspective)
T3.1 The hybrid membrane was a PVA-polymer into which amine functionalised nanoparticles (HAPS) were embedded. The membrane was successfully prepared and characterised, however, no facilitated transport could be documented as expected, hence separation properties did not reach the goal. The choice of polymer and nanoparticles were based on promising results initially obtained in the previous iCap project (EU-FP7).
T3.2 (NTNU): SILM was successfully prepared with Nexar and [Bmim][BF4] after screening several polymers (support) and ionic liquids. The targeted permeance was not achieved, however there is a potential for increasing the separation performance. Limited time was a factor in this development.
T3.2 (TIPS): A thin film composite (TFC) membrane was successfully prepared using PIM on a PTMSP support, and the targeted separation was achieved. This membrane is however not a SILM. The objective of preparing a SILM membrane was not successful.
T3.3: The simulation model was successfully implemented in the process simulations done in WP4. A PhD-student obtained his doctoral degree based on this work
• Achievements (further development perspective)
T3.1: Despite the disappointing results in HiPerCap, the hybrid membrane based on functionalised nanoparticles embedded in PVA has the potential of becoming a successful membrane for CO2 separation. Further investigations should focus on varying the %particles in PVA and avoid agglomeration of particles.
T3.2 (NTNU): Further development should focus on optimization of the membrane materials recommended and thickness of layer.
T3.2 (TIPS): The goals for performance was reached, however, as a TFC membrane, and not as SILM. In further development the targeted performance of the membrane was set with a too low selectivity – this must be improved, possibly by sacrificing a bit on the goal for the permeance.
T3.3: The membrane model developed in the project and used for simulation of the membrane-based processes assessed in WP4 was adequate. The model was based on the set goals for the membranes, but the optimisation of the membrane based process is nevertheless challenging and this was indeed experienced in the HiPerCap project. The model itself may be used further with success for solution-diffusion based separation or mixed-matrix membranes. However, a comprehensive model with algorithms for the facilitated transport was not developed as part of HiPerCap. Such development will always need to go together with successful experimental research on facilitated transport over a wide range of variables (concentrations, temperature, pressure) which unfortunately was not possible in T3.1.
• Deviations (plan, objectives: what, why and solution)
T3.1: The nanoparticles agglomerated, which resulted in that the fixed amine groups on the Si-particles were not available for reaction with CO2 and carriers for facilitated transport. The solution to this should be investigations as stated above. The theory behind using functionalised groups for facilitated transport has been well documented with other materials.
T3.2 (NTNU): No deviations, on the right track. Only limited time for bringing the research closer to the targeted goal.
T3.2 (TIPS): No deviations; goals for performance were reached, however with a TFC membrane and not a SILM. It turned out that the selectivity in general was set too low for the membrane to be used in a profitable membrane process.
Adjustment of the targeted goals (higher selectivity) may present the TFC membrane as a good membrane for the application.
T3.3: See comments in previous section.
• Potential for further development (important knowledge gained and how this information could be used and by whom)
The knowledge gained in WP3 has confirmed the importance of doing a broad screening and documentation of the materials. Quite new paths were followed in HiPerCap for the selected materials. Functionalised nanoparticles may easily agglomerate, thus losing their separation properties. Right support materials for ionic liquids are crucial. Once the best materials have been chosen, the thickness of the selective membrane layer must be optimised (very thin) to increase the permeance. Modelling of facilitated transport must be based on successful results from carrier transport.
The documented results from all three tasks in WP3 are all valuable and useful for further investigations as they have revealed in a quite clear way where the obstacles are for the chosen membrane materials. A next step should additionally include investigations of material durability over time in relevant gas environment (see Section 6.3 or Table B-2). In the current work, only the PVA membrane with nanoparticles was checked in SO2 environment.

3.6 WP4: Assessment of CO2 capture technologies

An overview of the tasks in WP4 and the HiPerCap partners involved in the specific task is given in Table 3-8 in the attached document (D6.9).

A short overview of objectives, main results, achievements (objective perspective, further development perspective), deviations and potential for further development for WP4 is given below and in Table 3-9 in the attached document (D6.9).

• Short description of WP4
In WP4 the focus was on assessment of new and emerging CO2 capture technologies, for which limited data is available and the maturity level varies substantially.
• Objectives
The main objectives of WP4 has been to; establish comparison criteria for comparing CO2 capture technologies in early stage of development; develop a suitable methodology for assessment and comparison of the technologies being developed in WP1-3; establish references for state-of-the art capture technology; establish a common basis for the data required for each of the comparison criteria; establish guidelines for ranking and selecting two breakthrough technologies; assure a transparent data collection and alignment for the separate comparison criteria in the assessment; compare the potential of the different capture technologies and processes studied in WP 1-3 by using the developed criteria and methodology, and benchmark the results with a state-of-art CO2 capture reference technology; and perform a more detailed study of the performance for the two breakthrough technologies, and benchmark with state-of-the-art pilot plant demonstrated absorption-based technology.
• Main results
An assessment framework has been developed based on four assessment performance indicators. The framework consists of two stages. The first of which is a pass or fail assessment and the second part includes benchmarking and ranking. In the first stage, the criteria are the environmental KPI and the verification of the data quality and proof of concept assessment. For the novel CO2 capture processes that pass the first stage the capture process models are integrated with the reference power plant model. In the second stage, the integrated reference power plant and capture process is benchmarked against the state-of-the-art capture plant for energy usage using the Specific energy penalty of avoided CO2 (SEPAC), which represents the specific loss in power output of the power plant, with and without CO2 capture. At this stage of the assessment the cost is also considered to ensure that improvement of energy performance has not come at the expense of capture plant capital or operating costs. The approach for assessing the Cost KPI has been to look at the cost drivers. Several criteria have been established based the impact on overall cost, both CAPEX and OPEX.

