1. Process Efficiency: One of the primary considerations for carbon dioxide capture facilities is the efficiency of the processes involved. It involves identifying the optimal operating parameters of the individual processes involved in carbon dioxide capture, such as absorption, compression, transportation, and storage. Efficiency allows the plant to reach its targets at a much lower cost.
2. Energy Footprint: Energy use is a significant consideration as it accounts for a considerable percentage of the operating costs of an industrial CO2 capture facility. These facilities require energy to capture the CO2, transport it, and then store it. The carbon capture process can also drain the facility of energy, resulting in higher costs.
3. Plant Size: The size of the carbon capture plant is crucial due to the capacity of the feeder plant. A larger plant provides a more significant amount of CO2 for processing and storage, allowing for more efficient processes to take place.
4. Type of Technology: Various CO2 capture technologies are available in the market, such as solvent scrubbing or membrane separation. The selection of a technology depends on the type of carbon dioxide source, the quality and purity of the captured gas, and the intended use of the captured CO2.
5. Safety Concerns: Carbon dioxide itself is not particularly dangerous, but it can pose a hazard in high concentrations. Operators must consider the safe handling and transportation of the captured CO2, particularly if it is to be transported over long distances.
6. Environmental Impact: Carbon capture facilities must also consider the environmental impact they may have. The emissions created by these facilities should be controlled to meet regulatory standards, and the disposal of captured CO2 must be done responsibly.
7. Economic Impact: The economic benefits of industrial carbon dioxide capture facilities should be considered, particularly the investment expense, operational costs, revenue potential, and ROI. A unit with a low-energy footprint, high level of efficiency, and a low rate would result in a lower compliance cost.
Publication date: