Progress in the CO2 Capture Technologies for Fluid Catalytic Cracking (FCC) Units—A Review

Fatih Güleç,Will Meredith,Colin E. Snape
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2020.00062
IF: 3.4
2020-04-23
Frontiers in Energy Research
Abstract:Heavy industries including cement, iron and steel, oil refining, and petrochemicals are collectively responsible for about 22% of global CO<sub>2</sub> emissions. Among these industries, oil refineries account for 4–6%, of which typically 25–35% arise from the regenerators in Fluid Catalytic Cracking (FCC) units. This article reviews the progress in applying CO<sub>2</sub> capture technologies to FCC units. Post combustion and oxyfuel combustion have been investigated to mitigate CO<sub>2</sub> emissions in FCC and, more recently, Chemical Looping Combustion (CLC) has received attention. Post combustion capture can readily be deployed to the flue gas in FCC units and oxyfuel combustion, which requires air separation has been investigated in a pilot-scale unit by Petrobras (Brazil). However, in comparison, CLC offers considerably lower energy penalties. The applicability of CLC for FCC has also been experimentally investigated at a lab-scale. As a result, the studies demonstrated highly promising CO<sub>2</sub> capture capacities for FCC with the application of post combustion (85–90%), oxyfuel combustion (90–100%) and CLC (90–96%). Therefore, the method having lowest energy penalty and CO<sub>2</sub> avoided cost is highly important for the next generation of FCC units to optimize CO<sub>2</sub> capture. The energy penalty was calculated as 3.1–4.2 GJ/t CO<sub>2</sub> with an avoiding cost of 75–110 €/t CO<sub>2</sub> for the application of post combustion capture to FCC. However, the application of oxyfuel combustion provided lower energy penalty of 1.8–2.5 GJ/t CO<sub>2</sub>, and lower CO<sub>2</sub> avoided cost of 55–85 €/t CO<sub>2</sub>. More recently, lab-scale experiments demonstrated that the application of CLC to FCC demonstrate significant progress with an indicative much lower energy penalty of <i>ca</i>. 0.2 GJ/t CO<sub>2</sub>.
energy & fuels
What problem does this paper attempt to address?