The methodology has been applied to the technologies and processes studied in WP 1-3. In addition, the results have been benchmarked with a state-of-art CO2 capture reference technology. The benchmark show that 5 of the 12 process concepts outperform the reference regarding energy penalty, all of them being based on absorption technologies. It should be noted that the concepts based on the adsorption and membrane technologies have lower capture rate in this assessment, leading to a higher SEPAC value. Additionally, the high pressure drop and high heat requirement for the membrane and adsorption based concepts, respectively, were major reasons for the low performance result compared to the benchmark concept. The cost is assessed to be higher compared to the reference for all evaluated technologies. Based on the results, all concepts were ranked and two of the best performing concepts were recommended for further work in WP5. The decision on which concepts to be further studied was voted on at the following General Assembly meeting.

A re-evaluation of the technologies that have been further developed in WP5 was performed, the results show an improvement for the promoted solvent system (Task 5.1). However, the phase change solvent system (Task 5.2) have a poorer performance after the extension of the existing thermodynamic data set.
• Achievements (objective perspective)
A methodology has been established for comparing CO2 capture technologies in early stage of development including a reference for state-of-the art capture technology based on absorption using the CESAR1 solvent system.

A common basis for the data required for each of the comparison criteria was established and a transparent data collection and alignment for the separate comparison criteria in the assessment was performed.

The different capture technologies and processes studied in WP 1-3 was assessed by using the developed criteria and methodology and the results was benchmarked with a state-of-art CO2 capture reference technology.

For the two breakthrough technologies, a more detailed study of the performance was performed.
• Achievements (further development perspective)
A better understanding has been gained on the performance of the different technology groups, absorption, adsorption and membranes.

• Deviations (plan, objectives: what, why and solution)
Although some of the data was delayed from the WPs, WP4 has been able to accommodate the delays and the assessment and benchmarking was done as planned. Unfortunately, data from the improved adsorbent-based process models were not available for this work. If we had waited until they had finished this improvement, the WP5 had been delayed accordingly and since the work in WP5 was planned in the last year, we considered it too risky for this WP to wait. The plan for the work and the deadline for the WP contributions to WP4 was well communicated and accepted by the WP 1-3 partners.

• Potential for further development (important knowledge gained and how this information could be used and by whom)
A methodology framework has been developed for the assessment of new and emerging CO2 capture technologies, for which limited data is available and the maturity level varies substantially. The methodology has been disseminated and the developed framework is available for the community

3.7 WP5: Technological roadmap for development of CO2 capture technologies

An overview of the tasks in WP5 and the HiPerCap partners involved in the specific task is given in Table 3-10 in the attached document (D6.9).

A short overview of objectives, main results, achievements (objective perspective, further development perspective), deviations and potential for further development for WP5 is given below and in Table 3-11 in the attached document (D6.9).

• Short description of WP5
The purpose of WP5 was to further develop the two most promising technologies identified based on the technology assessment in WP4. The two technologies selected based on the assessment in WP4 were a promoted solvent system (SINTEF/NTNU) and a phase-change solvent system (TNO). The two tasks within the project focused on each technology separately and sought to identify and narrow the technology gaps.
• Objectives
The objective was to develop a technological roadmap for the industrial demonstration of the two chosen technologies and to identify knowledge gaps that need to be addressed before these technologies can be implemented at industrial pilot units. At the end of the project the technologies should be ready for demonstration at industrial pilot sites such as for example Technology Centre Mongstad (TCM, in Norway), the National Carbon Capture Centre (NCCC, in the US), or Carbon Capture Test Facility of SaskPower (CCTF).
• Main results
o Detailed study of selected capture technology 1 (Task 5.1.):
The promoted solvent system investigated in task 5.1 is, in concept, virtually identical to a range of other technologies that have already come to market. It is differentiated by the fact that it is potentially more energy efficient and ‘greener’ than other solvents that are already in use, due to the properties of the solvent blend that is planned to be used, rather than the adoption of a different process concept.

As the solvent requires a process concept already used by various commercial systems and could have been further tested in existing pilot plants as part of WP5 it was decided to focus more on optimising the use of the solvent within the system to further improve upon the energy performance. This included further refinements to the solvent/promoter blend and optimising the operating parameters of the system. Experiments were undertaken to characterise the performance of the blends. The experimental results were used to model the whole process to allow optimum operating conditions to be found and to determine the size and design a pilot plant. Since the solvent system considered here is environmental benign (which is one of the major qualification criteria for testing at TCM) it is believed that it could already now in 2018 be qualified for testing at larger scale facility as TCM. However, it is recommended to conduct further testing of degradation and emission at smaller scale prior to this.

o Detailed study of selected capture technology 2 (Task 5.2.):
The Alanine phase-change solvent system investigated in task 5.2 is in many ways like task 5.1 as it can be used in existing commercial systems. However, it has an additional complication in the slurry handling requirement within the system.

Task 5.2 included experiments to extend the existing thermodynamic data set for the solvent, determining kinetic data, viscosity and density. The study also investigated oxidative degradation and emissions from the system. The improved data set were used to update the full process model and pilot plant design. A mini-plant was also used to confirm the system’s performance and investigate the impact of precipitation on the overall process.

