Uvsccsce 2012 Chem - Eng - Sci Targeting Carbon Capture and Storage

Author's personal copy
Chemical Engineering Science 68 (2012) 313327
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Chemical Engineering Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ces
Targeting and design of energy allocation networks with carbon capture

and storage
Akshay U. Shenoy a, Uday V. Shenoy b,n
a
b
Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies, NMIMS, V.L. Mehta Road, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai 400056, India
Synew Technologies, A 502, Galleria, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai 400076, India
a r t i c l e i n f o
abstract
Article history:
Received 22 July 2011
Accepted 20 September 2011
Available online 29 September 2011
The mathematical formulation for targeting during energy allocation with carbon capture and storage
(CCS) is formally developed. For operating-cost optimization with zero excess, it is shown that CCS
sources may be regarded as resources with their cost taken as the increment over the non-CCS option.
CCS sources along with clean-carbon resources may then be targeted by prole matching with the
limiting composite to establish optimal primary cases. The limiting composite curve is itself sacrosanct
and obtained by a single computation of the composite table algorithm (CTA) including only non-CCS
sources. Carbon emission networks (CENs) are designed by the nearest neighbors algorithm (NNA).
A cost criterion is established to determine cost-factor ranges for optimality of the primary cases, and
results validated by solving linear programming (LP) and mixed integer linear programming (MILP)
formulations. The methodology essentially comprises four distinct stages targeting, network design,
cost analysis, and optimization with the rst two stages not requiring any cost data.
& 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Design
Energy
Optimization
Systems engineering
Environmental emissions
Carbon footprint
1. Introduction
Optimal planning of energy systems subject to carbon footprint constraints aimed at reducing climate change effects has
been the focus of recent research (Tan and Foo, 2007; Foo et al.,
2008; Lee et al., 2009; Pekala et al., 2010; Shenoy, 2010). This is in
direct response to policies on sustainable development, including
the Kyoto Protocol, that attempt to balance the expected increase
in energy demand and the desirable decrease in greenhouse gases
(GHGs) emissions. For instance, emissions targeting and planning
has been done by Atkins et al. (2008, 2009a, 2009b) for the New
Zealand electricity industry, and by Crilly and Zhelev (2008, 2009)
for the Irish electricity generation sector.
Carbon capture and storage (CCS), alternatively referred to as
carbon capture and sequestration, is a technology for mitigating
the contribution of carbon emissions to global warming, by
capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from large point sources such as
fossil-red power plants and storing it in a manner to prevent it
from entering the atmosphere. Some CCS techniques (Steeneveldt
et al., 2006; Wall, 2007; Yang et al., 2008) with capability for
minimally 80% CO2 removal include post-combustion capture
(PCC where CO2 is absorbed from ue gases using chemical
agents), oxyfuel combustion (Oxyf where pure oxygen rather
Corresponding author. Tel.: 91 22 40104615.

E-mail address: shenoys@vsnl.com (U.V. Shenoy).
0009-2509/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ces.2011.09.041
than air is used for combustion), and integrated gasication

combined cycle (IGCC where self-generated hydrogen is utilized
for combustion).
The objective of this work is to develop an algorithmic
procedure with a graphical representation for the carbon-constrained energy planning problem with CCS that will identify an
optimum strategy for integrating sources and demands to minimize operating cost. CCS may be simply viewed as a means to
purify fossil-fuel energy sources; then, from the standpoint of
process integration (Shenoy, 1995; El-Halwagi, 1997, 2006;
Smith, 2005; Kemp, 2007), CCS is analogous to the concept of
regeneration or interception in resource conservation networks
such as those for water and hydrogen (Agrawal and Shenoy, 2006)
but with some differences. One basic difference is the possibility
of multiple CCS sources in carbon emission networks (CENs),
which is in contrast to typically a single regeneration stream in
water and hydrogen networks. The problem of targeting multiple
resources has been studied earlier in the context of heat exchanger networks (Shenoy et al., 1998; Shethna et al., 1999), mass
exchanger networks (Fraser et al., 2005) and resource allocation
networks (Shenoy and Bandyopadhyay, 2007). Here, the unied
conceptual approach (Agrawal and Shenoy, 2006; Prakash and
Shenoy, 2005a), which essentially depends on the composite table
algorithm (CTA) for targeting and the nearest neighbors algorithm
(NNA) for network design, is adapted to handle multiple CCS
sources as demonstrated below. The unied conceptual approach
(with the CTA and NNA) has been successfully used by Deng and

314
A.U. Shenoy, U.V. Shenoy / Chemical Engineering Science 68 (2012) 313327
Feng (2009) for an optimal water network with regeneration/

recycle in an alumina plant to obtain zero wastewater discharge
and signicant freshwater savings.
The proposed algorithmic procedure for CENs is associated
with a graphical representation called the limiting composite
curve, in which net decit/surplus may be conveniently represented on an emission factor versus emission load diagram
(Shenoy, 2010) similar to the temperature versus enthalpy
diagram in heat exchanger network synthesis (Shenoy, 1995) or
the concentration-mass diagram in mass exchanger network
synthesis (El-Halwagi and Manousiouthakis, 1990) or the water
purity versus contaminant load diagram in the design of water
networks (Wang and Smith, 1994; Hallale and Fraser, 1998). The
concepts and algorithms are illustrated below through a case
study based on the data given by Pekala et al. (2010), who studied
CCS options to retrot fossil-fuel power plants.
2. Problem statement and mathematical formulation

Based on the problem statement for carbon-constrained
energy planning (Tan and Foo, 2007; Pekala et al., 2010), a
detailed mathematical formulation for the targeting problem of
energy allocation with carbon capture and storage (CCS) is
developed below. A set of ND demands (regions) and a set of NS
sources are given. Each demand Dj has an energy requirement FDj
and a carbon footprint or emission load that must not exceed a
specied maximum limit MDj. Each source has a known availability FSi,total. Without CCS, each source Si has a specied carbon
intensity/emission factor CSi and a cost per energy unit cSi. With
CCS (denoted by single prime), each source Si0 has a specied
emission factor C 0Si and a cost per energy unit c0Si . A set of (NR 1)
clean-carbon resources (zero-carbon R0 and/or low-carbon Rk) is
available. Each resource has a specied carbon intensity/emission

factor CRk and a cost per energy unit cRk. The excess (or unused)
energy (denoted by subscript E) may be treated as an external
demand or waste (Shenoy and Bandyopadhyay, 2007) without
any restrictions.
The network for the energy allocation problem with CCS is
represented in the form of a matching matrix (Prakash and
Shenoy, 2005b; Das et al., 2009; Shenoy, 2010) in Fig. 1. The
values of emission load M, energy F, and emission factor C are
non-negative real numbers. The three quantities are related by
M FC
In general, the following conservation balance equations and

linear mixing rules fundamentally hold for energy and emission
load, when sources S1 and S2 are mixed to satisfy demand D.
F S1 F S2 F D
2a
F S1 C S1 F S2 C S2 F D C D
2b
The objective is to match sources (after appropriate mixing, if

necessary, as per Eqs. (2a,b)) and demands, so as to minimize the
operating cost OC given by the following expression:
OC
NR
X
cRk F Rk
NS
X
i1
k0
c0Si F 0Si
NS
X
cSi F Si f iE
3a
i1
In Eq. (3a), the three terms signify clean-carbon resources, the

sources with CCS, and the sources without CCS (excluding the
excess or unused energy fiE), respectively. On noting that the CCS
and non-CCS portions of each source total the known availability
(i.e., FSi0 FSi FSi,total), Eq. (3a) may be rewritten as
OC
NR
X
k0
cRk F Rk
NS
X
i1
c0Si cSi F 0Si
NS
X
i1
Fig. 1. General representation of an energy allocation problem with CCS as a matching matrix.
cSi F Si,total
NS
X
i1
cSi f iE
3b

In Eq. (3b), the four terms signify the cost of clean-carbon

resources, the additional cost of sources with CCS (with reference
to the non-CCS option), the cost of total available sources (which
is a constant), and the cost of excess or unused energy, respectively. Since the third term is constant and the fourth term is zero
for the case of CCS with no excess energy, the objective function
to be minimized consists of the rst two terms in Eq. (3b). For the
case of CCS with zero excess, Eq. (3b) importantly indicates that
CCS sources may be regarded as clean-carbon resources with their
cost per energy unit taken as (c0Si cSi).
Let fij denote the energy allocated from non-CCS source i to
0
demand j, and f ij denote the energy allocated from CCS source i to
demand j. Further, let fkj represent the energy allocated from
clean-carbon resource k to demand j, and fiE designate the excess
energy from non-CCS source i. Thus, f symbolizes the energy
allocations for the cell matches of the matching matrix in Fig. 1.
Due to the energy conservation in Eq. (2a), the energy balance for
each demand and each non-CCS source is given by
In an analogous manner, the overall system emission load

balance (as per Eq (2b)) may be written as
F R C R F E C E D2
NS
X
f kj
i1
k0
ND
X
f ij
NS
X
f ij F Dj
for every demand j A ND
for every non-CCS source i A NS
4b
The total requirement of each CCS source and each resource is

calculated from
0
f ij
F 0Si
for every CCS source iA NS
5a
j1
ND
X
f kj F Rk
for every resource k A NR 1
5b
j1
Eq. (4a) corresponds to the column sum, whereas Eqs (4b),

