A Systematic Review of Different Carbon Capture Technology Simulation Tools
異なる炭素回収技術シミュレーションツールの系統的レビュー (AI 翻訳)
Moones Keshvarinia, Cameron A. MacKenzie, Mark Mba Wright
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本レビューは、CO2回収・貯留（CCS）技術のシミュレーションツール16種を、化学プロセス、動的モデリング、熱力学特性、熱伝達、統合性の5基準で評価。Aspen Plus、MATLAB、Fluent、gPROMSの特徴を明確化し、効率的なCCSプロセス設計に貢献する。
English
This systematic review evaluates 16 simulation tools for carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies using five criteria: chemical process simulation, dynamic modeling, thermodynamic properties, heat transfer, and integration. It identifies the strengths of Aspen Plus, MATLAB, Fluent, and gPROMS, aiding informed tool selection for efficient CCS process design.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本ではCCSを脱炭素の重要施策として位置づけており、本レビューは国内のCCSプロジェクトにおけるシミュレーションツール選定の指針となる。特に、CO2分離・回収プロセスの効率化に寄与するツールの知見は、日本の2030年目標達成に資する。
In the global GX context
Globally, CCS is recognized as a key technology for climate mitigation, and this review provides a comprehensive comparison of simulation tools that can inform research and development efforts. The findings help optimize CCS system design, supporting emission reduction targets worldwide.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Researchers in CCS and process simulation can use this review to select appropriate tools for modeling carbon capture processes, improving research efficiency and accuracy.
📄 Abstract（原文）
The growing global demand for energy and rising greenhouse gas emissions require effective mitigation strategies, including carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. This study reviews 16 widely used simulation tools, including Aspen Plus, MATLAB, Fluent, and gPROMS, for steady-state and dynamic modeling of post-combustion, pre-combustion, and oxy-fuel combustion carbon capture processes. The tools are evaluated using five criteria: chemical process simulation capability, dynamic modeling functionality, thermodynamic property management, heat transfer accuracy, and tool integration features. The results reveal distinct strengths across platforms. Aspen Plus and Aspen Plus Dynamics perform strongly in chemical process simulation and thermodynamic property modeling, reflecting their robustness in reaction modeling and property estimation. gPROMS excels in dynamic modeling, demonstrating strong capability for time-dependent and transient process analysis. MATLAB achieves the highest score in tool integration, highlighting its flexibility in coupling with optimization solvers, control systems, and external programming environments. Fluent shows strong performance in heat transfer modeling, particularly for detailed thermal analysis in oxy-fuel combustion systems. Most existing studies focus on individual carbon capture technologies rather than simulation tool capabilities. Following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, a systematic search of Scopus yielded 53 peer-reviewed papers on CCS simulation, which were analyzed to identify dominant tools and inform the AHP-based evaluation. This work addresses that gap by clarifying tool-specific advantages, supporting informed model selection to improve the efficiency and sustainability of CCS process design.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.3390/en19132988first seen 2026-06-27 04:54:21
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。