Whilst experimental data was obtained to improve two of the six VLSE equations, the revised thermodynamic model did not represent the equilibrium data at the entire operational range of loadings and temperatures. The model was fitted so that the data at key composition and temperature combinations would fit – for instance at conditions representing the top and bottom of the absorber and stripper columns, the reboiler, and the cross heat-exchanger. This allowed for a reasonable simulation capacity of the process, relatively in line with the operation of the mini-plant (predicted and measured loadings and pH). Proposed improvements to the model would be to explicitly include activity coefficients of the species, thus greatly increasing the degrees of freedom and model flexibility. The increased degrees of freedom should be matched by an increased data set, ideally including data of complementary nature to the VLSE, such as adding speciation and freezing point depression data. In work package 1 the specific reboiler duty had been calculated at 2.54 MJ/kg (CO2 recovered). When the model was updated, the uncertainty was lowered, but the estimated reboiler duty increased to 2.85MJ/kg. The mini-plant reboiler duty was calculated to be 5.7 MJ/kg. A direct comparison is not possible because the mini-plant duty includes heat losses from the equipment, and because the operational rich loading differed from that in the simulations due to operability constrains.

A mixture of ozone and oxygen was used to assess the oxidative degradation of the solvent. Whereas a control MEA solution saw its concentration from 5M to 3.28M over a six-hour period, there was no measured change in the Alanine solution. This is a first indication that the alanine solvent is more stable than MEA, possibly leading to reduced costs related to solvent make-up, but also correlated issues such as corrosivity and emissions at full scale operation.

At 40°C the carbon dioxide mass transfer rate was found to be just over half the rate for 30wt% MEA for a given partial pressure. As the pilot plant has a limited height, it was only able to extract 78% of the carbon dioxide. Solids were noted in the rich stream; further investigations found that increasing the reboiler temperature reduces the likelihood of clogging in the absorber, implying this issue can be controlled. – however, at the price of increased energy penalty. It was also found that when the plant had clogged up, the crystals could be removed by pumping though warm water.

The Alanine phase-change solvent system can be scaled-up and tested at realistic conditions at a large pilot scale (e.g. 100 kton CO2/year). However, during such a test it is important to adopt measures to avoid clogging. The conditions for that are plant specific, as the hydrodynamic factors influence the behaviour. TNO has demonstrated in their mini-plant, that operating at stable conditions is possible.

A programme including large scale tests could be completed in two years. Test would be required to improve the thermodynamic models, assess performance with real flue gasses and to identify suitable start up and shut down procedures.
• Achievements (objective perspective)
For the promoted solvent a small improvement in performance was noted. For the phase change solvent, the thermodynamic models were refined and a better understanding how to handle phase change issues was obtained. Given suitable funding, either technology could be taken through a development program, including last scale test, with completion in 2-3-year timeframe.
• Achievements (further development perspective)
A better understanding of the technologies has been obtained and a roadmap identifying what else needs to be done has been produced. The natures of these two technologies are such that the path to demonstration is relatively well established so that the gap analysis is relatively straightforward.
• Deviations (plan, objectives: what, why and solution)
None reported
• Potential for further development (important knowledge gained and how this information could be used and by whom)
This study improved understanding of the potential capabilities and costs of carbon capture technologies. Detailed understanding of the individual technologies is of relevance to the researchers, potential developers and policy makers.

1) Jacob N. Knudsen, Jimmy Andersen, Jørgen N. Jensen, Ole Biede, (2011), Evaluation of process upgrades and novel solvents for the post combustion CO2 capture process in pilot-scale, presented at the GHGT-10 conference and published in Energy Procedia, 4, pp. 1558-1565
2) Li-Chiang Lin, et al, (2012), In silico screening of carbon-capture materials, Nature Materials, 11, 633-641.
3) Kvamsdal, H.K., Ehlers, S., Kather, A., Khakharia, P., Nienoord, M., Fosbøl, P.L., Optimizing integrated reference cases in the OCTAVIUS project, IJGGC, 2016. 50: pp. 23-36
4) PEI based, MOFs and zeotype adsorbents were discussed initially in the project, but were not included due to their relatively low TRL level and anticipated low stability (partly PEI and partly MOFs), slow kinetics (PEI), not available as structured versions (all), high cost (partly MOFs), too high adsorption energy (PEI), etc.
5) He, X, Fu, C. Hägg MB; Membrane System Design and Process Feasibility Analysis for CO2 Capture from Flue Gas with a Fixed-site-carrier Membrane; Chemical Engineering Journal, 268 (2015) 1-9
Potential Impact:
4 Potential Impact

As mentioned in Section 2 the HiPerCap project proposal was designed to contribute to the Topic 5.1.2. “New generation high efficiency capture processes” in the call of the Activity Energy 5: CO2 Capture and Storage Technologies for Zero Emission Power Generation in the Work programme 2013. The expected impact of this call was:

Progress in this area should result in a significant reduction of the energy penalty of the whole capture process for power plants or other energy-intensive industries, and/or in a substantial decrease of the cost of capture. Projects should actively contribute to the implementation of the Roadmap and Implementation Plan of the CCS Industrial Initiative of the SET-Plan, and, whenever relevant, contribute to the monitoring and knowledge sharing schemes of the Initiative.

4.1 HiPerCap contribution towards the expected impact

The expected impact for the project was:
Progress achieved in HiPerCap should result in a significant reduction of the efficiency penalty of CO2 capture for power plants and in a substantial decrease of the cost of capture. This would allow accelerating the commercial deployment of large scale near zero emission power generation technology based on CCS.

