A Guideline for Life Cycle Assessment of Carbon Capture and Utilization

Abstract

Carbon Capture and Utilization (CCU) is an emerging field proposed for emissions mitigation and even negative emissions. These potential benefits need to be assessed by the holistic method of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) that accounts for multiple environmental impact categories over the entire life cycle of products or services. However, even though LCA is a standardized method, current LCA practice differs widely in methodological choices. The resulting LCA studies show large variability which limits their value for decision support. Applying LCA to CCU technologies leads to further specific methodological issues, e.g., due to the double role of CO 2 as emission and feedstock. In this work, we therefore present a comprehensive guideline for LCA of CCU technologies. The guideline has been development in a collaborative process involving over 40 experts and builds upon existing LCA standards and guidelines. The presented guidelines should improve comparability of LCA studies through clear methodological guidance and predefined assumptions on feedstock and utilities. Transparency is increased through interpretation and reporting guidance. Improved comparability should help to strengthen knowledge-based decision-making. Consequently, research funds and time can be allocated more efficiently for the development of technologies for climate change mitigation and negative emissions.

Life Cycle Assessment of Power-to-Syngas: Comparing High Temperature Co-Electrolysis and Steam Methane Reforming

“…Therefore, it is considered as waste and no allocation is necessary. The assessment of the various impacts of CO 2 supply as well as the best way to account for expenditures for the capture process has been topic of several controversial studies and lies beyond the scope of this study (Müller et al, 2020). In case of DAC it is not necessary to consider the primary CO 2 emitter (air).…”

CO2 Utilization Technologies in Europe: A Short Review

“…To this extent, the results of this article should be seen as qualitative rather than quantitative outcomes. It is worth noticing that Zimmermann et al [ 164 ] and co‐workers [ 165 ] recently proposed a set of guidelines and examples applied to CCU, including advices and recommendations, to perform “standardized” techno‐economic and environmental assessments, that will allow the reader and decision makers to be able to compare the outcomes across the wide range of studies.…”

How (Carbon) Negative Is Direct Air Capture? Life Cycle Assessment of an Industrial Temperature-Vacuum Swing Adsorption Process

“…However, the cradle-to-gate system boundaries exclude the subsequent application of CO2, which determines if the CO2 is re-emitted or permanently removed from the atmosphere. 61,62 Therefore, we further expand the system boundary to cradle-to-grave by including two applications for the captured CO2 as a renewable carbon source for synthetic fuels (e.g., methane synthesis) and by assuming geological storage, as in carbon dioxide removal (CDR) applications. To determine the amount of CO2 that is permanently removed from the atmosphere through CDR, we introduce a carbon removal efficiency (Eq.…”

“…Based on the goals of our LCA study, we distinguish between cradle-to-gate and cradle-tograve system boundaries ( The cradle-to-gate system boundary, however, excludes the further application of captured CO2 and whether the CO2 is re-emitted or permanently removed from the atmosphere. 61,62 Therefore, we expand the system boundary to cradle-to-grave considering two applications for the captured CO2: synthetic fuel production and permanent storage. For synthetic fuel production, we consider synthetic methane via the Sabatier reaction.…”