TECHNO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF

CARBON MITIGATION TECHNOLOGIES

CA21127

White paper on understanding synergies and differences of TEA of CCUS and NETs,
focus on interfaces and holistic system assessment
TrANsMIT COST Action CA21127

VERSIONS AND HISTORY OF CHANGES

Version Date Notes (e.g. changes from Lead author(s)*

previous versions)
1 1.01.2023
 TECHNO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF
CARBON MITIGATION TECHNOLOGIES
CA21127

This white paper has been prepared based on the results of works and discussions conducted
during the Workshop on Understand synergies and differences of TEA of CCUS and NETs
organized by the TrANsMIT Cost Action in Trondheim 22-23.06.2023. The workshop
involved general discussions on TEA of CCUS and analysis of an exemplary Direct Air
Capture of CO2 and Utilization (DACCU) aiming for the production of methanol.
The main questions that were raised during the discussions on TEA of CCUS were as follows:
i. What are the relevant design conditions in the process steps?
ii. What assumptions are necessary to develop the process models for the different process
steps?
iii. What are the different components of capital (for example: equipment costs,
contingencies, etc.) and operating costs (for example: sorbents, electricity, labor etc)?
iv. How can the capital costs be calculated/estimated/assumed for different components in
the process?
v. How can the different operating costs be calculated/estimated/assumed for different
components in the process?
vi. What are the relevant key performance indicators that should be evaluated for the
system presented in this case study, how are/can they be defined?
vii. What external factors should be considered while evaluating the KPIs?
viii. How to consider potential change of costs over time? How important it is for
technologies at different TRLs? (learning curves)
ix. Is techno-economic analysis sufficient for a full assessment of the system?
These questions were discussed solving and exemplary case of a CCUS system to produce
methanol. As appendices to this paper, introductory presentations given during the workshops
by Mijndert van der Spek “The need for perspective TEA and LCA” and Till Strunge “Early
career researcher perspective on CCUS TEA” during the meeting are attached.
 TECHNO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF
CARBON MITIGATION TECHNOLOGIES
CA21127

I. General discussion
First part of this white paper includes a general discussion on the questions stated above with
some specific examples for a methanol production plant that was a case analysed during the
workshops.

(i) What are the relevant design conditions in the process steps?
The relevant design conditions in the process steps for the given system can include many
elements that should be identified prior to the analysis. It needs to be pointed out that for the
entire system analysis some conditions can then be combined (e.g., efficiency of electrodes and
membrane might become system efficiency). It is also important to identify the main and
additional products in the system. For example, in case of methanol production the main
product is MeOH, however, a significant amount of oxygen and heat is also produced that could
potentially be considered a by-product. An exemplary identification of the design issues are
presented in Figure 1.

Fig. 1. Exemplary process description; Source: Materials prepared during the CA Transmit
workshops
 TECHNO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF
CARBON MITIGATION TECHNOLOGIES
CA21127

(ii) What assumptions are necessary to develop the process models for the
different process steps?
Mass and energy balance assumptions should be made, and missing data should be identified
in this step. It can be done as presented in Figure 2.

Fig. 2: Mass and energy balance; Source: Materials prepared during the CA Transmit workshops

Assumptions necessary to develop the process models can be divided into different groups,
including, for example, general assumptions, and assumptions for the main elements of the
system (e.g., carbon dioxide capture installation, methanol reactor, hydrogen generator).
Exemplary assumptions for the case of methanol production can be summarized as presented
in Table 1.
Table 1. Assumptions for methanol plant TEA
General assumptions
Description Value Unit Comments Ref
Plant capacity 2650 t/a MeOH from 4000 [I1]
tCO2 captured by
DAC plant in Iceland
Working hours 7800 h/a Year with 40 days Own
maintenance estimates
shutdown a year
DAC assumptions
Low grade heat 10.27 MJ/kg [I2]
MeOH
Electricity 17.9 MJ/kg
MeOH
 TECHNO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF
CARBON MITIGATION TECHNOLOGIES
CA21127

Sorbent Amine functionalized

adsorbent
Sorbent make-up 11.3 kg/kg 7.5 g/kgCO2 captured
MeOH [I3]
Sorbent durability 3 years
Electrolysis assumptions
Electricity 40 MJ/kg
MeOH [I4]
Electrolyte KOH/H2O
Electrode type Nickel coated carbon
mesh
Electrode make-up / unknown
durability
Membrane type PEM (proton exchange
membrane)
Membrane 2.5 years [I5]
durability
Hydrogenation assumptions
Electricity
Carbon dioxide 1.51 kg/kg
MeOH
Hydrogen 0.208 kg/kg
MeOH
References
[I1] [Link] /science/article/pii/S1750583621000153
[I2] [Link]
[I3] [Link]
[I4] [Link]
[I5] [Link]
presentations/03-05_proton_anderson_public.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjpn97Lg9n_
AhVjSPEDHSd1B2UQFnoECEQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw07PwQhVB2enYmaNL4Y_Aph

(iii) What are the different components of capital (for example: equipment costs,
contingencies etc) and operating costs (for example: sorbents, electricity, labor
etc)?
The different components of capital costs can include equipment costs, engineering and
construction costs, installation costs, land acquisition costs, permits and regulatory compliance
costs, contingency costs, and indirect costs such as project management and supervision.
Operating costs can include costs of raw materials (e.g., methanol, electricity), labor,
maintenance, utilities, consumables (sorbents), and waste management.

(iv) How can the capital costs be calculated/estimated/assumed for different

components in the process?
Capital costs for different components in the process can be calculated or estimated using
various methods. Equipment costs can be estimated using cost estimation techniques such as
equipment factoring, cost indices, or vendor quotations. Engineering and construction costs
 TECHNO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF
CARBON MITIGATION TECHNOLOGIES
CA21127

can be estimated based on the complexity and scale of the project. Land acquisition costs can
be assessed based on market prices. Permit and regulatory compliance costs can be estimated
by considering the specific requirements of the project and relevant regulations. For this total
system analysis, we can rely on capital cost estimates for each process units and scale them
using the specific total plant cost sTDC in € per tonne or kg of output:
𝑠𝑇𝑃Cnew = 𝑠𝑇𝑃𝐶literature ∙ (𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦new /𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦literature )scaling factor
Commonly, a scaling factor of 0.6 is used for chemical plants, but more detailed estimates can
be found in literature (e.g., [Link]
Exemplary cost estimates for hydrogenation for DAC and electrolysis are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Exemplary CAPEX estimates for hydrogenation for DAC and electrolysis
Description Value Cap. Comment Reference
CAPEX DACs 86.5 4000 t CO2 per M$, due to modularity, [IV1]
year scaling factor of 1 was
CAPEX Electrolyser 0.75 551 tonnes H2 per calculated 1600 €/kW, M$, [IV2]
year scaling facor 1.
CAPEX methanol 17.2 2650 t MeOH per M$, scaling factor 0.6 [IV3]
production year
IV1 [Link]
IV2 [Link] electrolyser-a-series/
IV3 [Link]

(v) How can the different operating costs be calculated/estimated/assumed for

different components in the process?
Operating costs for different components in the process can be calculated or estimated based
on the consumption rates of raw materials, energy requirements, labour costs, maintenance
costs, and other relevant expenses. Raw material costs can be determined based on market
prices. Electricity costs can be estimated by considering the energy consumption of the process
and the local electricity rates. Labour costs can be estimated based on the number of personnel
required and prevailing wage rates. Maintenance costs can be estimated based on historical
data or manufacturer recommendations.

(vi) What are the relevant key performance indicators that should be evaluated for
the system presented in this case study, how are/can they be defined?
In order to make a holistic assessment of modern and sustainable technologies, it is not
sufficient to make a thermodynamic or economic assessment alone. An analysis that takes into
account all aspects, i.e. technical (thermodynamic), environmental (ecological), economic, and
 TECHNO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF
CARBON MITIGATION TECHNOLOGIES
CA21127

social, is most appropriate, as such a comprehensive approach reflects an integral concept of

sustainability. However, such analyses are time-consuming and difficult, as they require an
interdisciplinary approach. In the case of the analysis and optimisation of energy technologies
or systems, usually not all the evaluation indicators can be included, so a careful selection
should be made taking into account the criterion of the objective of the analyses. The selection
of the most relevant indicators, so-called KPI (Key Performance Indicators), should be made
at the appropriate stage of the assessment (e.g. preliminary parametric analyses of the system,
feasibility assessment) and allow for the selection of those that will allow to make a reliable
assessment in the most comprehensive manner according to the adopted criterion.
TEAs employ KPIs to summarise the unit’s performance using a few essential metrics. These
metrics enable a comparison of the system’s performance against that of other technologies
aiming for a similar outcome. They ideally facilitate cross-author comparisons as well. Each
TEA includes a minimum of one technical and one economic indicator, typically outlined in
the goal and scope.
Relevant key performance indicators (KPIs) that should be evaluated for the system presented
in the case of methanol production can include:
- Energy efficiency: The efficiency of CO2 capture, H2 generation, and methanol
hydrogenation processes.
- Carbon capture efficiency: The percentage of CO2 captured from ambient air.
- Hydrogen yield: The amount of hydrogen produced per unit of methanol input.
- Process economics: Overall cost of CO2 capture and H2 production, including capital
and operating costs.
- Environmental impact: Carbon footprint, water usage, and other environmental factors.