Though the expected reduction of the efficiency penalty was not fulfilled in HiPerCap, it is as specifically mentioned in Section 3, expected that at least some of the materials and corresponding capture concepts have potential for further improvements. Preliminary results have shown that further optimisation of the process design and process conditions is necessary to fully realise the potential of the specific technology.

As also focused in the previous section the methodology developed to determining the relative potential of different capture technologies for a given exhaust gas can be utilised in similar future development of CO2 capture technologies and for the industrial application of CCS.
In Table 4-1 in the attached document, the HiPerCap impact on the SET-plan technology roadmap (6) , the EII Implementation plan (2010-2012) (7) for CCS, and ZEP report on long-term CCS R&D on post combustion processes (8) is summarised.

4.2 The European approach

Though the HiPerCap project was established as a response to a call in the European 7th Framework programme, the CCS approach to reduce CO2 emission need a global perspective, and a joint global effort. The specific call required collaboration with Australia, but we also approached possible Canadian partners. By including one research institute from Australia and one company from Canada, we also broadened the perspectives and were efficiently able to utilise their experiences with CCS in their respective countries. The collaboration with CSIRO was very useful and may open for further joint efforts. Nevertheless, while Australia is still focused on CCS applied in the power sector, the trend in Europe has changed towards more industrial deployment as this might be the only solution for reduced emission.

4.3 HiPerCap impact on present state-of-the-art CO2 capture technologies

The state-of-the-art for each technology addressed in HiPerCap was indicated in the proposal, but it there has also been development of similar technologies in other projects since then. Therefore below and in Table 4-2 in the attached document (D6.9), the HiPerCap results are compared to present state-of-the art.

• WP1:
Enzyme catalysis of CO2 absorption: process successfully demonstrated at pilot scale including important capture rate enhancement. Although this might not be applicable to the power sector, the technology and knowledge gained is interesting for other, smaller scale, applications.
Precipitating solvent systems: though there are others developing precipitating based processes, HiPerCap, has for the first time successfully demonstrated the process at pilot scale using standard packing material. Significant improvement in modelling the system. There is an energy improvement compared to the state of the art. Clogging is still a risk but the risk might be reduced on larger scale. Next step is to find an industry party who wants to invest in scaling up and adjusting the plant to be able to handle solids.
Strong bicarbonate forming solvents: Environmentally benign solvent systems identified which in HiPerCap has shown improvement in cyclic capacity and energy performance. Needs scale up, but which can be relatively easily done (no big adaptions of the plant are required).
Combined CO2 absorption with CO2 utilization in the form of algae production: new, patented, process developed to combine capture and utilisation with algae, using real flue gas from a coal fired power plant. The process is ready for further scale up.
Study of Biomimicking systems: The study gave some new interesting insights, but more research is necessary to assess the full potential.
• WP2:
CO2 uptakes at post-combustion conditions of carbons produced in the project are amongst the highest reported for carbon-based sorbents (9). Larger scale carbon monoliths were successfully tested in real flue gas (TNO pilot at Maasvlakte in Rotterdam) showing no loss in performance after 24 cycles.
Energy requirements of fixed-bed temperature swing adsorption processes (e.g. (HE5 & HE6 cases) are within the lowest reported in the literature for adsorption-based processes (10,11). Significant reductions can still be expected through materials and process development.
• WP3:
The membrane development in HiPerCap is in total evaluated to be valuable. The SILMs developed at NTNU are well in line with the research up front within the field – though the development of these membranes is still at a low TRL.
The TFC developed at TIPS is excellent, and will only need some adjustment of permeation properties:
The hybrid membrane development at NTNU experienced some problems with agglomeration of the selected nanoparticles (HAPS/POSS) (12); this seems to be a problem for several researchers (seen in publications), and the use of these particles have not yet been successfully applied despite their very promising potential. There is much research ongoing on facilitated transport membranes of various types; so far, the most successful has been developed at NTNU and is now licensed to Air Products. This is however a homogeneous polyvinyl amine fixed-site-carrier (FSC) membrane. The hybrid membrane selected for further development in HiPerCap was expected based on the iCap project to show even better separation performance. Further research is needed on the functionalised nanoparticles.
Both NTNU (13,14), and TIPS (15) are internationally up front with respect to membrane development, and valuable work has been done in the project to bringing membrane technology further. The results achieved are important for all three type of membranes which are all quite new with respect to membrane materials.
• WP4:
There are still few examples of studies where such a wide variety of technologies with respect to maturity level and limited data sets are compared in a consistent manner using the same application of the technology and thus the same amount and conditions of the gas to be treated
Given the development in the power market in Europe today, another source of CO2 would probably have been chosen. In a different application like e.g. iron, steel and cement (16), the results could be different given the characteristics and strengths of the different technologies.
• WP5:
The technologies covered in in work package 5 offer notable environmental advantages and an incremental improvement in energy performance (see WP1) but are likely to require a larger capital investment. There are solvent systems requiring considerable less heat input than the two systems considered in addition to the CESAR1 solvent system like the mixed salt concept by SRI which reports 30% less heat input. However, the solvent system requires a much more complex process than the conventional absorber/stripper configuration and as such the reported cost-reduction compared to MEA is around 9% (17), while as indicated in Section 3.1, the corresponding reduction for CESAR1 is 20%. With similar cost levels for the absorption-based systems considered here, it can be concluded that they are representatives for the present state-of-the art for this type of technology. It should be noted that the Mixed-salt concept is planned to be tested at TCM, but this require modifications to the CAP (Chilled Ammonia) plant at TCM. At least the strong bicarbonate forming solvent system could easily and within a short time-period be qualified for testing at TCM. Some more degradation and emission testing at smaller pilot scale is necessary. The latter concerns also the precipitating system, but more work related to the slurry handling system is required. However, the two-tree year perspective (including) as stated in Table 3-11 in the attached document is reasonable.

