Journal of CO2 Utilization· 2014Q1
Carbon capture, storage and utilisation technologies: A critical analysis and comparison of their life cycle environmental impacts
- 1,506citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2014year
Short summary
A review of 27 life cycle assessment studies reveals that Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) can reduce global warming potential (GWP) by 63-82% but often increases other environmental impacts like acidification and human toxicity compared to no capture. While CCS generally has a lower GWP than Carbon Capture and Utilization (CCU) technologies, CCU can sometimes have lower impacts in other categories.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- CCS reduces global warming potential (GWP) by 63-82% compared to no capture.
- CCS increases other environmental impacts such as acidification and human toxicity.
- On average, CCS has a lower GWP than CCU technologies.
- Some CCU options, like DMC production, can have significantly lower GWP and ozone depletion impacts than conventional methods.
- Certain CCU pathways, such as microalgae for biodiesel, can result in higher GWP and other environmental impacts than fossil diesel.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
• 27 life cycle assessment studies reviewed of which 11 focus on CCS and 16 on CCU. • CCS reduces the GWP by 63–82% but increases some other life cycle impacts. • The GWP of CCS is significantly lower than that of CCU. • However, other environmental impacts from CCS are higher compared to CCU. This paper presents a first comprehensive comparison of environmental impacts of carbon capture and storage (CCS) and carbon capture and utilisation (CCU) technologies. Life cycle assessment studies found in the literature have been reviewed for these purposes. In total, 27 studies have been found of which 11 focus on CCS and 16 on CCU. The CCS studies suggest that the global warming potential (GWP) from power plants can be reduced by 63–82%, with the greatest reductions achieved by oxy-fuel combustion in pulverised coal and integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plants and the lowest by post-combustion capture in combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) plants. However, other environmental impacts such as acidification and human toxicity are higher with than without CCS. For CCU, the GWP varies widely depending on the utilisation option. Mineral carbonation can reduce the GWP by 4–48% compared to no CCU. Utilising CO 2 for production of chemicals, specifically, dimethylcarbonate (DMC) reduces the GWP by 4.3 times and ozone layer depletion by 13 times compared to the conventional DMC process. Enhanced oil recovery has the GWP 2.3 times lower compared to discharging CO 2 to the atmosphere but acidification is three times higher. Capturing CO 2 by microalgae to produce biodiesel has 2.5 times higher GWP than fossil diesel with other environmental impacts also significantly higher. On average, the GWP of CCS is significantly lower than of the CCU options. However, its other environmental impacts are higher compared to CCU except for DMC production which is the worst CCU option overall.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Journal of CO2 Utilization, 2014 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Mechanical Engineering
Mechanical EngineeringEngineering