Are you sure? After you remove the post, it will no longer appear in channel listings but you can access it directly. You can undo this later by clicking "approve".
Delete Postclose
Are you sure you want to delete this post? This is a permanent action and cannot be reversed.
Chris Harding — Chemical Engineer and Biological Scientist
a year ago
'It is important to emphasize that CO2 recovery is an economic rather than a technical specification. It may well be economically more effective to operate at a lower CO2 recovery.'[1]
As I suspected, fluidized beds for CO2 adsorption are the most common large systems. There has been much success, but the greatest success has been with addition of a vacuum in Pressure Swing and Temperature Swing adsorption. Applying vacuums to large vessels is quite challenging. Al together, it is a costly process.
The quote verifies my hypothesis. High recovery is possible with high purity CO2 streams, but most corporations probably save money by capturing less CO2 than needed for appropriate carbon dioxide removal (CDR) operations.
As [1] says, much progress has happened with adsorption processes over the last few decades, and I think more progress will be made in the future. After reading chapter 5, I have more hope that a new sorbent, possibly a Metal-Organic Framework, will be discovered. If so, economies of scale will drive the cost of the sorbent down, and sorbents are a significant cost of the overall system costs.