4.4 Assumptions and external factors necessary for the HiPerCap success

As written in the proposal, we were aware that the chosen reference process for the benchmarking is "not an inefficient process" and thus indicated the high risk of a very ambitious energy performance target. However, as indicated in Section 3.1, we had chosen concepts and technologies that we viewed as promising and that we believed could meet (or exceed) this target.

Though we put up a joint target for the energy performance to be achieved in HiPerCap, we had separate targets for WP1-3, of which most of them are met. Furthermore, we have indicated in Section 3 that many of the technologies and associated concepts are promising and should be further developed. It must, however, be noted that the potential of the technologies has yet to be proven at larger scale and there are issues that must be resolved for each technology.

In the project we had several partners with external funding, CSIRO being the largest contribution among these. There was a risk that some of these partners failed to obtain their own funding. The project was however organised so that loss of any of these partners should not significantly affect our ability to reach the main project objectives. This was in fact experienced when the Canadian company, CO2Solutions, dropped out when they had finished their obligations to the project.

One issue that we could not foresee is that one of the partners (SME) went into administration during the third year of the project and before they could finalise all their obligations. Although we did everything we could to minimize the impact, the incident influenced to some extent the process development of WP2 so that the concepts from this WP were assessed in WP4 along with the other concepts based on highly uncertain and not optimised data.

Despite of the ambitious environmental targets set forth in the EU today, there are currently weak drivers for the industries to cut CO2 emissions. International collaborative treaties such as the Paris Agreement (18), are necessary to mitigate the costs. For HiPerCap to be a success, it is expected that such treaties are ratified in the near future.

Other external factors that could enhance the expected impact of HiPerCap are:
• attract sufficient investment capital to realize scale up of the technologies investigated.
• increase societal support for (and in some Member States decrease societal opposition towards) CCS often related to lack of information and large-scale demonstrations;
• improve political commitment to CCS in some Member States.
Dissemination of the HiPerCap results on the assessment of the technologies based on both energy consumption and environmental impact, may contribute to improve public acceptance of CCS and help policy makers in taking decision. In this aspect, an information concerning technology scale up and implementation and how this should be taken to the next stage (roadmap) is essential as has been done for the two technologies further studied in WP5.

4.5 Impact on the world-wide market and the European Economy

The projects main goal was to reduce the energy requirement (and thus the cost) of CO2 capture technologies. Though we didn't reach the very strict target put up in the proposal, we have further developed many technologies and associated capture concepts within HiPerCap, which may eventually after further development lead to considerable cost reductions. By reducing the cost of implementation of CCS technology we will also contribute to reducing the cost associated with capping man-made CO2 emissions. It has been repeatedly observed that CCS can play a substantial role in reducing CO2 emissions. CCS is the only solution for emission reductions applicable to many industrial plants (other than closure). By reduction in the cost of CO2 capture, CCS will become more attractive and thus accelerate the effort to reduce CO2 emission at a lesser cost. Through HiPerCap, the participating partners have gained experience valuable in the CCS market. Many of the participating partners in HiPerCap are leading Research and development providers within CO2 capture. The present project has strengthened many of these organisations position as R&D providers Unfortunately, some had to change focus, for reasons not necessarily induced by the HiPerCap project.

For the industrial partners in HiPerCap the project has given insight into some promising capture technologies for industrial implementation. Furthermore, the assessment and benchmarking methodology could be exploitable by the industrial partners not only for CO2 capture, but also for general technology assessment.

Implementation of CCS in power generation and other industrial sectors emit CO2 will first of all contribute to reduced CO2 emissions and mitigate climate change following the 1.5-2oC scenario set by the Paris Agreement. Though, no longer so focus in Europe, CCS will enable sustainable power production worldwide using existing energy production facilities (retrofit). CCS is a growing market for technology providers, equipment vendors, and chemicals' manufacturers. Valorisation is expected through design and construction or expansion of production facilities for new materials (membranes, sorbents, and solvents) and full-scale capture plants; as well as providing technical services related to operation and maintenance of the production facilities.

4.6 Main dissemination activities and exploitation of results

4.6.1 Overview of the dissemination activities
One of HiPerCap' s main targeted impacts is a breakthrough in the development and implementation of Post-Combustion Capture technologies for both retrofit and green field power plants. However, since the technology readiness level (TRL) has been very low, it was during the first years very important to disseminate results and discuss with other researchers working on similar technologies. Thus, high-level technical presentations and publications at technology targeted conferences was highly focused in the start of the project. Then, along with valuable achievements in the project, peer-reviewed international journal publications were encouraged by the Coordinator and WP-leaders.

Dissemination of HiPerCap results was also aimed at contributing to a further increase of the public and political awareness and to bring high value scientific and technical information out to parties that can take it further to industrial implementation. Thus, some representatives from industrial stakeholders, public authorities (governmental offices, legislative bodies), NGOs, and the general public were invited to the two workshops organized as part of the HiPerCap project (see Sub-section 4.6.4). Dissemination practices were built on the experience of the consortium partners gained in other CO2-related projects. There were used many of the existing dissemination channels, extensively. While more modern-type of dissemination channels as e.g. Twitter, blog and webinars are regarded as more efficient, it is still very important to meet other people at arenas tailored for discussing results and exchanging ideas among people at the same scientific level. An overview of the dissemination activities is listed in Table 4-3 in the attached document and detailed more in the subsequent sections.

