PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
September 23, 2025Energies2 citationsOpen Access

Optimized Chemical Absorption Process for CO2 Removal in a Steel Plant

View Full Paper
VSValentina SchiattarellaSMStefania Moioli

Key Points

  • The optimization process aims to reduce thermal energy needs for solvent regeneration, enhancing efficiency.
  • An annual production capacity of 6.6 million tons of steel is examined in a French steel plant context.
  • Economic analysis reveals costs of $102.48, $104.47, and $224.36 per ton of CO2 removed at different recovery ratios.
  • This focus on using monoethanolamine in flue gas applications highlights a research gap in existing literature.

Abstract

The steel industry is a significant contributor to global CO2 emissions due to the highly energy-intensive nature of its production processes. Specifically, steel production involves the conversion of iron ore into steel through processes such as the blast furnace method, which result in significant greenhouse gas emissions due to the combustion of fossil fuels and the chemical reactions involved. To address this challenge, Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage (CCUS) technologies are essential for reducing emissions by capturing CO2 at its source, preventing its release into the atmosphere. This study focuses on a French steel plant with an annual production capacity of 6. 6 million tons of steel and seeks to optimize the chemical absorption process by using a 30 wt. % MonoEthanolAmine (MEA) aqueous solution. To the authors’ knowledge, studies on this solvent, widely used for treating other types of flue gases, are still not present in the literature for the application to this gaseous stream. The goal is to minimize the thermal energy required for solvent regeneration by optimizing some key parameters. Additionally, an economic analysis is carried out, with a particular focus on different achievable CO2 recovery ratios, with costs quantified as 102. 48, 104. 47, and 224. 36 /t CO2 removed for 90%, 95%, and 99% CO2 recovery, respectively.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Schiattarella et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68d473b531b076d99fa6c652https://doi.org/10.3390/en18185026
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper