Fig. illustrates performance metrics for the low-temperature approach of HBCC being studied, depicting (a) the KPIs at various pressure levels, and (b) the relative power consumption of critical components as a function of pressure. The components analyzed are (1) the cooling necessary to remove the enthalpy associated with hydrate formation, (2) the pre-cooling, and (3) both isothermal and adiabatic compression of the flue gas. These figures can now be benchmarked against those of conventional and alternative CC technologies. For this purpose, Table lists the KPIs in question for adsorption, absorption, membrane-based, and hydrate-based technologies. Upon analyzing the data, the following conclusions -grouped according to the individual KPIs -can be made. for adiabatic compression, the energy used for compression still surpasses the combined total of all other process components. This underscores the fact that while achieving ideal isothermal compression may be practically unattainable, significant reductions in SEC can still be achieved through multistage compression with intermittent cooling stages. Not surprisingly, the SEC shown in Fig. (a) is significantly influenced by process pressure and the technology used for compression. In the cases considered, the SEC decreases with increasing reactor pressure up to about 30 bar. Beyond that it starts to rise again because the marginal gains in CO 2 capture from 30 to 50 bar do not offset the additional power required for compression.