Economic Evaluation of Membrane Systems for Large Scale Capture and Storage of CO2 Mixtures

The capture and storage of CO2 (CCS) as a greenhouse mitigation option is becoming an increasingly important priority for Australian industry. Membrane based CO2 removal systems can provide a cost effective, low maintenance approach for removing CO2 from gas streams. This study examines the effect of membrane characteristics and operating parameters on CCS costs using economic models developed by UNSW for any source-sink combination. The total sequestration cost per tonne of CO2 avoided for separation, transport and storage are compared for the separation of CO2 from coal fired power plants and natural gas processing. A cost benefit analysis indicates that sequestration of gases of high purities are dominated by compression costs which can be off-set by utilising membranes of higher selectivity coupled with higher permeability to reduce the required transmembrane pressure

Post-combustion CO2 capture from natural gas combined cycles by solvent supported membranes

AbstractAmong the CO2 separation technologies, CO2 membranes are currently receiving an increasing interest, largely thanks to the development of solvents such as ionic liquids and deep eutectic solvents, which are suitable for use in solvent supported membrane systems. The aim of this work is to perform a techno-economic analysis of a natural gas-fired combined cycle power plant integrating CO2 membranes. Such a configuration is based on a two-membrane system, the first one separating the CO2 for final sequestration, the second one used to generate a selective CO2-rich flue gas recycle. The techno-economic assessment uses three modelling tools: (i) process modelling of the complete power plant, performed with the in-house GS code and Aspen Plus, (ii) modelling of the membrane, performed with a finite difference method implemented in Matlab and (iii) economic modelling by a bottom-up approach. The final material balances show that using a moderate pressurization of the combined cycle flue gas results in the lowest energy loss and lowest capture cost

Comment on "How green is blue hydrogen?"

This paper is written in response to the paper “How green is blue hydrogen?” by R. W. Howarth and M. Z. Jacobson. It aims at highlighting and discussing the method and assumptions of that paper, and thereby providing a more balanced perspective on blue hydrogen, which is in line with current best available practices and future plant specifications aiming at low CO2 emissions. More specifically, in this paper, we show that: (i) the simplified method that Howarth and Jacobson used to compute the energy balance of blue hydrogen plants leads to significant overestimation of CO2 emissions and natural gas (NG) consumption and (ii) the assumed methane leakage rate is at the high end of the estimated emissions from current NG production in the United States and cannot be considered representative of all-NG and blue hydrogen value chains globally. By starting from the detailed and rigorously calculated mass and energy balances of two blue hydrogen plants in the literature, we show the impact that methane leakage rate has on the equivalent CO2 emissions of blue hydrogen. On the basis of our analysis, we show that it is possible for blue hydrogen to have significantly lower equivalent CO2 emissions than the direct use of NG, provided that hydrogen production processes and CO2 capture technologies are implemented that ensure a high CO2 capture rate, preferably above 90%, and a low-emission NG supply chain

The development, design, testing, refinement, simulation and application of an evaluation framework for communities of practice and social-professional networks

Background. Communities of practice and social-professional networks are generally considered to enhance workplace experience and enable organizational success. However, despite the remarkable growth in interest in the role of collaborating structures in a range of industries, there is a paucity of empirical research to support this view. Nor is there a convincing model for their systematic evaluation, despite the significant potential benefits in answering the core question: how well do groups of professionals work together and how could they be organised to work together more effectively? This research project will produce a rigorous evaluation methodology and deliver supporting tools for the benefit of researchers, policymakers, practitioners and consumers within the health system and other sectors. Given the prevalence and importance of communities of practice and social networks, and the extent of investments in them, this project represents a scientific innovation of national and international significance. Methods and design. Working in four conceptual phases the project will employ a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods to develop, design, field-test, refine and finalise an evaluation framework. Once available the framework will be used to evaluate simulated, and then later existing, health care communities of practice and social-professional networks to assess their effectiveness in achieving desired outcomes. Peak stakeholder groups have agreed to involve a wide range of members and participant organisations, and will facilitate access to various policy, managerial and clinical networks. Discussion. Given its scope and size, the project represents a valuable opportunity to achieve breakthroughs at two levels; firstly, by introducing novel and innovative aims and methods into the social research process and, secondly, through the resulting evaluation framework and tools. We anticipate valuable outcomes in the improved understanding of organisational performance and delivery of care. The project's wider appeal lies in transferring this understanding to other health jurisdictions and to other industries and sectors, both nationally and internationally. This means not merely publishing the results, but contextually interpreting them, and translating them to advance the knowledge base and enable widespread institutional and organisational application

Comment on “How green is blue hydrogen?”

This paper is written in response to the paper “How green is blue hydrogen?” by R. W. Howarth and M. Z. Jacobson. It aims at highlighting and discussing the method and assumptions of that paper, and thereby providing a more balanced perspective on blue hydrogen, which is in line with current best available practices and future plant specifications aiming at low CO2 emissions. More specifically, in this paper, we show that: (i) the simplified method that Howarth and Jacobson used to compute the energy balance of blue hydrogen plants leads to significant overestimation of CO2 emissions and natural gas (NG) consumption and (ii) the assumed methane leakage rate is at the high end of the estimated emissions from current NG production in the United States and cannot be considered representative of all-NG and blue hydrogen value chains globally. By starting from the detailed and rigorously calculated mass and energy balances of two blue hydrogen plants in the literature, we show the impact that methane leakage rate has on the equivalent CO2 emissions of blue hydrogen. On the basis of our analysis, we show that it is possible for blue hydrogen to have significantly lower equivalent CO2 emissions than the direct use of NG, provided that hydrogen production processes and CO2 capture technologies are implemented that ensure a high CO2 capture rate, preferably above 90%, and a low-emission NG supply chain

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Membrane-Cryogenic Post-Combustion Carbon Capture of Flue Gases from NGCC

Membrane gas separation for carbon capture has traditionally been focused on high pressure applications, such as pre-combustion capture and natural gas sweetening. Recently a membrane-cryogenic combined process has been shown to be cost competitive for post-combustion capture from coal fired power stations. Here, the membrane-cryogenic combined process is investigated for application to post-combustion carbon capture from the flue gas of a Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) process. This process involves a three-membrane process, where the combustion air is used as the sweep gas on the second membrane stage to recycle CO2 through the turbine. This ensures high CO2 recovery and also increases the CO2 partial pressure in the flue gas. The three-CO2-selective membrane process with liquefaction and O2-enrichment was found to have a cost of capture higher than the corresponding process for coal post-combustion capture. This was attributed to the large size and energy duty of the gas handling equipment, especially the feed blower, because of the high gas throughput in the system caused by significant CO2 recycling. In addition, the economics were uncompetitive compared to a modelled solvent absorption processes for NGCC