Challenges to the Deployment of CCS

Transcription

1 Challenges to the Deployment of CCS in the Energy Intensive Industries (Discussion on Iron and Steel Industry) Stanley Santos IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme Cheltenham, UK Meeting with European Commission 13 th July 2012

2 INTRODUCTION RATIONALE FOR CCS DEPLOYMENT IN ENERGY INTENSIVE INDUSTRY 2

3 Deployment of CCS in various industrial i applications should provide significant contribution toward reduction of CO2 emission by 2050 (under the 2DS Scenario) 3

4 World Energy Use by Industrial Sector (Historic i Data) Five most energy intensive sectors are the steel, cement, chemicals & oil refineries, pulp and paper, aluminium accounts for 77% of the total energy use from industry

5 Direct CO2 Emissions from Industrial Sources (2007 data) Steel, Cement and Chemical Industries accounts for nearly 70% of the Direct CO2 Emissions. Th i i These emissions are not only from combustion of fossil fuel related CO2 emissions but also to include PROCESS RELATED CO2 EMISSIONS

6 Remarks on the ETP-2012 Findings It could be concluded from the IEA Energy Technology Perspective 2012 that CCS is an important part to the reduction of CO2 from the industrial sector. Technology is not only the main barrier to the CCS deployment in the industrial sector. Market competitiveness and global nature of some of these industries is an important issues that should be addressed. 6

7 EU Strategic Energy Technology Roadmap for CCS (2011) (Figure from SETIS Report) 7

8 Outline of Presentation Iron and Steel Sector Background Key Results of IEAGHG Techno-Economic Study o What we have learned ULCOS Programme (Europe) o Importance of Florange and Eisenhüttenstadt Project Course 50 Programme (Japan) Posco CCS Programme (South Korea) Other CO2 Capture Technology Options 8

9 BACKGROUND IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY 9

10 World Crude Steel Production (Data and Figure from World Steel) Total Steel Production has reached 1.52 Billion tonnes of crude steel. As compared to 2001 crude steel production has increased by ~80% from 851 million tonnes Major Steel Producing Regions China (683.9 million tonnes) EU27 (177.2 million tonnes) NAFTA (117.5 million tonnes) CIS (113 5 illi t ) CIS (113.5 million tonnes) Japan (107.6 million tonnes) India (71.3 million tonnes) 10

11 World Crude Steel Production (Share of BOF vs. EAF Route) ~69% of the crude steel produced d via BF/BOF Route Pig Iron Production ~ 1.1 Billion tonnes Scrap recycled DRI/HBI Production is ~74 million tonnes 11

12 Historical Energy Consumption and CO2 Emissions from Steel Industry (EU 27) (Data from ESTEP) 12

13 BF Technology is already near the Theoretical Limit it of Efficiency i 475 kg/t HM 13

14 IEA Greenhouse Gas Study Brief Overview and Key Results UNDERSTANDING THE COST OF INCORPORATING CO2 CAPTURE IN AN INTEGRATED STEEL MILL 14

15 Acknowledgement PROJECT PARTNERS PROJECT DELIVERY Total value of the Project: IEA GHG Contribution: ~4.4 4 million SKr ~1.2 million SKr 15

16 Objectives of the Study To specify a REFERENCE steel mill typical to Western European configuration and evaluate the technoeconomic performance of the integrated steel mill with and without CO2 capture. To determine the techno-economic performance, CO2 emissions and avoidance cost of the following cases: An integrated steel mill typical to Western Europe as the base case. An end of pipe CO2 capture using conventional MEA at two different levels of CO2 capture rate An Oxygen Blast Furnace (OBF) and using MDEA for CO2 capture. 16

17 STEEL MILL Battery Limit (REFERENCE Integrated Steel Mill) UNIT 100: UNIT 200: UNIT 300: COKE PRODUCTION SINTER PRODUCTION HOT METAL PRODUCTION UNIT 400: UNIT 500: UNIT 600: HOT METAL DESULPHURISATION BASIC OXYGEN STEELMAKING SECONDARY STEELMAKING UNIT 700: UNIT 800: UNIT 900: CONTINUOUS SLAB CASTING SLAB REHEATING HOT ROLLING MILL UNIT 1000: UNIT 1100: UNIT 1200: LIME PRODUCTION AIR SEPARATION UNIT (OXYGEN PRODUCTION) POWER PLANT UNIT 1300: ANCILLARY UNITS 17

