Lessons Learned from Carbon Capture Kickstart | Part 2: Location, tech and flue gas: A complex but core relationship for carbon capture

Carbon Capture Kickstart Introduction 

In 2022, the Government of Alberta, through Emissions Reduction Alberta (ERA), launched the Carbon Capture Kickstart (CCK) program – a CAD $40 million investment supporting Front-End Engineering Design (FEED) studies for 11 large-scale carbon capture projects across the province. 
 
In our Lessons Learned from 11 Industrial CCS FEED Studies report, developed in partnership with ERA, we share key findings from the CCK program. To help you navigate the report, this blog series will walk through each of the key technical and operational insights from the FEED studies.  

Part 2: Location, tech and flue gas: A complex but core relationship for carbon capture 

 In this blog, we’re summarizing the lessons learned from three complex areas: 

• Site location
• Technology selection 
• Flue gas characterization

All areas are interdependent and missing something in one can easily impact costs, capture rates and timing of the overall project. 

Site Considerations 

Deciding where to build a point-source capture plant is an integral part of a project’s initial design assessment. These plants capture CO₂ from the emissions produced by an industrial facility, refinery or power plant, and so they need to be located close by. Understanding how the implementation of a capture plant will affect the host facility is important as integrating capture technology can affect a facility’s energy use, process efficiency, maintenance schedules, and overall costs.   
 
The FEED studies completed in the CCK program validated several site considerations when assessing a capture plant’s location: 

• The age of host facility impacts its operational efficiency and refurbishment needs. Older facilities tend be smaller and less operationally efficient due to the age of equipment, with higher costs for refurbishment and limited remaining lifetime. Older host facilities will likely require significant refurbishment prior to incorporating a capture plant.  
• Proximity to transportation and storage reduces project costs. Read this blog for more on how transportation and storage can impact economics and timing.  

After selecting a site, key considerations for equipment placement and configuration included: 

• Site integrity is essential for placement of new equipment. Geotechnical data, which provides information on soil, rock, and groundwater conditions, is needed to confirm whether a site can safely support new equipment. This is particularly important for capture plants that have equipment with large footprints and significant height and weight considerations. 
• Proximity to existing infrastructure. The proximity of a capture plant to nearby roads and buildings can affect permitting requirements and construction risks.  

Other site considerations include the selection of multi-train or single train configurations and optimizing ducting layouts to minimize pressure losses and reduce material cost. Head to Section 4.1 for more insights on site considerations.  

Technology Selection 

When it comes to choosing the right technology, the FEED study participants agree – it’s one of the most important decisions because the amount of CO₂ captured hinges on a technology’s performance.  
 
There are several capture technologies available – everything from amines and cryogenics to metal organic frameworks. The technology selected depends on the flue gas composition, the type of industrial facility and the scale of emissions produced. Most importantly, the capture technology must integrate smoothly with the host facility, preventing delays and limiting costs.  

This or that? Check out the CCUS Technology Comparison Guide 

Most are playing it safe with technology choices. With Canada’s CCUS investment tax credit in mind (and its tight 2030 timeline at the time of evaluation), many are minimizing risk by assessing proven, high performing liquid amine technologies and conducting FEED studies with one or more proprietary amine vendors. Other capture technologies that were evaluated to a lesser extent by participants were cryogenic distillation and metal organic frameworks. 

Use this tool to find out what types of equipment are eligible for the CCUS ITC.  

Other key findings include: 

• Liquid amines are proven technologies, but their compatibility with flue gas components must be carefully evaluated. Flue gas composition can affect amine health and cause degradation if not assessed correctly. It’s important for vendors to be transparent about their amine chemistry, and any potential degradation products, so the system design can be tailored to ensure long-term performance and reliability.
• Several projects explored liquid amines and saw a limited difference in amine chemistry performance between vendors. Most teams are striving for capture rates of 90% or higher, and commercial vendors have generally committed to meeting this target. 
• Continuing to invest in next generation carbon capture technologies is valuable. Looking ahead to 2050 to meet our overall climate goals, there will be more opportunities to explore alternative technologies, such as calcium looping, cryogenic, membranes and solid adsorbents. 

Refer to Section 4.2 for more on technology selection.

Flue gas considerations 

Understanding the makeup and properties of the gas emitted from operations (i.e., flue gas characterization) is critical for the effective design and operation of a carbon capture system. If not properly accounted for, its components can negatively affect economic, operational, environmental, and health and safety outcomes of the project.  
 
The FEED studies showed that each sector has unique considerations based on the characteristics of their flue gas. With more data on flue gas composition from different sectors, new project developers will be better equipped to identify key components and develop more effective, targeted flue gas testing. 

Other key insights include: 

• CO2 concentration helps determine the optimal capture technology. For amine-based capture, higher CO2 concentrations in flue gas typically result in smaller towers and more efficient capture than flue gas with lower CO2 concentrations. However, at higher CO2 concentrations, more energy is required for amine regeneration which increases steam demand and operating costs.
• The capture system’s performance is strongly affected by what’s in the flue gas, which can change with variations in the host facility’s operating conditions. For example, variations can include changes in fuel type or changes in feedstock. To ensure optimal capture performance, projects need to design a system that can handle these fluctuations. 
• To improve data quality and comparisons across projects there is a need to develop standardized protocols and guidelines for flue gas characterization.
• In Alberta there are limited local testing capabilities to fully perform a thorough analysis on the flue gas components relevant to CCS. 

For more detail on this lesson learned, go to Section 4.3.  

Characterize early. Capture smarter.

Tackling flue gas characterization early in project planning helps to identify potential issues and informs decisions about pre-treatment units, capture types and technology providers. Our Flue Gas Calculator highlights how early flue gas characterization can improve design, reduce uncertainty, and support real-world performance. 
 
In short, it’s complicated. But not impossible. The lessons learned are valuable and can help capture projects to move more quickly while making smart and cost-effective decisions. 

Note: The lessons learned in this report are as of July 2024. While the studies were initially intended to be complete by end of 2024, the majority will now be completed by end of 2025. At the time of completion, all projects will publish final public reports summarizing FEED outcomes. Final metrics, including costs and emissions reductions, will be collected, analyzed, and disseminated.