4.6.2 Dissemination to general public
Project web-site
A public website was established early in the project: see Figure 4-1 in the attached document for the home-page.

The intention was to inform both the scientific audience outside the consortium as well as the general public about the project plans, project results (open access publications and public versions of project reports) and important events. Mutual link to this web-site can be found at the other twinning projects (twinning with Australian counterparts) and in some public presentations and scientific papers.

The statistics for 2014-2018 shows that 3094 have used the webpage during this four years period. This includes 1097 sessions and a total of 4370 page views. The visitors reflect the countries of the partners in the project, Norway, Spain, France, United Kingdom and Netherlands, see Figure 4-2 in the attached document.

The results also show that the visitors mainly have found the webpage based on organic search (80.9%), of which Google was the preferred search motor in most of these cases. An overview of the most visited pages is given in Table 4-4 in the attached document.

As seen from Figure 4-2 in the attached document, the number of visitors from Norway are significantly higher than for the other European countries. This indicate that even if leaflets for the two organised workshops were distributed and the project was presented at several international conferences, the project have still not been capable of creating interest outside the partners countries. The high numbers of visitors to the webpage from Norway might be related to a dedicated CCS conference held in Trondheim every second year as well as the HiPerCap workshop that was held in Oslo. The data is slightly difficult to interpret, but it seems that the traditional methods as information leaflet and emails should be followed by more modern communication methods (blog, twitter) to increase people attention to the important work done in different projects. For follow-up projects (as well as future project, in which web-sites are established) it is necessary to define goals for the webpage and to follow the statistic closely to re-evaluate the goals and methods used.

The web-site will be kept active for some more years.

Press releases
A draft to be used as template for press releases was established early in the project. This dissemination channel is often used by some companies, e.g. DNVGL had the press release on the company's homepage (19), while there is no tradition for press releases related to projects at other partners' organisations.

4.6.3 Scientific journal publications and conference presentations and papers.
Scientific journal publications in peer-reviewed journals are targeted to the researchers working in the field of CCS. 14 papers have so far been published as listed at the project web-site while three are still planned (see Table A1 or Table 6-1 in the attached document). One journal publication is planned to describe the assessment methodology, but due to other obligations by the partner involved, this is still at the planning stage. For the GHGT conference series, papers for publication in Energy Procedia (until recently) are required for presentations at the conference. 12 papers are listed in Table A1 or Table 6-1 in the attached document, and one more is planned for the GHGT-14 conference in Australia in October 2018 which will be published in a different proceeding.

As indicated previously (Sub-section 4.6.1), conferences and workshops are very important channels providing an arena for dissemination of the project results and for the discussion of the presented results with a broad audience. From this point of view, poster presentations are important as much as the oral presentations. More than 40 oral and poster presentations were given at several international and national conferences, workshops and seminars (see Table A2 or Table 6-2 in the attached document). The conferences and presentations can be found at the project web-site.

4.6.4 Arrangement of events
4.6.4.1 Workshops overview
Two EU-Australia joint workshops were planned in the project and the first one was arranged in 2015 while the second was arranged in September 2017:

1. Workshop #1 took place 25-27 March 2015 in Melbourne, Australia – with focus on technology development and assessment methodologies. The workshop was hosted by CSIRO, on the University College premises at the University of Melbourne.
2. Workshop #2 took place 13-14 September 2017 in Oslo, Norway – with focus on technology deployment and possible operational issues in the full-scale plants. The workshop was hosted by DNVGL, on the premises of, DNVGL headquarters at Høvik.

The purpose of the workshop was to present not only the results of the project, but also the results from other CCS projects in Europe and Australia and to create synergies on CCS between R&D organizations and industry from Europe and Australia.

Four major themes adapted from four of the technical Work-packages in HiPerCap were covered. This means that three sessions dealt with the three major separation technologies (Absorption, adsorption and membranes) and one session dealt with methodologies for technology assessment and benchmarking. On average, there were four presentations per session. There were both presentations from HiPerCap partners and from other invited presenters outside the project. One presentation per session was dedicated for presentation of HiPerCap activities. Two sessions were devoted to the discussion. The focus of these sessions in the two workshops was slightly different.

The workshops were organized as conferences and were open for participation to all stakeholders - universities, research organizations, companies and public bodies interested in CCS. Some of the key speakers were invited from outside the consortium. Participation in the workshops was free-of-charge to ensure broad participation. Information about the workshop to the public was disseminated through e-mails and the external HiPerCap web-site. Prior to the meeting, a leaflet was prepared and distributed at CCS conferences and the workshops were also announced under "Events" in the IEAGHG weekly newsletter as well as the home page of GCCSI (http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/taxonomy/term/6106/all).

To cover some of the expenses (invited speakers travelling cost, conference lunches and dinner, etc.), the workshop organizers applied for additional funding (the CLIMIT program by the Research Council of Norway and TCM in Norway and Brown Coal Innovation Australia (BCIA) and Global CCS Institute (GCCSI)).

4.6.4.2 Workshop content and major outcome

Workshop #1
The program for the workshop is shown in Table 4-5 in the attached document and Table 4-6 in the attached document for the two days, respectively. As can be seen from the program, invited presenters represented external sponsors (first session day 1) and leading scientists within their respective fields. Two of the external presenters were from Europe, while the rest were from Australia. The themes in the two discussion sessions at the end of each day were devoted to recent trends for technology development within the three major types of gas separation addressed in HiPerCap as well as methodologies for technology evaluations.

Around 70 people attended the workshop, most of them from Australia and 13 from Europe and one from USA. Due to the low TRL focus in HiPerCap, most participants represented the academic community, however both The Global CCS Institute (GCCSI) and the Peter Cook CCS Centre were presented through key-note speakers.