(5a), and (5b) correspond to the row sum for the energy values in
the matching matrix (Fig. 1). As mentioned earlier, the CCS and
non-CCS amounts of each source total the specied availability
according to
F 0Si F Si F Si,total
for every source i A NS
NS
X
f iE
6a
i1
FR
NR
X
F Rk
k0
NR X
ND
X
f kj
6b
k0j1
On taking the summation over all demands and all non-CCS

sources (using Eqs. (4a) and (4b), respectively), the following
overall energy balance over the system is established.
NR X
ND
X
f kj
k0j1
NS X
ND
X
i1j1
f ij
NS
X
F Si
i1
ND
X
F Dj
j1
NS
X
f iE
7a
i1
Using Eqs. (5a),(6a) and (6b), the above overall system energy
balance may be compactly rewritten as
F R F E D1
where
D1
ND
X
j1
F Dj
NS
X
i1
F Dj C Dj
NS
X
F 0Si C 0Si F Si C Si
i1
7c
As per Eqs. (7b) and (7c), the net system energy decit (D1)
and the net system emission load decit (D2) are obtained by
subtracting the sum of all sources (CCS and non-CCS) from the
sum of all demands. Dening such net system quantities, which
are constant for a given problem, is useful (Bandyopadhyay et al.,
1999, 2004; Shenoy, 2010) in process systems engineering.
On using the emission load conservation in Eq. (2b), the carbon
footprint or emission load limit for each demand may be
expressed as
NR
X
f kj C Rk
NS
X
i1
f ij C 0Si
NS
X
f ij C Si r F Dj C Dj
i1
8a
An alternative (Pekala et al., 2010) to Eq. (8a) would be an

aggregated emission limit (i.e., total emissions of all demands
must not be exceeded), which is obtained by summing over all
demands. Further, if the availability of clean-carbon resources is
restricted, then each resource may be limited in general to a
specied maximum FRk,max as
F Rk rF Rk,max
for every resource k A NR 1
8b
The objective is to minimize the operating cost OC in Eq. (3)

subject to the constraints given by Eqs. (4), (5), and (8). As the
objective function and all the constraints are linear, this is a linear
programming (LP) formulation.
Besides, note that the problem formulation for targeting
multiple resources (Shenoy and Bandyopadhyay, 2007) becomes
a special case of the above formulation wherein CCS sources are
not present.
The above LP formulation is solved below through an algebraic
procedure and validated using optimization software. The proposed algebraic procedure is based on the limiting composite
curve for carbon emission networks (Shenoy, 2010), whose data
are readily obtained through the Composite Table Algorithm
(CTA), rst proposed by Agrawal and Shenoy (2006).
5c
The total excess energy and the total resource requirement

(using Eq. (5b)) may be expressed as
FE
ND
X
for every demand j A ND
j1
ND
X
D2
4a
i1
f ij f iE F Si
where
j1
k0
NR
X
315
F 0Si F Si
7b
3. Representation of CCS sources

The starting point for the Composite Table Algorithm (CTA) is
the representation of sources (and demands) by vertical arrows to
conveniently determine their populations in the different emission-factor intervals. For each source (and demand), the arrow
begins at its specied emission factor. All arrows end at an
arbitrarily chosen large value of the emission factor. Fig. 2a shows
the representation used in the CTA in terms of separate arrows for
a CCS source (with emission factor CSi0 and energy availability FSi0 )
and its corresponding non-CCS source (with emission factor CSi
and energy availability FSi).
Fig. 2b shows an equivalent composite representation
obtained by appropriately adding the energy values in the two
emission-factor intervals. Combining gives the energy value as F 0Si
for C 0Si oCrCSi, and the energy value as F 0Si FSi FSi,total for C 4CSi.
Thus, in the equivalent composite representation, the non-CCS
source is represented by an arrow with a known constant energy
value of FSi,total (rather than an unknown variable FSi). Further, in
the equivalent composite representation, the CCS source is
represented by a line-segment between C 0Si and CSi (rather than
an arrow from CSi0 to an arbitrary large emission-factor value).

316
CSi
CSi
FSi
FSi
CSi
CSi
FSi
CCS Source Si
FSi
non-CCS Source Si
FSi,total
CCS Source Si
non-CCS Source Si
Fig. 2. Arrow representation of CCS source and corresponding non-CCS source in CTA (a) separately and (b) as equivalent composite.
The equivalent composite representation has two important

implications. First, the implementation of the CTA from Shenoy
(2010) remains unchanged requiring the demands and only the
non-CCS sources (with energy values of FSi,total) to be considered.
Second, the CCS sources (represented as line segments) can be
regarded as resources and targeted by prole matching with the
limiting composite curve. Note that the limiting composite for
carbon emission networks developed by Shenoy (2010) is thus
sacrosanct: it remains unchanged for targeting with and without
CCS because it itself does not include the CCS sources. Furthermore, the number of targeting variables associated with sources is
halved because only CCS sources are targeted whereas non-CCS
sources (with their total energy availability) are included in the
CTA. Both the CTA implementation and the prole matching are
illustrated in the next section through a case study.
Table 1
Data for case study.
Demands/sources
Emission factor C Energy F Emission M Cost factor c
Demand data
D1 (region I)
D2 (region II)
D3 (region III)
Total
(20)
(50)
(100)
Source data
R0 (zero-C resource)
S10 (CCSnatural gas)
S20 (CCSoil)
S30 (CCScoal)
S1 (natural gas)
S2 (oil)
S3 (coal)
Total
0
10
15
20
55
75
105
100
40
60
200
20
80
60
160
20
20
60
100
(11)
(60)
(63)
134
0.045
0.042
0.034
0.032
0.025
0.022
0.020
Units: emission factor C in t CO2/TJ, energy F in 104 TJ, emission load M in

106 t CO2, cost factor c in 1/TJ.
4. Targeting by prole matching with limiting composite

4.1. Clean-carbon resource with No CCS source
To illustrate the methodology, the case study from Pekala et al.
(2010), which is itself adapted from Tan and Foo (2007), is
considered. The data for the three demands (three regions with
their expected energy consumptions FDj in TJ and emission load
limits MDj in t CO2) and the three sources (natural gas, oil and coal
with their emission factors CSi in t CO2/TJ and total energy
availabilities FSi,total in TJ) are given in Table 1. The values for CDj
in t CO2/TJ and MSi in t CO2 (in parenthesis) in Table 1 are readily
calculated using Eq. (1). The emission factors C 0Si in t CO2/TJ for the
three sources with CCS (S10 , S20 and S30 ) are also provided. The
only clean-carbon resource is a zero-carbon resource (R0). Operating cost factors for all sources (zero-carbon resource, three CCS
sources, and three non-CCS sources) are given in unspecied cost
units (Pekala et al., 2010) per TJ of energy (relative to baseline
power generation costs).
The implementation of the CTA (with details available in Shenoy,
2010) for this case study is shown in Table 2. The data in Table 2
may also be readily generated by the Unied Targeting Algorithm
(UTA), which is a generalized CTA recently proposed by Shenoy
(2011). The emission-factor C (in the rst column) is plotted against
the cumulative emission load M (in the fourth column) to obtain the
limiting composite curve (dashed line in Fig. 3). The limiting
composite provides the net decit (as a function of emission factor)
after considering all demands and non-CCS sources with their total
energy availabilities FSi,total. The clean resource(s) and the CCS
sources are excluded because the aim is to target their minimum
requirements as demonstrated next.
For the case of zero-carbon (or completely CO2-neutral)

resource (i.e., CR CR0 0), referred to as Case A henceforth,
targeting may be graphically done by rotating the horizontal axis
with the origin as pivot until it just touches the limiting
composite curve. The reciprocal of the slope of this rotated
resource target line gives the minimum zero-carbon resource
requirement. The point where the target prole touches the
limiting composite denes the pinch (Fig. 3). This graphical
procedure (Shenoy, 2010) is identical in principle to that suggested by Wang and Smith (1994) for the determination of the
minimum freshwater target.
The mathematical alternative is to use the following equation
based on an emission load balance over the below-pinch region:
MP F R C P 2C R
where MP is the cumulative emission load of the pinch point on the

limiting composite, CP is the pinch emission factor, and FR is the
energy requirement target for resource R with emission factor CR.
Since the pinch point is not known a priori, the following
procedure is adopted (Agrawal and Shenoy, 2006; Shenoy, 2010).
In accordance with Eq. (9), the possible amount of resource
required is calculated on dividing the cumulative emission load
M by (C CR) in Table 2 and tabulated in the last column. The
possible resource requirement corresponds to the reciprocal of
the slope of a line originating from CR on the vertical axis to a
point on the limiting composite curve. Since the resource line can