(vii) What external factors should be considered while evaluating the KPIs
External factors that should be identified and considered while evaluating the KPIs. Exemplary
factors may include:
- Humidity: The moisture content in ambient air can affect the efficiency of CO2 capture
and the energy requirements for drying.
- Ambient temperature: Temperature can influence the performance and energy
efficiency of different process steps.
- Geographical location: Availability and cost of resources, such as electricity and raw
materials, can vary based on the location.
- Type of energy source: The source of electricity used for electrolysis can impact the
carbon footprint and cost of hydrogen production.

(viii) How to consider potential change of costs over time? How important is it for
technologies at different TRLs? (learning curves)
To consider potential changes in costs over time, it is important to account for factors such as
inflation, changes in raw material prices, and technology learning curves. Learning curves
 TECHNO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF
CARBON MITIGATION TECHNOLOGIES
CA21127

describe the relationship between cumulative production and the reduction in costs over time
due to increased experience and improved efficiencies. The importance of considering these
factors may vary for technologies at different Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs). For early-
stage technologies, cost estimates may have higher uncertainties and learning curves may play
a significant role in cost reduction as the technology matures.

(ix) Is techno-economic analysis sufficient for a full assessment of the system?

Techno-economic analysis provides valuable insights into the economic viability of a system
but may not be sufficient for a full assessment. Other aspects such as environmental impact
assessment, social acceptance, regulatory compliance, and market demand should also be
considered for a comprehensive evaluation. Life cycle assessment (LCA) can help assess the
environmental impact of the system, while market analysis and stakeholder engagement can
provide insights into the feasibility and acceptance of the technology in the market.
 TECHNO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF
CARBON MITIGATION TECHNOLOGIES
CA21127

II. Exemplary case study

1. Introduction
Carbon dioxide, the most abundant greenhouse gas, takes up around 400 ppm by volume of the
atmosphere of the Earth. Its concentration increased by 100 ppm in just the last 100 years,
mainly due to deforestation and intense consumption of fossil fuels. That is why the
development of novel direct air capture technologies (DAC) is very pending [1]. DAC uses
chemical or physical processes to extract carbon dioxide from ambient air [2]. It is estimated
that up to 15402 Mtone of CO2 DAC capacity will be needed by 2050 [2]. The first commercial
direct air capture (DAC) plant recently opened in Hinwil, Switzerland, in May 2017.
DAC involves capturing CO2 from distributed sources at low concentrations [2]. In principle,
DAC can be applied widely at scales from a few thousand to millions of tons. However, the
costs of capturing CO2 from DAC can vary significantly. This is very much dependent on both
OPEX and CAPEX. The captured CO2 can be utilized to produce value-added products, for
example, methanol.
2. System description
The main goal was to discuss and perform a techno-economic analysis of a direct air capture
of CO2 and utilization (DACCU) plant. Methanol synthesis process utilizes CO2 captured with
VTSA-based DAC, and H2 obtained from electrolysis. Methanol is produced through direct
hydrogenation of CO2. A simple schematic for the process is shown in Figure 3.

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of the proposed system for methanol production

 TECHNO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF
CARBON MITIGATION TECHNOLOGIES
CA21127

For the purpose of the analysis the system was divided into 3 main elements:
- Direct Air Capture system,
- Hydrogen Generator system,
- Whole system analysis.