18 STEEL MILL Battery Limit (Steel Mill with OBF & MDEA CO2 Capture) UNIT 100: UNIT 200: UNIT 300: COKE PRODUCTION SINTER PRODUCTION HOT METAL PRODUCTION UNIT 400: UNIT 500: UNIT 600: HOT METAL DESULPHURISATION BASIC OXYGEN STEELMAKING SECONDARY STEELMAKING UNIT 700: UNIT 800: UNIT 900: CONTINUOUS SLAB CASTING SLAB REHEATING HOT ROLLING MILL UNIT 1000: UNIT 1100: UNIT 1200: LIME PRODUCTION AIR SEPARATION UNIT (HIGH PURITY O2 PROD.) POWER PLANT UNIT 2000: STEAM GENERATION PLANT UNIT 3000: UNIT 4000: AIR SEPARATION UNIT (LOW PURITY O2 PROD.) CO2 CAPTURE & COMPRESSION PLANT UNIT 1300: ANCILLARY UNITS 18

19 Materials Input & Output Major Raw Materials Input: Prod cts and B Prod cts Iron Burden (Fines, Lumps, Pellets) Energy and Reductant o o o Coking Coal PCI Coal Natural Gas Fluxes (Limestone, Quartzite, Olivine, CaC2, Burnt Dolomite) Merchant Scrap (External) Ferroalloys (FeMnC, FeSi-75, De-Ox Aluminium) Major Intermediate Products Coke (Lump & Breeze) Sinter Hot Metal Liquid Steel Slab Lime HP & LP Oxygen Electricity Steam Products and By-Products: Hot Rolled Coil (Standard Grade) Coking Plant By-Products o Crude Tar, BTX and Sulphur Steel Mill Slag o o o o Granulated BF Slag (Sale) De-S Slag (Landfill) BOF Slag (Sale & Landfill) SM Slag (Landfill) BF Sludge and Dust (Landfill) MDEA Sludge (Landfill) Liquid Argon Gas Network within Site Industrial Gases o Off-Gases o o o o HP & LP Oxygen, Nitrogen and Argon OBF Top Gas OBF Process Gas (PG) Coke Oven Gas (COG) Basic Oxygen Furnace Gas (BOFG) Steam (9 Bar, saturated) Carbon Dioxide 19

20 Flow Sheet (Materials) Application of CO 2 Capture to an Integrated Steelworks Reference Steel Mill (Base Case) Production: 4,000,000 tonnes HRC/y (YEAR 06) Sinter Fines (Brazil) [ ] [ 15.7 ] BF Screen Undersize (excl. coke) [ 15.7 ] Sinter Fines (Australia) [ 88.1 ] [ 7.0 ] Reclaimed Coke [ 7.0 ] (ex BF Screen) Quartzite Olivine Limestone [ 22.6 ] [ ] [ 13.3 ] Sinter Fines (Sweden) [ 61.6 ] [ 47.3 ] [ 7.8 ] [ 34.2 ] [ 24.0 ] BF/BOS Dust & Sludge HM Spillage / De-S Slag BOS Slag Mill Scales [ 32.4 ] [ 34.2 ] [ 14.9 ] [ 7.8 ] [ ] [ ] Hard Coking Coal Soft Coking Coal Calcium Carbide Crude Tar Lime Coke Breeze [ 16.8 ] Benzole (BTX) UNIT 1000 UNIT 200 UNIT 100 [ 4.9 ] Sulphur Lime [ ] Sinter (58% Fe) Lump Coke [ 1.2 ] Iron Ore Lumps [ 1,111.4 ] [ ] [ ] Iron Ore Pellets PCICoal Coal BF Granulated Slag [ 10.8 ] [ ]. [ ] [ ] LimePlant [ 11.1 ] Sinter Plant [ 55.6 ] Coke Plant [ 13.1 ] Iron Making BF Sludge UNIT 300 & 400 [ 4.0 ] [ 3.2 ] de-s Slag Purchased Scrap [ ] Hot M etal (95% Fe) [ 13.3 ] [ ] Burnt Dolomite [168].8 FerroAlloy & Al BOS Slag (Sale) [ 11.8 ] [ 56.2 ] [ 75.5 ] Steel Making BOS Slag [ 5.4 ] UNIT 500 & 600 [ 31.8 ] SM Slag Liquid Steel (99% Fe) [ 8.6 ] [ 1,086.3 ] [ 9.2 ] Slab Caster UNIT 700 [ 27.2 ] Slab [ 1,052.6 ] Legend [xxx.x] - kg/t HRC (Dry Basis) [ 14.8 ] M ill Scales Reheating & HRM [ 42.1 ] Scrap UNIT 800 & 900 Hot Rolled Coil [ 1,000.0 ] 20