317
Table 2
Limiting composite curve by Composite Table Algorithm (CTA).
zero-carbon resource requirement (with FE 0, i.e., zero excess) as

FR FR0 400,000 TJ.
For the case of clean-carbon resource with no CCS sources, the
target prole is a single straight line of constant slope (as in Fig. 3)
starting from CR0. When a single CCS source is used along with the
clean-carbon resource, the target prole is the composite of two
lines: one for the clean-carbon resource starting from CR0, and
another for the CCS source starting from CSi0 and terminating at
CSi. In general, the target prole will comprise three sections,
whose arrow representation is shown in Fig. 4a and whose
equations based on emission load balances are as follows:
150
Emission Factor (tCO2/TJ)
125
100
Limiting Composite
Pinch
75
50
Target Profile
25
1/FR0
M F R0 C2C R0
for C r C 0Si
10a
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
M F R0 C2C R0 F 0Si C2C 0Si
for C 0Si r C r C Si
10b
Emission Load or Carbon Footprint (10 t CO2)

Fig. 3. Target prole for zero-carbon resource with no CCS source. (Case A with
FR0 813,333 TJ).
never be above the limiting composite, the minimum slope is

required; so, the maximum value in the last column of Table 2
gives the minimum resource target. Thus, the zero-carbon
resource target FR is 813,333 TJ (as per Table 2) and the corresponding emission factor species the pinch (75 t CO2/TJ).
From Eqs. (7b) and (7c), D1 (200160) 104 400,000 TJ and
D2 (100134) 106 34 106 t CO2 on using Table 1 and not
considering CCS sources. Since FR 813,333 TJ and CR 0, Eqs. (7b)
and (7c) yield FE 413,333 TJ and CE 82.258 t CO2/TJ (which is
the minimum emission factor possible for the excess energy when
demands are met at the maximum emission loadthe limit of
maximum environmental cost and minimum economic/operating
cost). In essence, the minimum targets for zero-carbon resource
and excess energy are 813,333 and 413,333 TJ, respectively. These
targets and the carbon emission networks that satisfy the targets
are discussed in detail by Shenoy (2010).
4.2. Single CCS source
The zero-carbon resource requirement can be reduced by
using a less expensive CCS source. The absolute minimum zerocarbon resource can be targeted in a manner similar to that used
for regeneration with recycle for water networks (Wang and
Smith, 1994; Agrawal and Shenoy, 2006; Deng and Feng, 2009)
as illustrated next. The slope of the limiting composite below C 0Si
sets the minimum FR or FE target in accordance with Eq. (7b). For
this case study, the limiting composite starts at 20 t CO2/TJ
(Table 2) and the values of C 0Si are 10, 15 and 20 t CO2/TJ
(Table 1). Therefore, the slope of the limiting composite below
CSi0 is innite, and its reciprocal sets the minimum FR or FE as
zero. Since D1 400,000 TJ, Eq. (7b) gives the absolute minimum
M F R0 C2C R0 F 0Si C Si 2C 0Si
for C Z C Si
10c
As before, the target prole must just touch the limiting

composite curve (at the pinch) and must always be below it.
Since the pinch is not known a priori, a procedure similar to
that adopted earlier with Eq. (9) is used. With FR0 400,000 TJ
(the absolute minimum zero-carbon resource requirement in this
case), F 0Si is the only unknown variable and may be readily
calculated from Eqs. (10b) or (10c) for the different points
(M, C) of the limiting composite as shown in Table 3. With CR0 0
(for zero-carbon resource), substitution in Eqs. (10b) and (10c)
yields the values in Table 3 for F 0S1 (third column with C 0S1 10 and
CS1 55), F 0S2 (fourth column with C 0S2 15 and CS2 75), and F 0S3
(fth column with C 0S3 20 and CS3 105). As before, the highest
value in each of these three columns gives the target as
F 0S1 755,556 TJ (with pinch at 105 t CO2/TJ), F 0S2 566,667 TJ
(with pinch at 105 t CO2/TJ) and F 0S3 563,636 TJ (with pinch at
75 t CO2/TJ). For the target to be feasible, it must not be greater
than the total available FSi,total. Although the target is feasible for
S2 (566,667 TJ o800,000 TJ) and S3 (563,636 TJo600,000 TJ), it is
not for S1 (755,556 TJ 4200,000 TJ). Since it is not possible to use
the absolute minimum zero-carbon resource (FR0 400,000 TJ),
the target for S1 is reworked. On setting F 0S1 200,000 TJ (maximum possible based on availability), Eqs. (10b) and (10c) yield
the values in the last column of Table 3 for FR0 with the highest
value providing the target as FR0 693,333 TJ (with pinch at
75 t CO2/TJ).
Target proles using Eqs. (10a)(10c) are plotted in Fig. 5 for
each one of the three CCS sources (S10 , S20 , and S30 ) along with the
zero-carbon resource R0. The pinch, where the target prole
touches the limiting composite, is expectedly observed at
105 t CO2/TJ (in Fig. 5b for S20 , referred to as Case B2 hereafter)
and at 75 t CO2/TJ (in Fig. 5c for S30 (Case B3) and in Fig. 5d for the
reworked feasible case of S10 (Case B1)). The infeasible case of S10
(with F 0S1 755,5564200,000 TJ) is shown in Fig. 5a.

318
CR0
FR0
CR0
FSi
CSi
FR0
Eq. (10a)
FS(i+1)
Eq. (10b) CS(i+1)

CSi
Eq. (11a)
FSi
CSi
Eq. (11b)
Eq. (11c)
CSi
Eq. (11d)
Eq. (10c)
CS(i+1)
Eq. (11e)
R0
Si
R0
Si
S(i+1)
Fig. 4. Arrow representation of target prole for clean-carbon resource R0 with (a) single CCS source and (b) two CCS sources.
Table 3
Targeting for single CCS source.
Units: emission factor C in t CO2/TJ, energy F in 104 TJ, emission load M in 106 t CO2.
M F R0 C2C R0 F 0Si C Si 2C 0Si F 0Si 1 C2C 0Si 1
4.3. Two CCS sources

On considering two CCS sources along with the zero-carbon
resource R0, three cases exist: Case C1 with (R0, S10 , S20 ); Case C2
with (R0, S10 , S30 ); and Case C3 with (R0, S20 , S30 ). Targeting for
each of these cases is discussed next.
When two CCS sources are used along with the clean-carbon
resource, the target prole is the composite of three lines: one for
the clean-carbon resource R0 starting from CR0, second for the CCS
source Si starting from C 0Si and terminating at CSi, and third for the
CCS source S(i1) starting from CS(i 1)0 and terminating at CS(i 1).
Here, the notation i and (i1) is used for convenience to denote
any two sources, which may not actually be consecutive. In
general, the target prole will comprise ve sections, whose
arrow representation is shown in Fig. 4b and whose equations
based on emission load balances are as follows:
M F R0 C2C R0
for C r C 0Si
M F R0 C2C R0 F 0Si C2C 0Si
11a
for C 0Si r C rC 0Si 1
11b
M F R0 C2C R0 F 0Si C2C 0Si F 0Si 1 C2C 0Si 1

for C 0Si 1 r C rC Si
11c
for C Si r C rC Si 1
11d
M F R0 C2C R0 F 0Si C Si 2C 0Si F 0Si 1 C Si 1 2C 0Si 1

for C ZC Si 1
11e
With FR0 400,000 TJ (the absolute minimum zero-carbon

resource requirement) and F 0Si F 0S1 200,000 TJ (the maximum
0
availability of S10 ), FS(i
1) is the only unknown variable and may
be easily calculated from Eqs. (11c),(11d) or (11e) for the different
points (M, C) of the limiting composite in Table 4. With CR0 0 (for
zero-carbon resource), C 0Si C 0S1 10 and CSi CS1 55, substitution
in Eqs. (11c),(11d) and (11e) gives the values in Table 4 for F 0S2
(third column with C 0S2 15 and CS2 75), and F 0S3 (fourth column
with C 0S3 20 and CS3 105). The highest value in each column
gives the target as F 0S2 416,667 TJ (with pinch at 105 t CO2/TJ)
and F 0S3 400,000 TJ (with pinch at 75 t CO2/TJ). The targets, being
less than the total available FSi,total, are feasible for S2
(416,667o800,000) as well as S3 (400,000o600,000). Proles,
based on these targets and Eqs. (11a)(11e), are plotted in Fig. 6a
and b for Case C1 with (R0, S10 , S20 ) and Case C2 with (R0, S10 , S30 ),
respectively. The pinch, as expected, is seen at 105 t CO2/TJ (in
Fig. 6a) and at 75 t CO2/TJ (in Fig. 6b).

150
125
Pinch
100
150
Limiting Composite
1/FR0
75
50
Target Profile
1/(FR0 +FS1)
25
10
125
100
Limiting Composite
Pinch
75
Target Profile
50
1/(FR0 +FS3)
25
1/FR0
1/FR0
0
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
150
150
125
Pinch
100
Limiting Composite
Emission Factor (t O2/TJ)
319
1/FR0
75
Target Profile
50
1/(FR0 +FS2)
25
1/FR0
0
0
10
125
Limiting Composite
100
Pinch
75
1/FR0
50
Target Profile
1/(FR0 + FS1)
25
1/FR0
0
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
10
Fig. 5. Target prole for single CCS source (a) infeasible case with F 0S1 755556 TJ and FR0 400,000 TJ, (b) Case B2 with F 0S2 566,667 TJ and FR0 400,000 TJ, (c) Case B3
with FS30 563,636 TJ and FR0 400,000 TJ, and (d) Case B1 with F 0S1 200,000 TJ and FR0 693,333 TJ.
0
(F 0Si and FS(i
1) ). Two unknown variables imply the existence of two
pinch points. The approach thus far suggests the simultaneous
solution of two equations from Eqs. (11b)(11e) for every possible
pair of points (M, C) on the limiting composite. However, a simpler
approach fruitfully utilizes the fact that all points on the limiting
composite are not candidate pinch points. A point on the limiting
composite is a candidate pinch only if the slope of the curve increases
after the point and consequently the point protrudes toward the
target prole. Thus, the net energy decit in an interval (Fnet as given
by the second column in Table 2), which corresponds to the reciprocal
of the slope of a segment on the limiting composite, must decrease at
candidate pinch points. In this case study, the candidate pinches are
at emission factors of 55 t CO2/TJ (where Fnet decreases from 140 to
120 TJ), 75 t CO2/TJ (where Fnet decreases from 120 to 40 TJ), and
105 t CO2/TJ (where Fnet decreases from 100 to 40 TJ). However, the
pinch at 55 t CO2/TJ is possibly not a candidate (because of the
relatively small change in the Fnet value and the slope/shape of the
limiting composite curve).
With the two pinch points at 75 t CO2/TJ and 105 t CO2/TJ (as
observed in all the six cases analyzed so far), Eqs. (11c) and (11d) give
Table 4
Targeting for Two CCS Sources.
Units: emission factor C in t CO2/TJ, energy F in 10 TJ, emission load M in 10 t CO2.

0
61 106 F R0 7520 F 0S2 75215 F 0S3 75220
12a
76 106 F R0 10520 F 0S2 75215 F 0S3 105220
12b
The third case of (R0, S2 , S3 ), referred to as Case C3, is now

explored. With FR0 400,000 TJ (the absolute minimum zero-carbon
resource requirement), Eqs. (11b)(11e) have two unknown variables
Subtracting Eq. (12a) from Eq. (12b) yields

76261 106 F R0 F 0S3 105275
12c

320
125
Pinch
100
Limiting Composite
1/FR0
75
1/(FR0 + FS2)
50
Target Profile
25
0
150
1/(FR0 + FS1+FS2)
1/(FR0 + FS1)
1/FR0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
80
70
90
Emission Load or Carbon Footprint (106t CO2)
Emission Factor (t CO2/TJ)
150
125
Limiting Composite
100
Pinch
Pinches
1/FR0
100
1/(FR0 + FS3)
75
Limiting Composite
50
1/(FR0 + FS2+FS3)
Target Profile
25
1/(FR0 + FS2)
1/FR0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1/(FR0 + FS3)
50
Target Profile
1/(FR0 + FS1+FS3)
1/(FR0 + FS1)
1/FR0
25
0
125
0
1/FR0
75
150
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90

Fig. 6. Target prole with FR0 400,000 TJ for two CCS sources (a) Case C1 with F 0S1 200,000 TJ and F 0S2 416,667 TJ, (b) Case C2 with F 0S1 200,000 TJ, and F 0S3 400,000 TJ
(c) Case C3 with F 0S2 425,000 TJ and F 0S3 100,000 TJ.
Eq. (12c) is simply an emission load balance between the two

pinches (whereas Eq. (12a) is a balance below the pinch at
75 t CO2/TJ, and Eq. (12b) is a balance below the pinch at
105 t CO2/TJ) and provides a direct way to calculate the F 0S3 target.
If CSi and CS(i 1) denote the two pinch points (with the corresponding emission loads on the limiting composite given by MSi
and MS(i 1)), then Eq. (12c) in generalized form may be written as
F R0 F 0Si 1 M Si 1 2MSi =C Si 1 2C Si
12d
Equations (similar to Eq. (12d)) for the emission load balance

between two pinches can be written for any of the sections in Fig. 4
and readily used to establish targets in some multi-pinch cases.
For Case C3 with (R0, S20 , S30 ), Eq. (12c) gives the target as
F 0S3 100,000 TJ and then Eq. (12a) or (12b) give F 0S2 425,000 TJ
on substituting FR0 400,000 TJ. The targets, being less than the
total available FSi,total, are feasible for both S2 (425,000o800,000)
and S3 (100,000o600,000). The prole for Case C3 with (R0, S20 ,
S30 ), based on these targets and Eqs. (11a)(11e), is plotted in
Fig. 6c and expectedly shows two pinches (at 75 and 105 t CO2/TJ).
4.4. Three CCS sources
The last case (Case D) considers all three CCS sources along
with the zero-carbon resource R0.
When three CCS sources are used along with the clean-carbon
resource, the target prole is the composite of four lines: one for
the clean-carbon resource R0 starting from CR0, second for the CCS
source Si starting from C 0Si and terminating at CSi, third for the CCS
source S(i1) starting from C 0Si 1 and terminating at CS(i 1), and
fourth for the CCS source S(i 2) starting from C 0Si 2 and
terminating at CS(i 2). In general, the target prole will comprise
seven sections [C rC 0Si ; C 0Si rCrC 0Si 1 ; C 0Si 1 rC rC 0Si 2 ;
C 0Si 2 rC rCSi;
CSi rC rCS(i 1);
CS(i 1) rC rCS(i 2);
and
CZCS(i 2)], whose arrow representation can be shown in a form
similar to Fig. 4 (omitted for brevity) and whose emission load
balance equations can be written in a manner similar to Eqs. (10)
and (11) (not shown).
With FR0 400,000 TJ (the absolute minimum zero-carbon
resource requirement) and F 0Si F 0S1 200,000 TJ (the maximum
availability of S10 ), there remain two unknown variables (F 0S2 and
F 0S3 ). As before, this suggests the existence of two pinch points (at
75 and 105 t CO2/TJ). An emission load balance between the two
pinches yields Eq. (12c) and the target as F 0S3 100,000 TJ (same as
in the earlier case). Now, balances below the pinches at 75 t CO2/
TJ and 105 t CO2/TJ give the following equations (which are the
analogs of Eqs. (12a) and (12b)):
61 106 F R0 7520 F 0S1 55210 F 0S2 75215 F 0S3 75220
13a
76 106 F R0 10520 F 0S1 55210 F 0S2 75215 F 0S3 105220
13b
On substituting FR0 400,000 TJ, F 0S1 200,000 TJ and F 0S3
100,000 TJ, the target is obtained from Eq. (13a) or (13b) as

321
150
125
Pinches
1/FR0
100
1/(FR0 + FS3)
75
Limiting Composite
1/(FR0 + FS2 + FS3)
50
Target Profile
1/(FR0 + FS1 + FS2 + FS3)
1/(FR0 + FS1 + FS2)
1/(FR0 + FS1)
1/FR0
25
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Fig. 7. Target prole with FR0 400,000 TJ for three CCS sources: Case D with F 0S1 200,000 TJ, F 0S2 275,000 TJ and F 0S3 100,000 TJ.
Table 5
Summary of results for case study.
FR0 (104 TJ)

F 0S1 (104 TJ)
F 0S2 (104 TJ)
F 0S3 (104 TJ)
Pinch CP (t CO2/TJ)
Limiting composite
Operating cost target
Networks by NNA
Operating cost
Fixed cost
Total cost
No CCS
Single CCS
Two CCS
Case A
S10
Case B1
S20
Case B2
S30
Case B3
(S10 , S20 )
Case C1
(S10 , S30 )
Case C2
(S20 , S30 )
Case C3
(S10 , S20 , S30 )

Case D
81.3333
75
Fig. 3
Shenoy (2010)
62,307
0
62,307
69.3333
20
75
Fig. 5d
Fig. 8a
62,947
1000
63,947
40
56.6667
105
Fig. 5b
59,400
Fig. 8b
59,400
800
60,200
40
56.3636
75
Fig. 5c
59,364
Fig. 8c
59,364
700
60,064
40
20
41.6667
105
Fig. 6a
61,000
Fig. 9a
61,000
1800
62,800
40
20
40
75
Fig. 6b
60,800
Fig. 9b
60,800
1700
62,500
40
42.5
10
75, 105
Fig. 6c
58,900
Fig. 9c
58,900
1500
60,400
40
20
27.5
10
75, 105
Fig. 7
60,500
Fig. 10
60,500
2500
63,000
F 0S2 275,000 TJ. The targets, being less than the total availability,
are feasible for S2 (275,000o800000) and S3 (100,000o
600,000). The prole for Case D with (R0, S10 , S20 , S30 ) based on
these targets is plotted in Fig. 7 and expectedly shows two
pinches (at 75 and 105 t CO2/TJ) as well as seven sections.
The targets for all eight primary cases (only R0 with no CCS,
three cases with single CCS source, three cases with two CCS
sources, and a nal case with all three CCS sources) are summarized in Table 5 (rst six rows). The target for the operating cost
(seventh row) as per Eq. (3) can be established a priori in six cases
(where the excess energy is zero, i.e., when FR0 400,000 TJ) with
the exception of Case A and Case B1.
5. Network design by Nearest Neighbors Algorithm (NNA)

In this section, networks are synthesized to meet the targets
established. The Nearest Neighbors Algorithm (NNA), proposed by
Prakash and Shenoy (2005a) for water networks and discussed by
Agrwal and Shenoy (2006) for water/hydrogen networks as well
as by Shenoy (2010) for carbon emission networks (CENs), is used
for this purpose. In the context of CENs, the basic principle behind
the NNA may be stated as follows: To satisfy a particular demand,
Three CCS
the sources to be chosen are the nearest available neighbors to

the demand in terms of emission factor. Details of the NNA are
available in these works and are not discussed here.
The NNA, which is a network design tool and should be applied
only after targets are established, is conveniently implemented in
terms of the matching matrix representation (Prakash and Shenoy,
2005b; Das et al., 2009; Shenoy, 2010). All CENs (Figs. 8, 9, and 10)
in this work are presented in the form of matching matrices.
A matching matrix provides a superstructure with a placeholder
for every possible match in the allocation network. The emission
loads or carbon footprints [shown in square brackets in the
bottom half of each relevant cell of the matching matrix for ready
reference] are calculated by simple multiplication using Eq. (1)
only after completing the design. These values are not required to
be calculated during the actual design of the network by the NNA.
In the matching matrix, it is convenient to arrange sources in order
of increasing (or decreasing) emission factor to promptly identify
the nearest neighbors; however, it is not essential (although often
convenient) to arrange demands because they can be met in any
order. Arranging demands in order of emission factor nonetheless
allows easy identication of the cross-pinch regions (gray cells in
the matching matrices that follow). To achieve the targets using
the NNA, there should be no cross-pinch energy transfer, which is

322
Fig. 8. Carbon emission networks with single CCS source using (a) S10 (Case B1), (b) S20 (Case B2), and (c) S30 (Case B3).
ensured by designing separately in the non-grayed below-pinch

and above-pinch regions.
Many different networks, all satisfying the targets, may in
general be designed by the NNA depending on the order in which
the demands are met (Agrawal and Shenoy, 2006; Shenoy, 2010).
Here, one promising network synthesized by the NNA is
presented for each primary case taking into consideration that
the number of CCS matches must be minimized to keep the xed
cost low. In all the networks below, the NNA is applied to satisfy
the demands D1, D2 and D3 in that order. Three possible networks using only a single CCS source are shown in Fig. 8a (for
Case B1), Fig. 8b (for Case B2) and Fig. 8c (for Case B3). Another
three networks using two CCS sources are shown in Fig. 9a (for
Case C1), Fig. 9b (for Case C2) and Fig. 9c (for Case C3). Finally,
a network using all three CCS sources is shown in Fig. 10 for Case
D. Of these seven networks, two networks (Figs. 8b and 9c) match
those reported by Pekala et al. (2010), who obtained them by
solving a mixed integer linear programming (MILP) formulation
using optimization software and varying the xed cost factors for
CCS sources. The network for Case A of only zero-carbon resource
R0 (with no CCS sources) is not presented here because it has
been dealt with in detail by Shenoy (2010).
In all the networks except those in Figs. 8c and 9b, the demands
are met at the maximum emission load limits or equivalently

323
Fig. 10. Carbon emission networks with three CCS sources using S10 , S20 , and S30
(Case D).
6. Cost analysis
Fig. 9. Carbon emission networks with two CCS sources using (a) S10 , S20 (Case C1)
(b) S10 , S30 (Case C2), and (c) S20 , S30 (Case C3).
maximum emission factors. In Figs. 8c and 9b, demand D3 (which is

the only demand above the pinch at 75 t CO2/TJ in this case) is
satised with a carbon footprint below its specied maximum limit
of 60 106 t CO2. This is consistent with an important observation
in this regard made by Prakash and Shenoy (2005a) for water
networks and Shenoy (2010) for carbon emission networks. In the
context of CENs, the observation may be stated as: to meet the
minimum resource target, all demands below the pinch must be
satised at emission factors equal to their maximum allowable
values, whereas demands above the pinch can be satised at
emission factors less than their maximum allowable values.
The costs for the networks synthesized in the previous section

may now be evaluated as shown in Table 5 (last three rows). The
operating costs (third last row in Table 5) exactly match with
their respective targets (seventh row). In addition to the operating
cost factors given in the last column of Table 1, Pekala et al.
(2010) have specied the xed cost factors (in unspecied cost
units) for matches using the three CCS sources (1000 for
CCSNatural Gas match; 800 for CCSOil match; and 700 for
CCSCoal match). Using these factors (of 1000, 800, and 700), the
xed cost (second last row in Table 5) can be calculated and
added to the respective operating cost to obtain the total cost (last
row). Note that the operating costs as well as the total costs for
the various cases are within about 7% of the minimum. Further,
the operating costs are expectedly higher for cases using S10
(because of the relatively high operating cost factor of 0.042 for
S10 , being close to 0.045 for R0).
From Table 5, the network with the minimum operating cost
(58,900) is found to use one CCSOil match and one CCSCoal
match (Fig. 9c). It has a total cost of 60,400, which is reported to
be the globally optimal total cost solution by Pekala et al. (2010)
based on an MILP formulation. However, this is not consistent
with Table 5, which shows the network using only one CCSCoal
match (Fig. 8c) to have the minimum total cost (60,064). The
network in Fig. 8c, in addition to being optimal in terms of total
cost, satises demand D3 with a carbon footprint of just
46.091 106 t CO2 (which is below its specied maximum limit
of 60 106 t CO2). Thus, the network in Fig. 8c provides a superior
solution to that reported by Pekala et al. (2010) (Fig. 9c) because it
has a lower total cost (60,064 instead of 60,400), a lower carbon
footprint (46.091 106 rather than 60 106 t CO2 for demand D3)
and one fewer match (8 instead of 9 matches).
In Table 5, the targeting results (in the rst six rows) include
eight primary cases (in the columns) because there are three CCS
sources in this case study. In general, 2NS primary cases are expected
if there are NS CCS sources. Note that the primary cases have been
fundamentally established by prole matching with the limiting
composite curve, without using any specic cost data. Generally,
when actual cost data are unavailable or uncertain, it may be
assumed that the unit operating cost (i.e., the operating cost per
energy unit) reduces with decrease in quality (i.e., increase in
carbon intensity/emission factor) of the resource or source. In what

324
follows, a better approach is presented wherein a cost criterion is

established for the applicability of the (eight) primary cases.
Consider for concreteness the introduction of S10 as a partial
replacement for S20 (specically, for the optimal solution to
change from Case C3 to Case D). Given the relatively high
operating cost factor (0.042) of S10 (in Table 1), this is currently
not optimal. However, a condition in terms of the operating cost
factor may be derived for the use of S10 to be optimal by using
Eq. (13) as a starting point. On substituting FR0 400,000 TJ and
F 0S3 100,000 TJ, Eqs. (13a) and (13b) both give F 0S1 (55
10)F 0S2 (7515)25.5 106. This equation includes Case C3
(F 0S2 425,000 if F 0S1 0) as well as Case D (F 0S2 275,000 if
F 0S1 200,000). On substituting for F 0S2 from Eqs. (13a) and (13b)
into Eq. (3b), the operating cost may be expressed as
OC
NS
X
DcSi F 0Si K 1
14a
i1
OC DcS1 F 0S1 DcS2 F 0S2 K 2
14b
OC DcS1 DcS2 5510=7515F 0S1 K 3
14c
DcSi c0Si cSi