3. Background
[Link] air capture of CO2
Ambient air is introduced into the system through fans and comes into contact with the
adsorbent material. The adsorbent selectively captures CO2, allowing CO2-free air to exit the
adsorber column. Once the adsorbent has reached its capacity and absorbed as much CO2 as
possible, the CO2 is extracted from the column by increasing the temperature and lowering the
pressure. This process is known as temperature-vacuum swing adsorption. CO2 is released
(desorbed) and the adsorbent is rejuvenated. The desorbed CO2 is then dehydrated to remove
any accompanying water, and, subsequently, the CO2 can be compressed and sent to a facility
where it is combined with hydrogen (produced by electrolysis) to produce methanol.
Due to the acidic nature of CO2, the materials used for sorption must be of basic character.
Sorbents can be regenerated through a desorption process. Sorbents should follow a certain set
of conditions such as high selectivity, high capacity, fast transport and kinetic properties,
thermal and chemical stability, mechanical properties in the case of solid sorbent, ease of
loading in the case of solid sorbent, resistance to fouling, ease of regeneration, and low cost
[1]. Until now, no material found which fulfills all these conditions. Several sorbents can be
used during the process; generally, they can be divided into two groups: solid and liquid.
However, membrane and cryogenic-based separation technologies cannot be applied. The aim
of this work is to compare these two different types of sorbents.
3.1.1. Liquid sorbent (absorption)
The aqueous solutions of KOH and NaOH are integral components of the carbon capture
process, which require an energy input of approximately 14 GJ/Mt of CO2. This method is used
in the generation of 1 Mt of CO2. Primary energy expenditures occur in the oxy-fired calciner
and heater/dryer, requiring 6-9 GJ and 3.18 GJ, respectively, while the slaker and air separation
unit are relatively less energy intensive. Capital expenditure (CAPEX) for this system
encompasses the contactor array, slaker, causticizer, 10larificatory, air separation unit, and
condenser, with total costs ranging from 675 M$ to 1255 M$. Assuming a plant life of 30 years
and a fixed charge factor of 12%, CAPEX annualizes to $81 million to $151 million.
Operational expenses (OPEX) include maintenance, labor, makeup, waste removal, natural
gas, coal, and electricity costs, totaling $66 million to $113 million for natural gas and $59
million to $103 million for coal. This process is highly adaptable in terms of scale, but its
complex regeneration process for alkali scrubbing, is better suited for large-scale applications.
Amine scrubbing has been a classic choice for CO2 separation, employing 20-30 wt% aqueous
 TECHNO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF
CARBON MITIGATION TECHNOLOGIES
CA21127

monoethanolamine (MEA), a well-established solution in industrial applications. However,

several novel scrubbing options have emerged, including 40 wt% piperazine (PZ), Cansolv, 32
wt% EDA, 28 wt% AMP + 17 wt% PZ, MEA + MDEA, aqueous ammonia (NH3), aqueous
potassium carbonate (K2CO3), amino acids, DEEA + MAPA and DMCA + MCA + AMP 2.5.
These options can be scaled up, but regeneration processes require dedicated equipment, such
as heat exchangers and strippers, making them less suitable for small scales. The water-
intensive nature of these liquid-scrubbing processes can pose challenges in water-scarce
regions, while CO2-neutral heat provision is essential for regeneration. Water losses vary
depending on hydroxide solvent concentration and humidity, with the potential for
a considerable reduction in water losses as hydroxide concentration increases. The cooling
water requirements are substantial at approximately 1300 L/min for a flue gas output of
640 ft3/min. To enhance these processes, more efficient reactor design, electrification of
calciners, and research of advanced amines are needed. However, it is important to note that
solvent regeneration comes with a significant energy penalty, and solvents are susceptible to
degradation in the presence of other acid gases and oxygen. Reducing both capital and
operating costs and mitigating environmental impacts related to fugitive solvent emissions are
critical areas for improvement. Although these technologies are well established, they demand
higher energy input. MEA, for example, offers good CO2 mass transfer rates but faces
challenges related to degradation, toxicity, and corrosiveness at higher concentrations. Energy
consumption increases with the MEA ratio, making it an area for potential efficiency
enhancement.
3.1.2. Solid sorbents (adsorption)
Some of the most prevalent inorganic solid sorbents utilized in direct air capture (DAC)
technology include solid alkali and alkaline-earth compounds such as KOH, CaO, Ca(OH)2,
Na2CO3, and NaHCO3, as well as metal-organic frameworks (MOFs), solid-based solvents,
zeolites, silica gels, and solid-supported amines. These sorbents play a crucial role in the
sequestration of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, with a substantial energy demand of
approximately 23.09 GJ/Mt of CO2 captured. The energy-intensive desorption phase accounts
for most of this energy expenditure, ranging between 3.4-4.8 GJ, which makes it a significant
cost driver. Key cost factors in DAC include the energy required for air passage through the
sorbent, sorbent procurement, and equipment costs, such as fans that facilitate airflow. The
desorption process adds considerably to operating costs, covering the energy necessary for
induction of desorption, sorbent heating, and vacuum pump operation. Capital expenses
(CAPEX) entail costs for sorbents, blowers, vacuum pumps, condensers, and contactors, while
operational expenses (OPEX) encompass adsorption, steam, and vacuum pump costs.
Although the scalability of DAC systems is feasible, large-scale implementations introduce
complexities in process design and control, exacerbated by discontinuous operation requiring
storage vessels. Sorbents suitable for gigaton-scale CO2 capture remain limited, demanding
CO2-neutral heat sources, but offering the potential for clean water coproduction. In a typical
setup, water losses equate to approximately 4 moles of water per mole of CO2 captured for 1
Mt of CO2 yearly. To enhance the efficiency of DAC, advanced heat exchange within the
 TECHNO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF
CARBON MITIGATION TECHNOLOGIES
CA21127