21 Integrated Steel Mill Gas Network (YEAR 06) GJ/t HRC Flare/Lost GJ/t HRC GJ/t HRC GJ/t HRC GJ/t HRC GJ/t HRC GJ/t HRC Ancilliary Units Lime Plant Sinter Plant Coke Plant UNIT 1300 UNIT 1000 UNIT 200 UNIT x PFR Kiln 1 x 410m 2 st rand area m/c 3 Bat t eries / 144 Ovens GJ/t HRC COG Nm 3 /t HRC Blast Furnace GJ/t HRC 4.96 Nm 3 /t HRC* 2750m 3 working volume kg/t HRC kg/t HRC UNIT x 11 m diamet er heart h 7.89 GJ/t HRC BFG GJ/t HRC 0.14 Nm 3 /t HRC* Desulphurisation Plant UNIT 400 Integrated Steel Mill is typically well equipped and 0.78 flexible with delivery of offgases, steam and industrial gases to the different Vent/Lost Factory Sites CO2 Pipeline could be equally as large in diameter as compared to the BFG Pipeline Waste Nitrogen Excess Oxygen Nm 3 /t HRC O 2 N 2 O 2 Ar Nm 3 /t HRC* BOS Plant kg/t HRC UNIT 500 Nm 3 /t HRC Steam BOFG x 220t Vessels GJ/t HRC GJ/t HRC Nm 3 /t HRC Ladle Metallurgy UNIT GJ/t HRC Nm 3 /t HRC 2 x Laddle St at ions 0.11 Nm 3 /t HRC Continuous Caster UNIT GJ/t HRC Nm 3 /t HRC 2 x 2-St rands Reheating UNIT GJ/t HRC 4 x Walking Beam Furnace Hot Rolling Mill 2.63 UNIT 800 Nm 3 /t HRC 2 x Reversing Mills 6 x Finishing Mills & 3 x Coilers Air Separation Unit Power Plant GJ/t HRC UNIT 1100 UNIT x 1900 TPD O2 1 x 215 MWe GJ/t HRC Liquid Argon to Sale 5.43 kg/t HRC GJ/t HRC Natural Gas kg/t HRC 21

22 CO2 Emissions from Integrated Steel Mill Annual Production: 4 Million Tonnes Hot Rolled Coil (REFERENCE vs. OBF / MDEA) Power Plant 46.99% Coke Plant 9.31% Steam Generation Power Plant Plant 18.94% 25.13% Lime Plant 343% 3.43% Reheating & HRM 2.76% Iron Making 21.18% Sinter Plant 13.85% Reheating & HRM 5.18% Slab Casting 0.07% Lime Plant 6.41% Steelmaking 4.58% Iron Making 4.65% Sinter Plant 23.83% Coke Plant 11.22% Slab Casting 0.04% Steelmaking 2.44% REFERENCE Integrated Steel Mill Steel Mill with OBF & MDEA CO2 Capture (2090 kg per tonne of Hot Rolled Coil) (1115 kg per tonne of Hot Rolled Coil) OBF with MDEA CO2 Capture: Total CO2 Captured: ~860 kg/t HRC CO2 Avoided: 46.7% 22

23 Techno-Economic Model ENERGY BY-PRODUCTS & MAIN INTERMEDIATE RAW MATERIALS MAJOR PROCESSES PLANT BY-PRODUCTS EXPORTED PRODUCTS OTHER IND. GASES PRODUCTS WASTE PRODUCTS Natural Gas Power Plant UNIT 1200 Electricity Hard Coking Coal Semi-Soft Coking Coal PCI Coal Nitrogen Argon Air Separation Unit UNIT 1100 Oxygen Liquid Argon Waste Nitrogen Limestone Lime Plant UNIT 1000 Lime Olivine Quartzite Coke Oven Gas Coke Plant UNIT 100 Coke Breeze Lump Coke Crude Tar, Benzole, Sulphur Iron Ore - Fines Sinter Plant UNIT 200 Sinter Sinter Fines Returns Iron Ore - Lumps Iron Ore - P ellets BF Returns & Reclaimed Hot Metal Coke, BF Dust, de-s BF Gas Iron Making Granulated BF Slag UNIT 300 & 400 Slag/HM Spillage de-s Slag & BF Sludge M erchant Scrap BOS Gas Steam Steel Making UNIT 500 & 600 Liquid Steel BOS Slag, Dust & Sludge Scrap BOS Slag BOS Slag & SM Slag Ferro Alloys / Deox Al Burnt Dolomite Continuous Caster UNIT 700 Slab M ill Scale Scrap CaC 2 Powder Consummables and Other Works & Operation Expenses Reheating & Rolling UNIT 800 & 900 M ill Scale Scrap Hot Rolled Coil Raw M aterials & Consummables Bought at Fixed Price and Sold Directly to the Users Energy & Fuel Gases Sold at Fixed Price to Users & Credit to Producers By-Product Gases Sold to Users at Zero Value INTERNAL CUSTOMERS (USERS) Products Sold to Users at Producer's Direct Cost Plant By-Products Sold to Users at Fixed Price & Credit to Producers Exported By-Products Sold at Fixed Price Hot Rolled Coil Sold at Variable / M arket Price Waste Products Charged at Cost to Producers Waste Nitrogen Vented at Zero Value Cost M odel Assumptions and Basis of Calculations

24 Cost of Steel Production - Breakdown Break Even Price $ Capital Cost Fuel & Reductant Iron Ore (Fines, Lumps & Pellets) $135 $118 $120 55% of the Cost is related to Raw Materials, Energy and Reductant Purchased Scrap & FerroAlloys $53 Fluxes $11 Other Raw Mat'l & Consummables $12 Labour $70 Mi Maintenance & Oh Other O&M $55 $0.0 $100.0 $200.0 $300.0 $400.0 $500.0 $600.0 Breakeven Price Pi of HRC & Breakdown ($/t) 24

25 Breakdown of the Breakeven Price of HRC (Steel Mill with OBF & MDEA CO2 Capture) 25

26 Impact of the OBF/MDEA CO2 Capture Plant to the Breakeven Cost of HRC Production (Very Specific to this Study) Capital Cost increased by 18.8% Fuel and Reductant Cost increased by 17.3% Coking Coal Cost decreased by ~24% Natural Gas Cost increased by ~495% Iron Burden Cost 10% 1.0% increased by Iron Ore (Fines, Lumps and Pellets), Purchased Scrap & Ferroalloys Fluxes Cost decreased eased by 9.4% Significant reduction of limestone and quartzite consumption Other Consumable Cost increased by 15.7% Increased in cost of raw water consumption Additional cost due to Chemicals & Consumables used by SGP. Additional cost due to MDEA/Pz Solvent Make Up Labour Cost increased by 1.4% 26

27 Evolution of Coking Coal Price (Data provided by P. Baruya IEA CCC) 27

28 Summary of Results (Sensitivity to Coke Price) $80.00 $70.00 CO2 Av voidance Co ost (US$/t) $ $50.00 $40.00 $30.00 $20.00 $ $92/t Coke OBF Base Case CO2 Avoidance Cost = ~$56.4/t OBF/MDEA Case EOP L1 Case It should be noted that Steel Mill used a significant variety of coking coal depending on market price (low to high quality coking coal) COKE is a tradable commodity $ 0.5P 1P 1.5P 2P 2.5P Price of Coking Coal 28

29 Summary of Results Steel Mill with OBF/MDEA CO2 Capture producing 4 MTPY standard Hot Rolled Coil was defined in detail in the study. Mass Balance Gas Network Electricity Network CO2 emissions of each unit Study was able to established a baseline cost for an Integrated Steel Mill equipped with OBF, Top Gas Recycle and MDEA/Pz CO2 capture technology. 29

30 Note: Current study only illustrates one of the many options available for oxy-blast furnaces This do not represents the choice made by the ULCOS Programme. Florange Project Eisenhüttenstadt Project 30

31 What We Have Learned from this Study Recognising the different limitations for this study allows us to identify where are the gaps in information are and what we need to evaluate for future studies. What are these limitations it ti Availability of a reliable cost data Limited budget for this study didn t allow us to optimise certain aspects of the different process evaluated. 31