0
(i.e., DcSi signies the additional cost of CCS

where
source Si with reference to its non-CCS option Si) with K1, K2, and
K3 denoting constants. Eq. (14a) is obtained because of the
constancy of the rst term (noting FR0 400,000 TJ), the third
term (which is the cost of total available sources) and the fourth
term (which is zero for no excess energy) in Eq. (3b). Eq. (14a)
gives Eq. (14b) on expanding the summation and absorbing the
DcS3F 0S3 term into the constant, whereas Eq. (14b) nally yields
Eq. (14c) on substituting for F 0S2 from Eqs. (13a) and (13b). For the
introduction of S10 (F 0S1 40) to be advantageous, the operating
cost must decrease. This requires the term in square brackets in
Eq. (14c) be negative, giving the following simple condition:
DcS1 o RC DcS2
where RC 55210=75215
14d
Eq. (14d) species the condition where it is optimal to

introduce S10 to partially replace S20 . In other words, the optimal
solution is Case C3 for a positive deviation (i.e., DcS1 RCDcS2 d)
and it is Case D for a negative deviation (i.e., DcS1 RCDcS2 d),
where d is a small deviation (say, 10 6) of DcS1 from RCDcS2. The
above result is given in the last row of Table 6, where several
other results are tabulated based on a generalization of Eq. (14d)
as given next in Eq. (15a).
For the optimal introduction of CCS source Si0 as a partial
replacement for CCS source S(i1)0 , the general cost criterion may
be elegantly expressed as
DcSi o RC DcSi 1
where RC C Ei 2C 0Si =C Ei 1 2C 0Si 1
15a
Here, CE is appropriately taken as the emission factor of either

the corresponding non-CCS source or the pinch, whichever is
lower in value. Note that the line segments (see Table 4) for both
S10 and S20 terminate at or before the pinches (at 75 and
105 t CO2/TJ) and therefore CE is taken as the emission factor of
the corresponding non-CCS source (55 for S1 and 75 for S2) in
Eq. (14d), which may not always be case. As discussed earlier, the
optimal solution does not use any Si0 for a positive deviation (i.e.,
DcSi RCDcS(i 1) d), whereas it is does use Si0 (in place of S(i1)0 )
for a negative deviation (i.e., DcSi RCDcS(i 1) d), where d is a
small deviation of DcSi from RC DcS(i 1).
The RC cost criterion in Eq. (15a) is validated by solving the linear
program (LP) formulated in Section 2 for 28 runs (considering both
positive and negative deviations of the 14 rows tabulated in Table 6).
The LP runs may be taken using Eq. (3) with base cost factors as
given in the last column of Table 1, i.e., cR0 0.045, c0S1 0.042,
c0S2 0.034, c0S3 0.032, cS1 0.025, cS2 0.022, and cS3 0.020. An
alternative is to use cR0 0.045, c0S1 DcS1 0.042 0.0250.017,
c0S2 DcS2 0.034 0.0220.012, c0S3 DcS3 0.032 0.0200.012,
cS1 0.0, cS2 0.0 and cS3 0.0. These modied cost factors allow
easier validation during the 28 LP runs (for positive and negative
deviations of the 14 rows in Table 6) for the optimal cases listed in
the last two columns of Table 6 (although the actual objective
function value will differ from that obtained on using base cost
factors). Note that two new sub-cases (in addition to the eight
primary cases in Table 5) are discovered during the LP runs, and
tabulated as Case B2S and Case C1S at the bottom of Table 6. These
sub-cases are variations of Case B2 (Fig. 5b) and Case C1 (Fig. 6a) due
to the pinch point jumping from 105 to 75 t CO2/TJ. Such pinch
jumps have been observed earlier and are discussed by Shenoy and
Bandyopadhyay (2007).
The cost criterion in Eq. (15a) may be rewritten as
c0Si 2cSi =C Ei 2C 0Si o c0Si 1 2cSi 1 =C Ei 1 2C 0Si 1
15b
In this slightly different version of the cost criterion, the

quantity (c0Si cSi)/(CEi C 0Si ) may be called the prioritized cost
(Fraser et al., 2005; Shenoy and Bandyopadhyay, 2007) of the
ith CCS source. Note that it is not necessary to maximize the usage
of the CCS source with the minimum unit cost (i.e., cost per
energy unit) in order to minimize the overall operating cost. The
prioritized cost, in a sense, is a ratio of the economic/operating
cost change to the environmental benet change when the CCS
Table 6
Optimality analysis for minimum operating cost based on the RC cost criterion.
Replace
R0 by S10
R0 by S20 pinch
R0 by S20 pinch
R0 by S30
R0 by S20 pinch
R0 by S20 pinch
R0 by S30
S20 by S10
S20 by S30
S30 by S10
S30 by S20
S20 by S30
S30 by S20
S20 by S10
at 105
at 75
at 105
at 75
RC
DcS1
(55 10)/(75 0)
(75 15)/(105 0)
(75 15)/(75 0)
(75 20)/(75 0)
(75 15)/(105 0)
(75 15)/(75 0)
(75 20)/(75 0)
(55 10)/(75 15)
(105 20)/(75 15)
(55 10)/(75 20)
(75 15)/(75 20)
(105 20)/(75 15)
(75 15)/(75 20)
(55 10)/(75 15)
RC DcR0 7 d
DcS2
DcS3
RC DcR0 7 d
RC DcR0 7 d
RC DcR0 7 d
RC DcR0 7 d
RC DcR0 7 d
RC DcR0 7 d
RC DcS2 7 d
RC DcS2 7 d
RC DcS3 7 d
RC DcS3 7 d
0.009 d
0.009 d
RC DcS2 7 d
Note: DcR0 0.045, DcS1 0.017, DcS2 0.012, DcS3 0.012; d 10 6.

Case B2S: FR0 500,000 TJ, F 0S1 0, F 0S2 391,667 TJ, F 0S3 0.
Case C1S: FR0 500,000 TJ, F 0S1 200,000 TJ, F 0S2 241,667 TJ, F 0S3 0.
RC DcS2 7 d
RC DcS3 7 d
Forbidden
Optimal for
ve deviation
Optimal for
ve deviation
S20 ,
S10 ,
S10 ,
S10 ,
S30
S30
S20
S30
S10
S20
S10
Case
Case
Case
Case
Case
Case
Case
Case
Case
Case
Case
Case
Case
Case
Case
Case
Case
Case
Case
Case
Case
Case
Case
Case
Case
Case
Case
Case
S30
S30
S30
S20
A
B2S
A
A
C1S
B1
B1
B2
B2
B3
B3
C1
C2
C3
B1
B2
B2S
B3
C1
C1S
C2
C1
C3
C2
C3
D
D
D

option is used over the non-CCS one. The prioritized costs provide
an order in which the CCS sources may be used; however, they
may be difcult to calculate a priori in some multi-pinch and
pinch-jump cases.
7. MILP formulation and validation for total cost optimization

The LP formulation discussed so far focuses on the optimization of only the operating cost. In this section, the formulation is
extended to a mixed integer linear program (MILP) for the
optimization of the total cost given by the following expression:
TC
NR
X
cRk F Rk
NS
X
c0Si F 0Si
i1
k0
NS
X
cSi F Si f iE
i1
NS X
ND
X
c0F Si y0ij
16a
i1j1
In Eq. (16a), the rst three terms are identical to those in

Eq. (3a). The last (additional fourth) term corresponds to the xed
cost with y0ij denoting the binary variables (1 if demand j is met by
CCS source i, and 0 otherwise) and c0F Si denoting the associated
xed cost factors. The binary variable associated with each CCS
match requires the following big-M disjunctive constraint:
0
f ij My0ij r0
16b
where M is a very large constant value (providing the upper limit

of fij0 ). Depending on whether the binary variable is zero or unity,
Eq. (16b) ensures that the associated continuous variable is either
zero or positive.
The objective is to minimize the total cost TC in Eq. (16a) subject
to the constraints given by Eqs. (4), (5), (8), and (16b). The MILP
formulation can be solved using optimization software such as GAMS.
On using the cost data in Table 1 along with the earlier-specied xed
cost factors of 1000, 800, and 700 (originally from Pekala et al., 2010),
the optimum for minimum total cost corresponds to the values of
FR0 400,000 TJ and F 0S3 563,636 TJ. This validates the result
obtained earlier in Table 5 and reported as Case B3.
Furthermore, the MILP may be used to validate other cases in
Table 5 by simply varying the cost data as demonstrated below.
Based on Eq. (16a), the expression for the operating cost in Eq. (14a)
may be extended to obtain the following equation for the total cost:
TC
NS
X
i1
DcSi F 0Si K 1
NS X
ND
X
c0F Si y0ij
17a
i1j1
Applying Eq. (17a) for Cases B2 and B3 (using values for F 0Si
from Table 5 along with xed cost factors of 800 for CCSOil
match and 700 for CCSCoal match) gives
TC B2 566667 DcS2 K 1 800 for Case B2
17b
TC B3 563636 DcS3 K 1 700 for Case B3
17c
The optimum is Case B3 for the cost data in Table 1 because

TCB3 yields the minimum value. For Case B2 to be the optimum, it
is necessary (though not sufcient) that TCB2 oTCB3. On substituting from Eqs. (17b) and (17c)
566667DcS2 800 o 563636DcS3 700
17d
Note that Eq. (17d) is an extension of the Rc cost criterion