It has been difficult to see any direct outcome of this workshop, but at least the participants were very pleased with the program, the presentations and the discussions. Paul Feron (CSRIO) was invited to write a summary of the workshop and posted as a news item at the homepage of GCCSI (http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/insights/HiPerCap).

More information about the workshop can be found in deliverable D7.2. All presentations are listed at the project website (www.sintef.no/hipercap).

Workshop #2
The program for the workshop is shown in Table 4-7 in the attached document and Table 4-8 in the attached document for the two days, respectively. In session 1, the invited speakers represented the host (DNVGL) and the external sponsors (The Norwegian Research Council (NRC) and TCM). Originally, Graeme Sweeney from ZEP had accepted to give a presentation about CCS in Europe, but he cancelled close to the workshop. Luckily the representative from NRC could give a similar overview, but of course a ZEP representative would have been better. Nevertheless, as for the workshop #1, it can be seen from the program, that the other invited presenters are leading scientists within their respective fields. One invited speaker represents a technology provider (Aker Solutions). Two of the external presenters were from Australia, while the rest were from Europe. The themes in the two discussion sessions at the end of each day were devoted to technology development and lessons learned (from TRL1 to TRL9) as well as industrial CO2 capture applications.

53 people attended the workshop, most of them from Europe and 3 from Australia. This number is lower than expected, but the dates coincides with other conferences and meetings. Nevertheless, an overview of participants at the second workshop is given in Figure 4-3 in the attached document.

The participants not directly involved in the project that joined the workshop includes end and lead users, research institutes, universities and other (funding agencies in Norway (research council and Gassnova, Global CCS Institute). Participation from SME was unfortunately lacking from both sides.

As for workshop #1 it has been difficult to see any direct outcome of workshop #2, but at least the participants were very pleased with the program, the presentations and the discussions. Furthermore, the participant from GCCSI, Ingvild Ombudstvedt twittered about the workshop at the first day (see Figure 4-4 in the attached document). Though only one indicated likes, she is followed by more than 600 persons and very active on twitter.

More information about the workshop can be found in deliverable D7.3. All presentations are listed at the project website (www.sintef.no/hipercap).


4.6.5 Communication with test facilities
The project was focused on the development and validation of different technologies in lab scale (proof-of-concept). Although further development and upscale of the technologies is continuously evaluated, no budget was assigned in the project for larger scale tests (pilot scale test facilities).

The Deputy Director of the Technology Centre Mongstad (Anne-Berit Hjorth Viken) gave a speech at the 2nd workshop arranged by HiPerCap. TCM is therefore aware of the different technologies addressed and the results from this project. Some previous discussions with TCM about necessary means for being qualified for testing at TCM were used as input to the road-map work of WP5. However, since the project was focused on the proof-of-concept and lab scale tests, no direct communications with test facilities were conducted as part of the project.

Nevertheless, the Coordinator of HiPerCap, SINTEF, meet regularly with TCM as well as NCCC. Two examples are given below:
SINTEF is collaborating with TCM in other projects and are fully aware of their requirements for test qualification. For example, in the ongoing ALIGN-CCUS project the aim is to establish the CESAR1 solvent system as the new benchmark if it can be qualified for testing at TCM. The possible showstopper is as indicated in Section 3.1, emission of any environmentally harmful species.

ITCN (International Test Centre Network) is a network for owners of test facilities world-wide and SINTEF has through its membership (SINTEF has a larger pilot at Tiller in Trondheim for solvent testing) direct possibilities for discussion of upscaling issues test possibilities with the other network partners. Both TCM and NCCC are also members of this network.

Both TCM and NCCC are following up research and technology developed at low TRL as they may be candidates for testing at their site in the future. As an example, TCM will be interested to join a planned follow-up initiative based on HiPerCap even though it is not planned any testing in their existing pilot plants.

4.6.6 Knowledge transfer to other projects and networks
HiPerCap was open for knowledge transfer to other projects and networks. Information on the project and results achieved in the project were presented in many conferences and workshops, including workshops in other EU-Australia twinning project, e.g. MATESA, INTERACT, ASCENT, and M4CO2. As mentioned in Table 3.9 in section 3.6 in the attached document, an initiative was taken by HiPerCap to collaborate with the other Australian-Europe twinning projects regarding development of the methodology for assessment and benchmarking. An initial meeting was arranged in Brussels in June 2014 to discuss and many were eager to collaborate on this activity similarly as was done in the European Benchmarking Taskforce work conducted in the CAESAR, CESAR and Decarbit projects. However, it turned out to be difficult, since this type of collaboration was not planned in the project proposals.

Nevertheless, HiPerCap invited presenters from the other twinning projects in the two workshops organised by the HiPerCap project and were open for participation for other projects and networks. To make it more visible, the workshop flyers were actively distributed by the project members at conferences and gatherings prior to the workshops.

4.6.7 Exploitation of results
Technologies developed in HiPerCap were validated in lab scale (TRL 3-4), except enzyme catalysis, tested in pilot scale (TRL4-5) at the conditions set in the project (coal-fired reference pilot plant). Further development of the technologies from the HiPerCap project towards higher TRL may be performed in separate projects. Design, procurement and construction of the pilot scale plants require higher budget and longer time for implementation. It should be noted that pilot scale facilities for sorbents and membranes testing are still scarce. So, joint development may be feasible economically where technology developers work closely together with the technology providers and end users.