32 What We Have Learned from this Study Technical Aspects Helped us understand the dynamics of the integrated steel mill especially interaction of various processes with respect to CO2 emissions. Identified the uncertainties with respect to the operation of the oxy-blast furnace. o Need to verify and validate coke reduction potential of the coke reduction by the oxy-blast furnace. o This study presented a reduction of 24% of coke requirements for the Blast Furnace 32

33 Metal Burden Composition (EU15 Steelworks 1990 vs 2008) Data courtesy of VDEH 33

34 22 Sites with > 2 MT CO2 Emissions (2008) (Data from C. Beauman EBRD) AM Bremen SSAB Oxelosund Lucchini Piombino AM Sollac Lorraine Salzgitter Glocke Rauturuuki AM Gent VoestAlpine Linz (inc. coke ovens) AM Espana Dillinger Teeside (now SSI) AM Ostrava Tata Ijmuiden AM Fos AM Poland (inc. coke ovens) Tata Scunthorpe Tata Port Talbot AM Galati USSteel Kosice Riva Taranto AM Dunquerque TKS Duisberg/HKM Duisenberg m t C O 2 (T O T A L: ) Amount of CO2 capture per site could be greater than what we get from coal fired power plant. 34

35 What We Have Learned from this Study Stakeholders discussion 1 st Workshop November 2011 Review Meeting April 2012 Planned 2 nd Workshop April/May 2013 ULCOS Data Comparison 35

36 ULCOS PROGRAMME 36

37 The 4 process routes Coal & sustainable biomass Natural gas Electricity Revamped BF Greenfield Revamped DR Greenfield ULCOS-BF HIsarna ULCORED ULCOWIN ULCOLYSIS Pilot tests (1.5 t/h) Demonstration under way Pilot plant (8 t/h) start-up 2010 Pilot plant (1 t/h) to be erected in 2013? Laboratory Challenges & Opportunities of CCS in the Iron & Steel Industry, IEA-GHG, Düsseldorf, 8-9 November

38 HRG-trials at BF2 with recycling CO2 free topgas Toulachermet (Russia) Mid of 80 s Development of a NFBF by NKK (Japan) 1984 NFBF-concept of Lu (Canada) Late 70 s Patent of Fink about a NFBF (Germany) Mid 60 s CRM at Cockerill-Seraing (Belgium) 1920 Lance hot reducing gas injection 38

39 The Ulcos Blast Furnace Concepts Coke Top pg gas (CO, CO2, H2, N2) Gas cleaning Gas net (N2 purge) CO 2 scrubber CO Nm3 /t CO, H2, N2 Gas heater V4 900 C V3 X V1 900 C Oxygen PCI Re-injection 1250 C 1250 C 25 C Expected C-savings 25 % 24 % 21 % 39

40 Separation and Capture of CO2 from OBF also has several other options (Data from ULCOS Programme) PSA, VPSA VPSA + Cryogenics Separation of non-co2 components Chemical Absorption 40

41 JAPANESE COURSE50 PROGRAMME 41

42 Project Outline (1) Technologies to reduce CO 2 emissions from blast furnace (2) Technologies for CO 2 capture Iron ore H 2 amplification Shaft furnace Coke production technology for BF hydrogen reduction COG reformer Coking plant Reduction of coke Coke High strength & high reactivity coke BF BFG Chemical absorption Physical adsorption CO-rich gas Regeneration Tower Reboiler CO 2 storage technology Iron ore pre-reduction technology Other project H 2 Coke substitution reducing agent production technology Sensible heat recovery from slag (example) Waste heat recovery boiler Hot air Slag Cold air Reaction control technology for BF hydrogen reduction Kalina cycle Power generation Technology for utilization of unused waste heat Absorption Tower CO2 capture technology COURSE50 / CO 2 Ultimate Reduction in Steelmaking Process by Innovative Technology for Cool Earth 50 P 42 Steam Electricity Hot metal BOF

43 Collaboration Scheme to Develop New Chemical Absorbents Development of new chemical absorbents (NSC + RITE + Univ. of Tokyo) Quantum chemical calculations Design new amine Compounds. Experiment Synthesize new amines Design absorbents Evaluate the performance Industrial application Chemoinformatics Suggest new amine compounds Evaluation with test plants (NSEC) CAT1 (1t CO 2 /d) CAT30 (30t CO 2 /d) Absorber Stripper Reboiler P 43