(Eqs. (14d) and (15) considering only operating cost) to the case of
total cost. Eq. (17d) yields two possibilities for Case B2 to be
optimum: DcS2 o(563,636 DcS3 100)/566,667 (i.e., DcS2 o0.01176
or C 0S2 o0.03376 on substituting DcS3 0.012 and cS2 0.022); and
DcS3 4(566,667 DcS2 100)/563,636 (i.e., DcS3 40.01224 or
c0S3 40.03224 on substituting DcS2 0.012 and cS3 0.020). Both
possibilities are readily veried by solving an MILP to yield Case B2
as the optimum (FR0 400,000 TJ and F0 S2 566,667 TJ) on choosing
different values for the cost factors (c0S2 o0.03376 or c0S3 40.03224).
325
Table 7
MILP validation by varying cost data.
Input cost data
cR0
c0S1
c0S2
c0S3
cS1
cS2
cS3
c0F S1
0.045
0.042
0.0337
0.032
0.025
0.022
0.020
1000
0.045
0.042
0.034
0.032
0.025
0.022
0.020
1000
0.045
0.036
0.034
0.033
0.032
0.022
0.020
1000
0.045
0.036
0.034
0.032
0.0315
0.022
0.020
1000
0.045
0.042
0.034
0.032
0.025
0.0164
0.0141
1000
0.045
0.036
0.034
0.032
0.0315
0.0196
0.016
1000
c0F S2
800
800
800
800
800
800
c0F S3
700
700
700
700
700
400
MILP
40
56.3636
B3
40
20
41.6667
C1
40
20
40
C2
40
42.5
10
C3
40
20
27.5
10
D
Optimum solution from

FR0 (104 TJ)
40
F 0S1 (104 TJ)

56.6667
F 0S2 (104 TJ)
F 0S3 (104 TJ)

Case
B2
Based on the preceding discussion, Table 7 summarizes the

MILP validation for six cases (corresponding to zero excess, i.e.,
FR0 400,000 TJ) in Table 5 by varying the cost data. Case B3 is the
optimum for the base-case cost data in Table 1 (when c0S2 0.034),
whereas Case B2 is the optimum when c0S2 0.0337 (i.e.,
c0S2 o0.03376 in accordance with Eq. (17d)). The last four columns
in Table 7 show possibilities where Cases C1, C2, C3 and D are
optimum when cost data are varied (with changed values highlighted in bold).
8. Conclusions
A detailed mathematical formulation has been developed for
the targeting of the energy allocation problem with CCS. For the
case of CCS with zero excess, it has been shown that CCS sources
can be treated as resources with their cost per energy unit taken
as the increment over the non-CCS option. The limiting composite
is a valuable, unique curve for targeting with and without CCS. It
is readily obtained using a single computation of the composite
table algorithm (CTA) by considering demands and only non-CCS
sources with their total energy availabilities.
In this work, the recent methodology (Shenoy, 2010) for
targeting and design of carbon emission networks has been
extended by the inclusion of carbon capture and storage (CCS)
of the fossil fuel sources. As in the earlier work (Shenoy, 2010),
the CTA is applied to generate the limiting composite and the
NNA is used to design the network. However, the earlier work was
limited to targeting of clean-carbon resources with no CCS
sources, whereas the present work focuses on targeting of
clean-carbon resources with multiple (specically, one, two or
three) CCS sources. Further, the earlier work did not consider any
cost data nor discuss any cost analysis. This work develops a
formal mathematical formulation, discusses detailed cost optimization, and considers the effects of varying cost data. Broadly, the
contribution takes a systems engineering approach to energy
utilization with regeneration through carbon sequestration for
sustainable development. The contribution is inspired by the key
representation in Fig. 2 of a CCS source and its corresponding nonCCS source in terms of an equivalent composite. The equivalent
composite representation has two important implications: only
non-CCS sources (with energy values given in terms of their
specied totals) are rst considered to establish a unique limiting
composite; and only CCS sources (depicted as line segments
between CSi0 and CSi) are then regarded as resources for targeting
by prole matching. The approach is novel because it allows

326
targets to be set and networks to be synthesized even when cost

data are unavailable or uncertain. The results have been validated
through an LP formulation for minimum operating cost and an
MILP formulation for minimum total cost considering the sensitivity of varying cost data.
The presented approach differs from earlier established methods
in the following ways. Firstly, the presented approach for carbon
emission networks requires handling of multiple CCS sources and
consequently determination of Ns unknown variables corresponding
to the optimum requirements of Ns CCS sources. In contrast,
established methods for water and hydrogen networks typically
handle a single regeneration stream and consequently are a special
case of the presented approach for Ns 1. Secondly, in carbon
emission networks, the operating cost in the objective function
depends on the clean resources, the sources with CCS, and the
sources without CCS (excluding the excess or unused energy). In
water and hydrogen networks, the operating cost depends on the
resources (freshwater usage and hydrogen makeup, respectively)
and the regeneration, but not on the sources (which are internal).
Thirdly, in carbon emission networks, there is a constraint on the
CCS and non-CCS portions of each source totaling the specied
availability. In water and hydrogen networks, no such constraint
exists except that the regeneration owrate must not exceed the
clean resource owrate. Finally, in carbon emission networks, the
equivalent concentration for inlet regeneration is known because it
is given by the specied non-CCS source emission factor Csi. In water
and hydrogen networks, the inlet regeneration concentration is not
known and must be determined.
In this work, multiple CCS sources along with clean-carbon
resources are simultaneously targeted by prole matching with
the limiting composite. It may be noted that Figs. 3, 5, 6, and 7
show utility pinches where the target prole touches the limiting composite. The problem of targeting CCS sources is a challenging one and its solution by prole matching is non-trivial. For
this purpose, fundamental carbon emission load balance equations may be utilized where clean-carbon resources are represented by arrows and CCS sources by line segments. Targeting
typically results in 2NS optimal primary cases for NS CCS sources
and does not require cost data.
Design of carbon emission networks (CENs) that achieve the
already-established targets may be next done by systematically
using the nearest neighbors algorithm (NNA) along with the
matching matrix representation. It must be emphasized that the
NNA, by merely varying the order of satisfaction of demands,
allows synthesis of many optimum CENs (all meeting the targets
and the specied emission load limits) for each primary case.
Cost analysis may be now performed in terms of both operating cost as well as total cost, if cost data are available. The cost
ranges in which the different primary cases are optimal may be
determined using the RC cost criterion.
Optimization may be nally done by solving a linear programming (LP) formulation for minimum operating cost. The solutions
by mathematical programming permit validation of the earlier
targeting results and network designs. They also help in identication of unusual new sub-cases (of pinch jumps, for instance)
and additional networks.
To summarize, the methodology in this work comprises four
distinct stages: targeting using the CTA/UTA along with fundamental balances for prole matching with the limiting composite
curve; designing networks for each of the optimal primary cases
using the NNA; analyzing costs using the RC cost criterion; and
nally optimizing solutions using mathematical programming
formulations. This work therefore proposes a hybrid approach
based on the CTA/NNA as well as mathematical programming
(LP/MILP). The methodology using the CTA/NNA provides deeper
insights into the problem, its pinch points and its network
structure. A signicant advantage of the CTA/NNA methodology

is that targets may be set and networks synthesized based on
primary cases even in the absence of cost data.
Nomenclature
C
emission factor or carbon intensity, t CO2/TJ
c
operating cost (factor) per energy unit, cost unit/TJ
cF
xed cost factor
CCS
carbon capture and storage/sequestration
CEN
carbon emission network
CTA
composite table algorithm
D
demand for energy in a region/sector
E
excess (or unused) energy, TJ
F
energy, TJ
f
energy allocation for cell matches in matching matrix, TJ
i
index denoting number of source (CCS or non-CCS)
j
index denoting number of demand
K1, K2, K3 constants in Eq. (14)
k
index denoting number of clean-carbon resource
LP
linear programming
MILP
mixed integer linear programming
M
emission load or carbon footprint, t CO2 or constant in
big-M constraint
NNA
nearest neighbors algorithm
N
total number
OC
operating cost
R
resource (zero-carbon or low-carbon)
R0
resource (zero-carbon)
RC
ratio of emission-factor differences dened in eq 15a
S
source for energy (conventional fossil fuel such as coal,
oil, or natural gas)
UTA
unied targeting algorithm
y
binary variable associated with total cost term
D1
net system energy decit, TJ
D2
net system emission load decit, t CO2
Dc
additional cost of CCS source with reference to its nonCCS option
Subscripts
D
E
i
j
k
max
R
R0
P
S
total
demand
excess (or unused) energy
index for source (CCS or non-CCS)
index for demand
index for clean-carbon resource
maximum (specied availability of clean-carbon
resource)
clean-carbon resource (zero-carbon or low-carbon)
resource (zero-carbon)
pinch
source (CCS or non-CCS)
total (availability of source)
Superscript
0
prime to denote CCS source
References
Agrawal, V., Shenoy, U.V., 2006. Unied conceptual approach to targeting and
design of water and hydrogen networks. AIChE J. 52 (3), 10711082.
Atkins, M.J., Morrison, A.S., Walmsley, M.R.W., 2008. Carbon emissions pinch
analysis (CEPA) for emissions reduction in the New Zealand electricity sector.

