This paper reviews methodological approaches for determining the carbon footprint of captured CO2 as carbon feedstock, and shows why some approaches lead to suboptimal choices of CO2 sources and that increased consistency in life cycle assessment (LCA) studies on CCU is needed.
The expansion of land used for crop production causes variable direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions, and other economic, social and environmental effects. We analyse the use of life cycle analysis (LCA) for estimating the carbon intensity of biofuel production from indirect land-use change (ILUC). Two approaches are critiqued: direct, attributional life cycle analysis and consequential life cycle analysis (CLCA). A proposed hybrid 'combined model' of the two approaches for ILUC analysis relies on first defining the system boundary of the resulting full LCA. Choices are then made as to the modelling methodology (economic equilibrium or cause -effect), data inputs, land area analysis, carbon stock accounting and uncertainty analysis to be included. We conclude that CLCA is applicable for estimating the historic emissions from ILUC, although improvements to the hybrid approach proposed, coupled with regular updating, are required, and uncertainly values must be adequately represented; however, the scope and the depth of the expansion of the system boundaries required for CLCA remain controversial. In addition, robust prediction, monitoring and accounting frameworks for the dynamic and highly uncertain nature of future crop yields and the effectiveness of policies to reduce deforestation and encourage afforestation remain elusive. Finally, establishing compatible and comparable accounting frameworks for ILUC between the USA, the European Union, South East Asia, Africa, Brazil and other major biofuel trading blocs is urgently needed if substantial distortions between these markets, which would reduce its application in policy outcomes, are to be avoided.
Alternative fuel policies need accurate and transparent methods to find the embedded carbon intensity of individual refinery products. This study investigates different ways of allocating greenhouse gases emissions deriving from refining and upstream crude oil supply. Allocation methods based on mass, energy content, economic value and, innovatively, added-value, are compared with the marginal refining emissions calculated by CONCAWE's linear-programming model to the average EU refinery, which has been adopted as reference in EU legislation. Beside the most important transportation fuels (gasoline, diesel, kerosene/jet fuel and heavy fuel oil), the analysis extends to petroleum coke and refinery hydrogen. Moreover, novel criteria, based on the implications due to hydrogen usage by each fuel pathway, have been introduced to test the consistency of the analyzed approaches. It is found that only two economic-based allocation methods are consistent with the introduced criteria. These two methods also give negative refinery emissions for heavy products, which is coherent with the marginal emissions calculated through the CONCAWE refinery model. The recommended allocation methods are transparent and use only publicly available statistical data, so they may be useful not only for future EU legislation, but also in jurisdictions where a representative refinery model is not available
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.