Lab Bench Scale Applications for RD of Transformational CO2 Capture | Apply Online

FAQs: The Lab - Bench Scale Applications for R&D of Transformational CO2 Capture (DE-FOA-0001235)

What is DE-FOA-0001235?

DE-FOA-0001235 is a National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) competitive funding opportunity titled "The Lab - Bench Scale Applications for R&D of Transformational CO2 Capture." It focused on moving CO2 capture and purification technologies from early laboratory proof-of-concept into more realistic bench-scale operation.

What was the main purpose of this funding opportunity?

The purpose was to advance carbon dioxide capture and purification systems from lab-scale development into bench-scale demonstrations that better reflect practical operation. The emphasis was on technologies that could credibly improve cost and performance compared with established baseline approaches.

What technology readiness levels (TRLs) did it target?

The FOA targeted development from TRL 3-4 (lab scale) up to TRL 5 (bench scale).

What does it mean to move from lab scale to bench scale in this FOA?

In this FOA, moving from lab scale to bench scale meant going beyond proof-of-concept results and demonstrating an integrated system concept operating at bench-scale conditions, with attention to performance, operability, and economics rather than only isolated material or mechanism testing.

What applications or industrial contexts were emphasized?

The FOA emphasized coal-based power generation contexts, specifically pulverized coal (PC) and integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plants.

Did the FOA address only traditional coal plant flue gas or syngas streams?

No. In addition to PC and IGCC contexts, the FOA emphasized expanding CO2 capture to coal-relevant, low-CO2-concentration gas streams that are more challenging for conventional capture approaches.

What CO2 concentration range was specifically highlighted as challenging?

The FOA highlighted gas streams containing roughly 1 to 5 percent CO2 as a target area, noting that conventional approaches can struggle or become uneconomic at these low concentrations.

What did the FOA mean by "transformational" CO2 capture?

"Transformational" capture referred to approaches intended to outperform DOE-described second-generation economic performance expectations. The intent was to pursue concepts that change the cost and performance equation rather than incremental refinements.

What performance goals were referenced for capture rate and product purity?

The FOA aligned with fossil energy performance goals of achieving around a 90 percent CO2 capture rate while delivering about 95 percent CO2 product purity.

What cost target was associated with these performance goals?

The FOA described an ambition to achieve those capture and purity levels while delivering a cost of electricity roughly 30 percent lower than baseline capture approaches.

What kinds of improvements were implied by the FOA's cost and performance ambitions?

The stated targets implied major reductions in energy penalty, equipment size, integration complexity, and operating costs compared with widely used reference methods, in addition to strong separation performance.

Were conventional, single-mechanism capture technologies encouraged?

The FOA signaled that proposals should not simply refine single-mechanism, conventional gas treatment technologies used in isolation, such as a standalone solvent system, a standalone sorbent bed, or a standalone membrane unit.

What kinds of technical approaches were favored?

The opportunity strongly favored hybrid systems, intensified processes, and novel capture concepts designed to overcome common limitations and tradeoffs among capture efficiency, purity, parasitic energy use, capital cost, and robustness to real gas contaminants.

What is an example of a hybrid system in the context of this FOA?

Examples described by the FOA included combining membranes with solvents or sorbents, or pairing separation with compression and purification in an integrated way.

Why did the FOA encourage hybrid or intensified systems?

The FOA emphasized that relying on one unit operation alone often runs into tradeoffs (for example, between efficiency, purity, energy use, and cost). Hybrid and intensified designs were encouraged as a way to break those tradeoffs and improve overall system economics and operability.

What type of award instrument was used?

The FOA was structured as a discretionary cooperative agreement.

What does a cooperative agreement imply for project execution?

It implies that awardees would typically expect substantial technical involvement from the agency during project execution, rather than a hands-off grant model.

Was cost sharing required?

Yes. Cost sharing was required, meaning applicants needed to contribute a portion of total project costs from non-federal sources.

What was the total estimated funding available and the expected number of awards?

The FOA estimated about $43 million in total funding and anticipated approximately 18 awards.

Who was eligible to apply?

Eligibility was described as unrestricted (open to many entity types), subject to any specific clarifications in the full announcement text.

When was the FOA posted and when did it close?

The FOA was posted in late January 2015 and closed in March 2015, with a closing date of March 16, 2015.

What is the status of this funding opportunity now?

The FOA was later archived in July 2015.

What kinds of outcomes was NETL looking for at the end of the project?

NETL was looking for practical bench-scale demonstrations showing an integrated process that could plausibly deliver high capture, high purity, and substantially lower cost than baseline approaches, including applicability to low-CO2-concentration gas streams.

What was the FOA trying to avoid funding?

It was trying to avoid projects that only demonstrated a promising material or mechanism in isolation (for example, only in a vial or purely lab-scale) without showing an integrated bench-scale system concept with credible performance, operability, and economic potential.

Why did the FOA mention robustness to contaminants?

The FOA emphasized that real flue gas or syngas can include contaminants that affect performance and operability. The program favored concepts designed to remain effective and economic under more realistic conditions.

How did this FOA broaden the carbon capture "emissions landscape"?

By explicitly targeting low-CO2-concentration (about 1 to 5 percent) gas streams that are significant but difficult for conventional capture, the FOA sought to expand where carbon capture could be applied beyond the easier, higher-concentration cases.