contactor, heat integration, an innovative contactor design, and the discovery of high-
performance sorbents are critical avenues for development. Compared to liquid solvents, solid
sorbents offer the advantage of lower regeneration temperatures, reducing energy consumption,
and promoting energy-efficient DAC processes. However, their limited CO2 adsorption
capacity requires larger sorbent quantities, and efforts to accelerate adsorption kinetics are
pivotal for enhancing the overall effectiveness of DAC systems that employ solid sorbents.
[Link] process
Electrolysis process in an emission-free electrochemical technology for hydrogen production.
The reaction of decomposition of H2O into H2 and O2 is endothermic. Energy called enthalpy
of reaction ΔH is needed for the reaction which corresponds to the enthalpy of the formation
of water. In the gaseous state (beyond 100 °C) the total energy demand for H 2O electrolysis
process increases with higher temperatures but the free energy of the reaction decreases. This
provides the opportunity to use more heat for the H2O decomposition at higher temperatures.
In the most general way, electrolyzers can be divided into high-temperature and low-
temperature ones. Chosen characteristic parameters based on analyzes of the operation of low-
temperature alkaline electrolyzers (AEL), anion exchange membrane (AEM) electrolyzers and
polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) electrolyzers and high-temperature solid oxide
electrolyzers (SOE) described in [3] are presented in Table 1.
Table 1 Chosen techno-economic parameters of four electrolysis cells [3]

AEL AEM PEM SOE

State of development mature R&D commercial R&D

DVB polymer
Alkaline solution; Solid polymer Yttria stabilized
Electrolyte support with
KOH/NaOH membrane Zirconia (YSZ)
KOH/NaOH
Charge carrier OH- OH- H3O+/H+ O2-
Cell temperature, °C 40-90 40-60 20-100 800-1000
Cell voltage, V 1.8-2.4 1.4-2.0 1.8-2.2 0.91-1.3
Cell pressure, bar <30 <35 <70 <10
System power
4.5-7.0 4.8 4.5-7.5 2.5-3.6
consumption, kWh/Nm3H2
Power consumption,
55.4-78.4 53.8 55.4-84 28-40.3
kWh/kgH2
Efficiency (system), 50-78 57-69 50-83 45-55
kWh/kgH2
Lifetime, thousand hours 60 >5 50-80 <20
 TECHNO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF
CARBON MITIGATION TECHNOLOGIES
CA21127

Capital costs estimate for 270 - 400 >2000

large stacks (stack-only,
>1MW, USD/kWel
Capital cost range estimate 500-1000 - 700-1400 -
for the entire system,
>10MW, USD/kWel

4. Proposed techno-economic analysis

[Link]
Capital expenditure (CAPEX) encompasses the expenses associated with constructing a plant
and typically includes various components such as process equipment costs, supporting
facilities, direct and indirect labor costs, process and product contingencies, start-up expenses,
inventory-related costs, and financing charges. On the other hand, operational costs can be
categorized into fixed and variable costs. Fixed operational costs comprise taxes, insurance,
maintenance, and labor expenses that remain relatively constant over time. Variable operational
costs, on the other hand, can fluctuate and encompass factors such as energy costs (electric and
thermal), material expenses, waste disposal costs, and any applicable emission taxes. These
cost categories collectively play an essential role in the financial planning and sustainability of
industrial operations [4].
Table 2. Levelized cost of hydrogen using different electrolysis cells

LCOH (€/kg)
Alkaline PEM AEM SOEC
5.62-7.76 7.25-9.47 5.93-8.03 8.47-10.14

Basic economic assumptions of the considered system are presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Basic assumptions of the proposed system

Parameter Value Ref.

