Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is considered to be a promising technology in reducing atmospheric CO2 concentration. Among the CO2 capture technologies, adsorption has grabbed significant attention owing to its advantageous characteristics discovered in recent years. Solid adsorbents have emerged as one of the most versatile CO2 adsorbents.
where CD: CO2 emissions, P: Population, GDP: economic development in gross domestic production, E: energy production, C: carbon-based fuels used for energy production, and SCO2: CO2 sinks [35].
Apart from the above-mentioned three strategies, enhancing partial pressure in exhaust gas [43], geoengineering approaches including afforestation and reforestation [45], flue gas separation, and carbon mineralization [46] can also be considered. Among the different CO2 mitigation options, IPCC has suggested CCS as a promising technology for achieving a 19% reduction of global CO2 emissions by 2050 [41]. CCS can reduce CO2 emissions (typically 85–90%) from significant stationary point sources such as power plants, cement kilns, and NG wells [25,47]. Nevertheless, CCS is considered a mid-term solution in reducing global warming, climate change, and simultaneously allowing humans to continue using fossil fuels until a renewable and clean energy source is discovered to replace them [41]. CCS is comprised of three significant steps, namely, (i) capture of emitted CO2 from power plants and industrial processing without releasing them into the atmosphere, (ii) transportation of the captured and compressed CO2, and (iii) underground storage of the captured CO2 [33,48,49]. However, the process of CO2 capture, which accounts for 70–80% of the total cost, has proven to be the major barrier for the deployment of CCS [25,50]. Interestingly, in recent years, carbon capture storage and utilization (CCSU) has grabbed significant attention compared to CCS owing to the convertibility of the captured CO2 into commercial products [51,52]. The success of CCS and CCSU technologies are associated with the CO2 adsorption efficiency, ease of handling, manufacturing cost, and renderability of the associated materials [30].
where CD: CO2 emissions, P: Population, GDP: economic development in gross domestic production, E: energy production, C: carbon-based fuels used for energy production, and SCO2: CO2 sinks [28].
Apart from the above-mentioned three strategies, enhancing partial pressure in exhaust gas [36], geoengineering approaches including afforestation and reforestation [38], flue gas separation, and carbon mineralization [39] can also be considered. Among the different CO2 mitigation options, IPCC has suggested CCS as a promising technology for achieving a 19% reduction of global CO2 emissions by 2050 [34]. CCS can reduce CO2 emissions (typically 85–90%) from significant stationary point sources such as power plants, cement kilns, and NG wells [40][41]. Nevertheless, CCS is considered a mid-term solution in reducing global warming, climate change, and simultaneously allowing humans to continue using fossil fuels until a renewable and clean energy source is discovered to replace them [34]. CCS is comprised of three significant steps, namely, (i) capture of emitted CO2 from power plants and industrial processing without releasing them into the atmosphere, (ii) transportation of the captured and compressed CO2, and (iii) underground storage of the captured CO2 [26][42][43]. However, the process of CO2 capture, which accounts for 70–80% of the total cost, has proven to be the major barrier for the deployment of CCS [40][44]. Interestingly, in recent years, carbon capture storage and utilization (CCSU) has grabbed significant attention compared to CCS owing to the convertibility of the captured CO2 into commercial products [45][46]. The success of CCS and CCSU technologies are associated with the CO2 adsorption efficiency, ease of handling, manufacturing cost, and renderability of the associated materials [22].
| Component | Cement Rotary Kiln | Dry Atmospheric Air | Biogas Generated from Waste Water Treatment Plant Sludge | Natural Gas Fired Flue Gas | Coal-Fired Flue Gas | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N2 | 59 vol % | 70 vol % |
| 0–1 vol % | 73–80 vol % | 70–80 vol % | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
| Regeneration Strategy | Advantages | Disadvantages | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Temperature swing adsorption (TSA) |
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| CO2 | 19 vol % | Chemisorption |
|
| 410 ppm | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Pressure swing adsorption (PSA) |
| 19–33 vol % | 3–8 vol % | 11–15 vol % | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
H2O | 13 vol % | |||||||||||||
| Electric swing adsorption (ESA) |
| - |
|
|
|
| - | 7–14.6 vol % | 5–12 vol % | |||||||||||||||||
|
| O2 | 7 vol % | 21 vol % | <0.5 vol % | 4.5–15 vol % | 3–6 vol % | |||||||||||||||||||
| Vacuum swing adsorption (VSA) |
|
|
| SO2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 60–75 vol % | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| - | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| - | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Kr | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| - | 1.1 vol % | - | - | - | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| N2O | - | 0.3 vol % | - | - | - |
| CO2 Capture Technology | Advantages | Disadvantages | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-combustion capture |
|
|
|
| ||||||
| Oxy-fuel combustion |
|

| Process | Advantages | Disadvantages | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physisorption |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||
| Post-combustion capture |
|
|
|
| |||||||||||||
| 5–1200 ppm | - | - | <10 ppm | 200–4000 ppm | |||||||||||||
| SO3 | - | - | - | - | 0–20 ppm | ||||||||||||
| NOX | 100–1500 ppm | - | - | 50–70 ppm | 200–800 ppm | ||||||||||||
| CO | - | - | - | - | 50–100 ppm | ||||||||||||
| H2 | - | 0.5 vol % | - | 5–300 ppm | 5–20 g/m | 3 | |||||||||||
| Particulate matter | - | - | - | - | - | ||||||||||||
| H2S | - | - | 100–4000 ppm | - | - | ||||||||||||
| Ar | - | 0.9 vol % | - | - | - | ||||||||||||
| Xe | - | 0.1 vol % | - | - | - | ||||||||||||
| Ne | - | 18 ppm | - | - | - | ||||||||||||
| He | - | 5.2 ppm | - | - | - | ||||||||||||
| CH4 | - | 1.6 vol % |
| Parameter | Requirement |
|---|---|
| CO2 adsorption capacity | 3–4 mmol/g |
| Regenerability | >1000 cycles |
| CO2 gas selectivity over other gases | >100 |
| Adsorption/desorption kinetics | >1 mmol/g.min |
| Adsorbent cost | $5–15/kg sorbent |