At the same time, there are several possibilities for the solvent based technologies. Different pilot scale facilities are currently available for use as they are, or which may be modified to accommodate the developed solvent technologies. Since this technology is also the most mature, pilot tests with real flue gas is the next step to go. E.g. the Technology 1 (high bicarbonate forming solvent system) addressed in task 5.1 is practically ready for testing at pilot plants like the Tiller pilot in Trondheim, Norway. However, it needs to be further optimized, but this can easily be done by simulation with the model developed in the HiPerCap project.

It should be noted that technologies for post-combustion CO2 capture from a coal-fired power plant are developed in HiPerCap. However, it became clearer during the course of the project that the trend now at least in Europe, is to shut-down coal power stations and build new power generation plants based on renewable. However, the same technologies can be used for capturing CO2 from other gas sources though some work would be necessary for optimization and validation of the technologies for other gas compositions and operating conditions Nevertheless, it has been seen that some of the technologies might perform even better when applied in other industrial processes operating at other conditions and/or have excess low temperature heat available (see discussions in Section 3).

Partners in the project have continuously evaluated the market potential of the developed materials, models and processes throughout the course of the project. However, technology development in HiPerCap is aimed at CCS, in particular, at CO2 capture from coal-fired power plants. It must be emphasized that the various technologies developed in the project are still at very low TRL levels such that a complete business plan is too early.

A methodology for fair assessment of the technologies has been developed in the project for assessing and benchmarking of the technologies (WP4). Based on this, the two most promising processes were appointed and by applying process simulation a more detailed analysis was performed in WP5. For more reliable techno-economic assessment and costing of the large-scale demonstration units, further development and validation of the technologies at pilot scale are necessary (Section 3, WP5). Nevertheless, as indicated in Section 3 for WP4, the assessment and benchmarking methodology can be exploited directly in similar technology assessment studies.

A detailed plan for exploitation of results (foreground) is given in Table B2 or Table 6-4 in the attached document and Table 6-5 in the attached document for some of the products/solutions/methods addressed in HiPerCap.

6) http://setis.ec.europa.eu/welcome-to-setis/about-setis/technology-map/2011_Technology_Map1.pdf/view
7) http://ec.europa.eu/energy/technology/initiatives/doc/ccs_implementation_plan_final.pdf.
8) http://www.zeroemissionsplatform.eu/library.html/publication/95-zep-report-on-long-term-ccs-rad.html
9) Wang, J., Huang, L., Yang, R., Zhang, Z., Wu, J., Gao, Y., Wang, Q., O'Hareb, D., Zhong, Z. Recent advances in solid sorbents for CO2 capture and new development trends. Energy Environ. Sci., 2014. 7: p. 3478-3518.
10) Okumura, T., Yoshizawa, K., Nishibe, S., Iwasaki, H., Kazari, M., Hori, T., Parametric testing of a pilot-scale design for a moving-bed CO2 capture system using low-temperature steam. Energy Procedia, 2017. 114: p. 2322-2329.
11) Jo, S-H., Park, Y.C., Moon, J-H., Lee, S., Han, S.P., Yi, C-K., Heat integration of KIERDRY process with a power plant using gPROMS, Energy Procedia, 2017. 114: p. 6660-6665.
12) Guerrero, G., Hägg, M.B., Kignelman, G., Simon, C., Peters, T.A., Rival, N, Denonville, C., Investigation of amino and amidino functionalized Polyhedral Oligomeric SilSesquioxanes (POSS®) nanoparticles in PVA-based hybrid membranes for CO2/N2 separation, J. Membr. Sci., 544C (2017), 161-173
13) Hägg MB. (2016) Fossil Fuels Processing by Membrane Operations. In: Drioli E., Giorno L. (eds) Encyclopedia of Membranes. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. P (804-807)
14) Dai, Zhongde; Ansaloni, Luca; Deng, Liyuan. Recent advances in multi-layer composite polymeric membranes for CO2 separation: A review. Green Energy & Environment. (2016) vol. 1 (2)
15) Bazhenov S. et al. High-permeance crosslinked PTMSP thin-film composite membranes as supports for CO2 selective layer formation”. Green Energy and Environment. 2016, 1 (3), 235-245.
16) D.Leeson, N.Mac Dowell, N.Shah, C.Petit, P.S.Fennell. A Techno-economic analysis and systematic review of carbon capture and storage (CCS) applied to the iron and steel, cement, oil refining and pulp and paper industries, as well as other high purity sources. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control. 2017. 61. p .71-84.
17) Jayaweera, I., Jayaweera, P., Kundu, P. Anderko, A., Thomsen, K., Valenti, G., Bonalumid, D., and Lillia, S., (2017), Results from Process Modeling of the Mixed-salt Technology for CO2 Capture from Post-combustion-related Applications, presented at the GHGT-13 concerence and published in Energy Procedia, 114, pp. 771-780
18) http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php
19) https://www.dnvgl.com/










List of Websites:
Project web-site
A public website was established early in the project: see Figure 4-1 in the attached document, D6.9, for the home-page. More information regarding the webside is found in section 4.6.2.

5 Project logo and list of contact persons

5.1 HiPerCap Logo

A logo was drawn at the start of the project prior to the kick-off meeting and the best options were presented to the Consortium. The selected logo (Figure 5-1 in the attached document) was used within all HiPerCap documents.

5.2 Contact Details

The list of beneficiaries in HiPerCap and major contact details (as per January 2018) is given in Table 5-1 in the attached document (D6.9).

Related information

Reported by

STIFTELSEN SINTEF
Norway
Follow us on: RSS Facebook Twitter YouTube Managed by the EU Publications Office Top