DACCS
CO2 capacity 524 ton/yr [5]
CO2 properties 130 ℃, 51 bar [5]
Sorbent Lewatit VP OC 1065 – amine-functionalized [6]
polystyrene resin
Adsorption temperature 25 ℃ [7]
Desorption temperature, under vacuum 80 ℃ [8]
Power consumption of DACCS 0.4 MWh/tCO2
Heat demand of DACCS 2 MWh/tCO2
Electrolysis cells
Hydrogen capacity 72 ton/yr [5]
Methanol Synthesis
Methanol production rate 353 ton/yr
Distilled water 202 ton/yr
Methanol purity 99.5% [5]
 TECHNO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF
CARBON MITIGATION TECHNOLOGIES
CA21127
Reactor temperature 280 ℃
Reactor pressure 50 bar
Power consumptions of methanol synthesis 0.2 kWh/kg of MeOH
Techno-economics
Discount rate 10%
Productivity factor 0.95
Operator salary 70800 $/yr [9]
Transportation cost 3.1 ¢ t/CO2km
Gasoline price 48.3 $/GJ
Material scaling 1.12

Table 4. Median cost and carbon intensity of different heat sources [9]

Country Heat source Median Cost ($/GJ) Carbon intensity (kgCO2-eq/GJ)

United Kingdom Natural gas 7.6 12.4
Geothermal 20.4 3.5
Solar 56.8 9.2
Germany Natural gas 7.9 12.0
Geothermal 20.4 3.9
Solar 45.0 7.3

Table 5. Median cost and carbon intensity of different electricity sources [9]

Country Electricity source Median Cost ($/GJ) Carbon intensity (kgCO2-eq/GJ)

United Kingdom Solar 42 21.0
Wind 9 6.2
Hydro 37 1.2
Geothermal 51 18.9
Nuclear 39 2.0
Germany Natural gas 31 26.5
Geothermal 19 8.8
Solar 37 14.0
Geothermal 51 18.9
Nuclear Germany is phasing out nuclear power by 2022

The capital cost can be estimated with the use of the scale factor. The scale factor is the amount
by which the functional unit cost is multiplied to get the CAPEX estimate of the full-scale plant
[10].
𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝐵 (6)
log( )
𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝐴
𝑆𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑒 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 =
𝑀𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑅𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝐵
log( )
𝑀𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑅𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝐴

The fixed operating and maintenance costs are split in the following way:
• Direct and indirect labor (30% direct + maintenance)
• Direct labor costs are calculated based on 278 direct employees for a 1Mt CO2/year
plant
 TECHNO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF
CARBON MITIGATION TECHNOLOGIES
CA21127

• Maintenance (1.5% of total plant cost – TPC)

• Insurance (0.5% of TPC)
• Local taxes and fees (0.5% of TPC)

[Link]
The capital costs of DAC plants are primarily driven by factors such as the technology
employed, the size and capacity of the facility, the cost of land and infrastructure, the
availability of cheap and clean energy for the capture process, and the specific geological or
environmental conditions of the location. Exemplary capital and operation costs for a DACCS
plant are presented in Table 6 and in Figure 3. The DACCS CAPEX is approximately 1700
€/tCO2 per year [9].
Table 6. Capital costs for a DACCS plant with solid sorbent and a capacity of 0.960 kt CO2/year [9]

Item Direct material Installed cost (M$) Installation cost with engineering
cost (M$) procurement and construction (M$)
Contactors 0.760 1.14 1.31
Blowers 0.433 0.668 0.768
Vacuum pump 1 0.0638 0.0999 0.115
Vacuum pump 2 0.0338 0.0650 0.748
Gas storage balloon 0.00200 0.00200 0.00230
Condensers 0.153 0.242 0.278
Switching valves 1.19 1.19 1.37
Initial sorbent 0.105 0.105 0.105
Buildings 0.0620 0.166 0.191
compressor 1.23 1.31 1.69
Air source heat pump N.A. N.A 0.359

Fig. 2. CAPEX and OPEX related to the DACCS system with three mainmovers [11].

The net present value (NPV) refers to the difference between current cash and the future cash.
When the NPV is above zero, the plant is profitable because it means your profit (cash flow)
 TECHNO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF
CARBON MITIGATION TECHNOLOGIES
CA21127

is higher than the costs. Fig 3 presents an example of sensitivity analysis of different variables
on NPV and levelized cost of CO2.