In: Proceedings of the Society of Chemical Engineers New Zealand Annual

Conference (SCENZ08), New Zealand.
Atkins, M.J., Morrison, A.S., Walmsley, M.R.W., 2009a. Carbon emissions pinch
Appl. Energy 87, 982987.
Atkins, M.J., Morrison, A.S., Walmsley, M.R.W., 2009b. Carbon emissions pinch
Chem. Eng. Trans. 18, 261266.
Bandyopadhyay, S., Malik, R.K., Shenoy, U.V., 1999. Invariant rectifying-stripping
curves for targeting minimum energy and feed location in distillation. Comput.
Chem. Eng. 23, 11091124.
Bandyopadhyay, S., Mishra, M., Shenoy, U.V., 2004. Energy-based targets for
multiple-feed distillation columns. AIChE J. 50, 18371853.
Crilly, D., Zhelev, T., 2008. Emissions targeting and planningan application of
CO2 emissions pinch analysis (CEPA) to the Irish electricity generation sector.
Energy 33, 14981507.
Crilly, D., Zhelev, T., 2009. Expanded emissions and energy targeting: a further
application of CO2 emissions pinch analysis (CEPA) to the Irish electricity
generation sector. Chem. Eng. Trans. 18, 7580.
Das, A.K., Shenoy, U.V., Bandyopadhyay, S., 2009. Evolution of resource allocation
networks. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 48 (15), 71527167.
Deng, C., Feng, X., 2009. Optimal water network with zero wastewater discharge in
an alumina plant. WSEAS Trans. Environ. Dev. 2 (5), 146156.
El-Halwagi, M.M., 1997. Pollution Prevention through Process Integration: Systematic Design Tools Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
El-Halwagi, M.M., 2006. Process Integration Elsevier, Amsterdam.
El-Halwagi, M.M., Manousiouthakis, V., 1990. Simultaneous synthesis of massexchange and regeneration networks. AIChE J. 36, 12091219.
Foo, D.C.Y., Tan, R.R., Ng, D.K.S., 2008. Carbon and footprint-constrained energy
planning using cascade analysis technique. Energy 33, 14801488.
Fraser, D.M., Howe, M., Hugo, A., Shenoy, U.V., 2005. Determination of mass
separating agent ows using the mass exchange grand composite curve.
Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 83, 13811390.
Hallale, N., Fraser, D.M., 1998. Capital cost targets for mass exchange networks.
A special case: water minimisation. Chem. Eng. Sci. 53 (2), 293313.
Kemp, I.C., 2007. Pinch Analysis and Process Integration: A Users Guide on
Process Integration for the Efcient Use of Energy Butterworth-Heinemann,
Oxford, UK.
327
Lee, S.C., Ng, D.K.S., Foo, D.C.Y., Tan, R.R., 2009. Extended pinch targeting
techniques for carbon-constrained energy sector planning. Appl. Energy 86,
6067.
Pekala, L.M., Tan, R.R., Foo, D.C.Y., Jezowski, J.M., 2010. Optimal energy planning
models with carbon footprint constraints. Appl. Energy 87 (6), 19031910.
Prakash, R., Shenoy, U.V., 2005a. Targeting and design of water networks for xed
owrate and xed contaminant load operations. Chem. Eng. Sci. 60 (1),
255268.
Prakash, R., Shenoy, U.V., 2005b. Design and evolution of water networks by
source shifts. Chem. Eng. Sci. 60, 20892093.
Shenoy, U.V., 1995. Heat Exchanger Network Synthesis: Process Optimization by
Energy and Resource Analysis Gulf Publishing, Houston, TX.
Shenoy, U.V., 2010. Targeting and design of energy allocation networks for carbon
emission reduction. Chem. Eng. Sci. 65 (23), 61556168.
Shenoy, U.V., 2011. Unied targeting algorithm for diverse process integration
problems of resource conservation networks. Chem. Eng. Res. Des..
doi:10.1016/j.cherd.2011.04.021.
Shenoy, U.V., Bandyopadhyay, S., 2007. Targeting for multiple resources. Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 46 (11), 36983708.
Shenoy, U.V., Sinha, A., Bandyopadhyay, S., 1998. Multiple utilities targeting for
heat exchanger networks. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 76, 259272.
Shethna, H.K., Singh, H., Makwana, Y., Castillo, F.J.L., Shenoy, U.V., 1999. Multiple
utilities optimization to improve process economics. Petrol. Technol. Q.
Autumn, 133139.
Smith, R., 2005. Chemical Process: Design and Integration Wiley, NY.
Steeneveldt, R., Berger, B., Torp, T.A., 2006. CO2 capture and storage: closing the
knowing-doing gap. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 84, 739763.
Tan, R.R., Foo, D.C.Y., 2007. Pinch analysis approach to carbon-constrained energy
sector planning. Energy 32, 14221429.
Wall, T.F., 2007. Combustion process for carbon capture. Proc. Combust. Inst. 31,
3147.
Wang, Y.P., Smith, R., 1994. Wastewater minimization. Chem. Eng. Sci. 49,
9811006.
Yang, H., Xu, Z., Fan, M., Gupta, R., Slimane, R.B., Bland, A.E., Wright, I., 2008.
Progress in carbon dioxide separation and capture: a review. J. Environ. Sci. 20,
1427.

Uvsccsce 2012 Chem - Eng - Sci Targeting Carbon Capture and Storage

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Uvsccsce 2012 Chem - Eng - Sci Targeting Carbon Capture and Storage

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Author's personal copy

Chemical Engineering Science 68 (2012) 313327

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Chemical Engineering Science

Targeting and design of energy allocation networks with carbon capture

Corresponding author. Tel.: 91 22 40104615.

than air is used for combustion), and integrated gasication

Author's personal copy

A.U. Shenoy, U.V. Shenoy / Chemical Engineering Science 68 (2012) 313327

Feng (2009) for an optimal water network with regeneration/

2. Problem statement and mathematical formulation

available. Each resource has a specied carbon intensity/emission

In general, the following conservation balance equations and

The objective is to match sources (after appropriate mixing, if

In Eq. (3a), the three terms signify clean-carbon resources, the

c0Si cSi F 0Si

Author's personal copy

In Eq. (3b), the four terms signify the cost of clean-carbon

In an analogous manner, the overall system emission load

for every demand j A ND

for every non-CCS source i A NS

The total requirement of each CCS source and each resource is

for every CCS source iA NS

for every resource k A NR 1

Eq. (4a) corresponds to the column sum, whereas Eqs (4b),

for every source i A NS

On taking the summation over all demands and all non-CCS

An alternative (Pekala et al., 2010) to Eq. (8a) would be an

for every resource k A NR 1

The objective is to minimize the operating cost OC in Eq. (3)

The total excess energy and the total resource requirement

for every demand j A ND

3. Representation of CCS sources

Author's personal copy

A.U. Shenoy, U.V. Shenoy / Chemical Engineering Science 68 (2012) 313327

The equivalent composite representation has two important

Emission factor C Energy F Emission M Cost factor c

Units: emission factor C in t CO2/TJ, energy F in 104 TJ, emission load M in

4. Targeting by prole matching with limiting composite

For the case of zero-carbon (or completely CO2-neutral)

where MP is the cumulative emission load of the pinch point on the

Author's personal copy

zero-carbon resource requirement (with FE 0, i.e., zero excess) as

Emission Factor (tCO2/TJ)

M F R0 C2C R0 F 0Si C2C 0Si

Emission Load or Carbon Footprint (10 t CO2)

never be above the limiting composite, the minimum slope is

M F R0 C2C R0 F 0Si C Si 2C 0Si

As before, the target prole must just touch the limiting

Author's personal copy

A.U. Shenoy, U.V. Shenoy / Chemical Engineering Science 68 (2012) 313327

Eq. (10b) CS(i+1)

M F R0 C2C R0 F 0Si C Si 2C 0Si F 0Si 1 C2C 0Si 1

4.3. Two CCS sources

M F R0 C2C R0 F 0Si C2C 0Si

M F R0 C2C R0 F 0Si C2C 0Si F 0Si 1 C2C 0Si 1

M F R0 C2C R0 F 0Si C Si 2C 0Si F 0Si 1 C Si 1 2C 0Si 1

With FR0 400,000 TJ (the absolute minimum zero-carbon

Author's personal copy

Emission Factor (tCO2/TJ)

Emission Factor (tCO2/TJ)

Emission Load or Carbon Footprint (106 t CO2)

Emission Load or Carbon Footprint (106 t CO2)

OC DcS1 DcS2 5510=7515F 0S1 K 3