Comparative techno‐economic and environmental study of hybrid and pure adsorption for carbon capture in blue hydrogen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Blue hydrogen offers a promising solution for mitigating global warming. Accordingly, improving carbon capture in blue H 2 plant designs becomes crucial. This study assesses and compares the viability of technologies for 100 and 400 tonnes‐per‐day plants, considering technical, environmental, and economic aspects using Aspen HYSYS and ReCiPe methodology for process simulation and life cycle assessment respectively. The hybrid absorption/adsorption system demonstrated superior long‐term profitability and higher net present value, despite its higher capital costs. In contrast, the adsorption‐only system resulted in a shorter payback period and lower equivalent emissions. The cost of hydrogen production was $2.20/kg for the former and $1.80/kg for the latter, with a slight difference in rate of return. Additionally, sensitivity analysis revealed the impact of natural gas costs, H 2 and CO 2 selling prices, and zeolite costs on profitability. Also, scale‐up showed that a plant with a larger capacity is more profitable.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".