Fig. 3. Impact of different variables on the net present value and levelized cost of CO2

[Link] performance indicators

Key performance indicators (KPIs) play a crucial role in evaluating the performance of direct
air capture systems. These KPIs include the purity of captured CO2, the cost of removing net
CO2, the efficiency of CO2 capture (defined as the ratio of captured CO2 to produced CO2) and
the energy requirements, which include both electricity and thermal energy. Several external
factors must be considered when assessing the performance of DAC systems. Temperature and
humidity levels significantly impact the system's performance, because lower temperatures
favor adsorption because of its exothermic nature, while higher humidity enhances the
adsorption capacity, particularly for amine-functionalized adsorbents. The source of energy,
such as green or renewable electricity, also influences overall costs, and the location affects
logistical considerations, particularly the distance required to transport captured CO2 to the
hydrogenation plant.
When considering potential cost changes over time, experience-based learning curve models
are widely used to assess the costs of emerging technologies, particularly those with substantial
initial costs. As these technologies are implemented and people gain experience, costs can
decrease through learning, technological advancements, and process improvements. The
learning-by-doing model demonstrates the potential for significant cost reductions in direct air
capture (DAC) by applying a learning rate. However, it is important to acknowledge that the
learning curve model may not be a perfect representation and involves various uncertainties.
Nevertheless, even a substantial cost reduction can provide a positive outlook on the
development of this vital but costly negative-emissions technology. It is worth noting that First
of a Kind (FOAK) projects tend to incur higher operational expenditures (OPEX), which
include increased maintenance labor, operating labor, and engineering support, mainly due to
the novelty of the technology. NOAK stands for Nth-Of-A-Kind projects or technologies.
 TECHNO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF
CARBON MITIGATION TECHNOLOGIES
CA21127

These are projects or technologies that follow the initial FOAK phase. They benefit from the
lessons learned and experience gained during the FOAK stage. NOAK projects are considered
less risky because they are based on proven designs and approaches. They are typically more
reliable and cost-effective because they have been optimized and refined through earlier
iterations. Table 7 presents reasons for higher FOAK cost relative to NOAK.
Table 7. Reason for changes in cost parameters

Fixed cost item Reason for higher FOAK cost relative to NOAK
Regulatory fees A FOAK facility operating new technology is expected to have higher regulatory
cost exposure than an NOAK facility.
Professional services Legal support in the form of supplier warranty management, claims management,
and overall commercial risk mitigation is expected to be greater for a FOAK
facility and the primary contributor to higher cost.

Tools/Equipment In general, new and/or novel (FOAK) technology is expected to require more
special tools and plant maintenance equipment.
Lease Expenses In most cases, a FOAK facility is expected to operate for a shorter period of time
than an NOAK facility and thus pay higher land lease rates (since shorter lease
occupancy periods typically incur higher lease payments).

Training For a unique FOAK technology, there is low likehood of knowledge transfer of
maintenance technicians, plant operators, and plant engineers from other similar
facilities; therefore, significant initial and ongoing training is likely to be required
for FOAK facility staff.

Property taxes and insurance Due to a lack of prior commercial experience, a FOAK facility will likely incur
higher insurance premiums for industry-aligned coverage.

In the process of evaluating Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), it is essential to take into
account various external factors that can affect their performance and interpretation. These
factors include elements such as input of AC power input, H2, stack degradation, energy prices,
policy and regulatory environment (including government regulations), technological
advances, market demand and pricing for all products, type and size of electrolyser, type of
energy source, geographical location, water availability, and quality. Considering these
external influences is crucial to obtain a comprehensive understanding of KPIs. Additionally,
for assessing the cost dynamics over time and the importance of technology at different
Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs), it is imperative to consider technology maturity and the
concept of learning curves. Different TRLs exhibit varying levels of cost uncertainty and
potential for cost reduction, with the learning curve effect playing a pivotal role, particularly
for early-stage technologies, enabling cost reduction and performance enhancement as
experience and production volume increase. However, technoeconomic analysis alone is
insufficient for a complete system assessment, as it primarily focuses on technological
feasibility. A comprehensive evaluation should also involve environmental impact assessments
through methods such as life cycle assessment (LCA) to understand the system's sustainability
and overall performance, alongside risk analysis considerations.
 TECHNO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF
CARBON MITIGATION TECHNOLOGIES
CA21127

