Ann: Halloysite Nanotechnology Breakthroughs for Natural Nanotech, page-108

Cost reduction for Carbon Capture seems to be all focused towards membrane technology to effectively separate out the C02 more cost-effectively.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...es_for_CO_2_Capture_from_Power_Plant_Flue_Gas

From the above 2011 research:

Three gas separation technologies, chemical absorption, membrane separation and pressure swing adsorption, are usually applied for CO2 capture from flue gas in coal-fired power plants. In this work, the costs of the three technologies are analyzed and compared. The cost for chemical absorption is mainly from $30 to $60 per ton (based on CO2 avoided), while the minimum value is $10 per ton (based on CO2 avoided). As for membrane separation and pressure swing adsorption, the costs are $50 to $78 and $40 to $63 per ton (based on CO2 avoided), respectively. Measures are proposed to reduce the cost of the three technologies. For CO2 capture and storage process, the CO2 recovery and purity should be greater than 90%. Based on the cost, recovery, and purity, it seems that chemical absorption is currently the most cost-effective technology for CO2 capture from flue gas from power plants. However, membrane gas separation is the most promising alternative approach in the future, provided that membrane performance is further improved.​

​

This source is a good review of current membrane technology:

https://energsustainsoc.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s13705-018-0177-9







( also take a look at https://www.researchgate.net/public...Membranes_Experiments_and_Process_Simulations )

Looking for current commercial suppliers and I found BORSIG as a good example. This diagram from the below reference gives a good example of how membranes fit into a system, essentially a series of canisters and hence easily scaleable.

https://www.borsig.de/uploads/tx_bcpageflip/BORSIG_Membrane_Technology_GmbH_E.pdf





Borsig have an involvement in this project in Canada.

https://www.powermag.com/saskpowers-boundary-dam-carbon-capture-project-wins-powers-highest-award/

These snippets are interesting on the cost of CCUS systems at Fossil Fuel Power Plants:

• There’s no sugar-coating the fact that current options for CCS at fossil-fired power plants are expensive as well as technically challenging. BD3’s CCS project cost, according to a February release by SaskPower, is C$1.467 billion.
• Mississippi Power’s 582-MW Kemper County IGCC project, also behind schedule, is now projected to cost over US$6 billion—nearly triple its initial projected cost of $2.2 billion.
• Meanwhile, NRG Energy Inc.’s 240-MW post-combustion CC project in Texas, at the WA Parish plant (also designed to support EOR), broke ground in September last year. That project, with an estimated cost of US$1 billion, is scheduled for completion in 2016 and designed to capture 90% of CO2 emissions.

So the cost of these systems will drive big interest in technologies that can make them more efficient and more cost effective.

Sumitomo Chemical in Japan produces separation membranes.

https://www.sumikamaterials.com/pes-membrane-separation/

As does FujiFilm

https://www.fujifilm.eu/eu/products/industrial-products/membrane-technology/gas-membrane#content0



Will be interesting to see photos of GICAN's pilot plant to observe similarities in construction methods to above canisters and process modules.

I am also wondering. Is this image from the ADN announcement the starting point for a layer in a composite membrane?

​

I found this example of a C60 material being used as the basis for a composite membrane for carbon capture.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...composite_membrane_for_carbon_dioxide_capture