Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 515

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Review of Post-combustion CO2 Capture Technologies from Coal-fired Power Plants

Open access
Wang, Yuan, Zhao, Li, Otto, Alexander, Robinius, Martin, Stolten, Detlef·2017·Energy Procedia

Abstract

Reducing CO2 emissions has become a worldwide research topic. Of all the sources of CO2 emissions, power plants burning fossil fuels, especially coals, account for a very large portion. For CO2 capture from existing coal-fired power plants, post-combustion technology is thus far considered the most viable method due to its “end-of-pipe” characteristic. Chemical absorption or scrubbing process is currently the technology most likely to be implemented in the near future but rather energy-intensive. Membrane-based CO2 separation process in recent years appears to be a competitive substitution for conventional chemical absorption technology. This paper reviews the basic process designs of chemical absorption and membrane-based separation processes for CO2 capture, as well as corresponding optimization methods including optimizing operational parameters, process modifications, membrane module types and so forth. In addition, some energetic and economic estimates from other researchers for these two CO2 capture technologies are summarized. It is found that membrane-based separation process does not possess obvious advantage over MEA-based chemical absorption process at the typical 90% CO2 capture degree in terms of both energy consumption and cost. Therefore, various optimization methods have not changed the fact that CCS technology will lay more burdens on power plants unless they can get enough allowances from government. In recent years, hybrid system with the target of utilizing more than one single capture technology seems to be new direction from the perspective of capture process design. However, it still needs to be further investigated.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1209

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 515

Metadata

Authors
Wang, Y., Zhao, L., Otto, A., Robinius, M., & Stolten, D.
Venue
Energy Procedia
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-07
Volume
114
Pages
650-665
ISSN
1876-6102 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2748165968
Cited by
515
References
2
FWCI
88.26
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
diamond

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Review of Post-combustion CO2 Capture Technologies from Coal-fired Power Plants. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1209
The paper
Wang, Y., Zhao, L., Otto, A., Robinius, M., & Stolten, D. (2017). A Review of Post-combustion CO2 Capture Technologies from Coal-fired Power Plants. Energy Procedia. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1209

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.