5. Conclusion
The following essential steps on the way to TEA of CCUS systems were identified during the
discussion:
1. Process design – definition of the required and additional elements, definition of the
interconnections between blocks. A process diagram is a necessary element here.
2. Identification of technical parameters (e.g., types of utilities, size of the equipment,
electricity/heat (and other utilities) consumption, temperature, pressures, types of
processes involved, etc.)
3. Definition of boundary conditions of the system.
4. Inputs for economic analysis (e.g., CAPEX, OPEX, methods of project financing,
sources of the data, etc.)
5. Definition of Key Performance Indicators for technical and economical performance
(e.g., CO2 utilization, energy efficiencies, levelized costs of production, NPV, IRR,
etc).
Based on the discussed methodology, the following specific results for the TEA of a system
for methanol production can be stated:
• The aqueous solution DAC system is the most advanced, while moisture-swing solid
sorbents show promise for increased capacity. Concerns with the implementation of the
DAC include local CO2 depletion, which can affect the environment and increase costs,
necessitating the evaluation of recovery times and minimum distances between DAC
units.
• Water demand is a crucial consideration for large-scale DAC, with high-temperature
systems potentially consuming up to 50 tons of water per ton of CO2 captured, while
some low-temperature systems can capture water as a byproduct.
• High-temperature DAC models often use fossil fuels for heat, contributing to CO2
emissions, while low-temperature systems offer more energy-efficient heat sources,
including renewables and waste heat, reducing the levelized cost of CO2 (LCOD).

Acknowledgement
The workshop Understand synergies and differences of TEA of CCUS and NETs was funded
by the TrANsMIT COST Action CA21127, which was held in Trondheim, Norway (22-23
June 2023).
References
[1] Sodiq A, Abdullatif Y, Aissa B, Ostovar A, Nassar N, El-Naas M, et al. A review on progress
made in direct air capture of CO2. Environ Technol Innov 2023;29:102991.
[Link]
 TECHNO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF
CARBON MITIGATION TECHNOLOGIES
CA21127

[2] Sanz-Pérez ES, Murdock CR, Didas SA, Jones CW. Direct Capture of CO2 from Ambient Air.
Chem Rev 2016;116:11840–76. [Link]
[3] International Renewable Energy Agency T. GREEN HYDROGEN COST REDUCTION
SCALING UP ELECTROLYSERS TO MEET THE 1.5°C CLIMATE GOAL H 2 O 2 2020.
[4] Rubin ES, Short C, Booras G, Davison J, Ekstrom C, Matuszewski M, et al. A proposed
methodology for CO2 capture and storage cost estimates. International Journal of Greenhouse
Gas Control 2013;17:488–503. [Link]
[5] Eisavi B, Ranjbar F, Nami H, Chitsaz A. Low-carbon biomass-fueled integrated system for
power, methane and methanol production. Energy Convers Manag 2022;253.
[Link]
[6] Alesi WR, Kitchin JR. Evaluation of a primary amine-functionalized ion-exchange resin for
CO 2 capture. Ind Eng Chem Res 2012;51:6907–15. [Link]
[7] Yu Q, Brilman DWF. Design Strategy for CO2 Adsorption from Ambient Air Using a
Supported Amine Based Sorbent in a Fixed Bed Reactor. Energy Procedia 2017;114:6102–14.
[Link]
[8] Veneman R, Frigka N, Zhao W, Li Z, Kersten S, Brilman W. Adsorption of H2O and CO2 on
supported amine sorbents. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 2015;41:268–75.
[Link]
[9] Young J, McQueen N, Charalambous C, Foteinis S, Hawrot O, Ojeda M, et al. The cost of
direct air capture and storage: the impact of technological learning, regional diversity, and
policy. 2022. [Link]
[10] Qiu Y, Lamers P, Daioglou V, McQueen N, de Boer HS, Harmsen M, et al. Environmental
trade-offs of direct air capture technologies in climate change mitigation toward 2100. Nat
Commun 2022;13. [Link]
[11] McQueen N, Psarras P, Pilorgé H, Liguori S, He J, Yuan M, et al. Cost Analysis of Direct Air
Capture and Sequestration Coupledsequestration coupled to Low-Carbon Thermal Energy in
the United States. Environ Sci Technol 2020;54:7542–51.
[Link]
 TECHNO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF
CARBON MITIGATION TECHNOLOGIES
CA21127

Appendix 1
Mijndert van der Spek “The need for perspective TEA and LCA”

Appendix 2
Till Strunge “Early career researcher perspective on CCUS TEA” during the meeting are
attached.