44 Development of the chemical absorption process Test Equipment: Process Evaluation Plant (30t/D) Off gas Absorber CO2 Regenerato r Nippon Steel Kimitsu Works No. 4BF Bench Plant(1t/D) Reboli er Absorber Regenerato r P ,17 June

45 CO 2 Separation Cost(JP /t-co2) Development of the chemical absorption process Strategy for Cost Reduction 2004Fy Waste heat recovery Present Development of the chemical absorbent Optimization of the chemical absorption process 3000 Optimization of the entire system (with the improvement of steel-making process) P 45 Goal Heat Unit Consumption (GJ/t-CO 2 )

46 SOUTH KOREAN PROGRAMME 46

47 Research Institute of Industrial Science and Technology AQUEOUS AMMONIA- BASED CO CAPTURE 2 AT POSCO/RIST 47/20

48 1 st stage pilot plant (1/2) Process improvement 2 Removal of condenser at the top of the concentrator - Improvement of heat efficiency in the stripper and concentrator - Prevent clogging of the pipe line Temperature decreasing Temperatur re( o C) T101 T102 T103 T104 T115 Side stream in the absorber - Temperature decrement in the middle of the absorber - Improvement of absorption efficiency - Suppression of ammonia vaporization Temperature Sensor 48

49 2 nd Stage pilot plant Operation of 2 nd stage pilot plant (May. 2011~) Development of CO 2 capture process for commercialization using aqueous ammonia in iron & steelmaking In Utilizing the waste heats at low and mid-temperature waste heat as regeneration energy Ultimate goal: CO 2 removal > 90%, CO 2 purity > 95%, energy requirement < 2.0 GJ/ton-CO 2 stripper concentrator absorber 33m concentrator stripper absorber Dimensions : Absorber - D 1.4m, H 27m : Stripper - D 0.9m, H 20.6m : Concentrator - D 0.5m, H 11.7m Capacities : 1000 Nm 3 -BFG/hr as 0.5 MW (CO 2 conc: 20~25%) 17m 19m 49

50 Summary and Conclusions CO 2 Reductions Needs in Iron and Steel Industry - Iron and steel sector: Comprises large portion of CO 2 emissions - Desperate needs for reduction CO 2 emissions Ammonia-based CO 2 Capture Technology: low regeneration energy - Viable solution as an alternative to the state-of-the-art MEA process RIST Technology - Steel Industry-specific CO 2 capture process - Low concentration ammonia solution using waste heat in steel industry - Pilot plant results (1,000 Nm 3 -BFG/hr): Removal efficiency ~ 90%, Purity > 95% - soft-sensor sensor technique and statistical model for monitoring/controlling system Technology Road Map (CO 2 Capture Technology) : POSCO Project : Government Project Initiation : Lab-scale Research Lab-scale Research (2Nm 3 /h) 1 st stage PP System: construction and operation P1 Development of waste heat recovery system Construction/Operation of CO 2 capture 2 nd stage pilot plant (10t/d) System integration/ Utilization of CO 2 Process optimization/ Long-term operation Purification/Utilizatin of CO 2 commercialization Workgroup RIST POSTEC H PNU POSCO POSCO E&C 50

51 FINEX Development 51/20 51

52 52

53 Recommendations Evaluate other technology options of capturing CO2 from BF/BOF Integrated Steel Production o Air Products - BF Plus Technology Linde s Co-Production of Methanol Option Praxair Hydrogen Based BF 53

54 Recommendations For future studies :- it was recognised from this study that t other areas where potential ti for improvement could be achieved For Example: Improvement to the Air Separation Unit o Dual Purity O2 Production could deliver between US$ 60 to 80 Million of CAPEX savings and at the same time with good potential to reduce electricity demand. Evaluate other options for steam and electricity supply o CHP / COGEN Option could bring down CO2 avoidance cost by 8-12% (as compared to results presented in this study). Evaluate other improved solvents (i.e. AMP, etc...) o Leading to a reduction to steam demandd 54

55 Recommendations (cont d) REPORTING CO2 Avoidance Cost for a complex industrial processes is meaningless without establishing the assumptions used for the REFERENCE Plant without CO2 Capture. This is not a good indicator for these cases yet we are trapped in it... RECOMMENDATION :- It is necessary to establish REFERENCE Industrial Plants with different degrees of complexities which could be used for a good basis of comparison; Worthwhile considerations probably to do a similar task as what IEA CCC did for the G8 Gleneagles Project i.e. - establishing a profile of the best performing power plants per region worldwide. 55