Carbon Capture and Utilization (CCU) – Verfahrenswege und deren Bewertung

Lehner, Markus; Ellersdorfer, Markus; Treimer, Robert; Moser, Peter; Theodoridou, Vassiliki; Biedermann, Hubert

doi:10.1007/s00501-012-0056-1

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 9 publications

(5 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These indicators have been discussed in similar ways, for example, as “market potential,” “production volume,” or “demand availability” in CCU literature. [ 10,26,29,35–37,56 ]…”

Section: Efferi Assessment Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Various indicators are used in scientific, industry, and governmental literature, such as energy efficiency, [ 30 ] energy consumption or demand, [ 31–33 ] relative added value, [ 10,33–35 ] production volume or market potential, [ 10,34–37 ] economic limitations or feasibility, [ 10,36,37 ] substitution of fossil fuels, [ 10,35 ] mass of carbon or CO 2 utilized as a rate or potential, [ 10,31,34,35 ] CO 2 emissions reduction as a rate or potential, [ 33–35,37,38 ] health and safety, [ 10,34 ] cost of CO 2 utilized, [ 34 ] cost of CO 2 avoidance [ 38 ] and technology maturity or availability. [ 10,35,36 ] Related methodological papers propose generic frameworks on how to merge environmental assessment with TEA [ 39,40 ] or propose a detailed list of 140 indicators including data needs. [ 14,41,42 ] Overall, a large variety of indicators are used in shortcut TEAs for CCU, which makes comparing these studies such as comparing apples and oranges.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Apples and Apples: A Shortcut Assessment Framework for Early‐Stage Carbon Capture and Utilization Technologies Based on Efficiency, Feasibility, and Risk

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change is one of the largest current challenges to humankind, requiring a steep emissions reduction. One promising approach is using CO2 as a resource. Research and development of carbon capture and utilization (CCU) technologies have increased in recent years, putting early‐stage techno‐economic assessment (TEA) in a key role to derive recommendations systematically, to allocate resources efficiently, and overall to push commercialization successfully. Shortcut TEA assessment approaches that reduce assessment detail and effort compared with conventional, full‐scope studies have gained popularity in recent years but have been criticized as comparing apples with oranges. Several open methodological questions remain such as how to implement global assessment standards, how to reduce subjective judgments, and how to compare technologies at different maturities. Herein, a shortcut assessment framework for early‐stage CCU technologies is proposed, based on the perspectives of efficiency, feasibility, and risk (Efferi). The Efferi framework implements the Global CO2 Initiative's Guidelines, enables comparisons at different technology maturities, and systematically reduces subjective judgments. The Efferi framework provides a starting point for a more robust and easy assessment of early‐stage CCU technologies, leading to clearer go/no‐go recommendations at reduced assessment effort and enabling fairer, “apples to apples” comparisons.

show abstract

Section: Efferi Assessment Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Apples and Apples: A Shortcut Assessment Framework for Early‐Stage Carbon Capture and Utilization Technologies Based on Efficiency, Feasibility, and Risk

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[69] 21 [a] Soares et al [70] 7Giannoulakis et al [71] 22 Song, 2006 [16] 8 [a] Gong and You [72] 23 Stechel and Miller [73] 9 [a] Gozalpour et al [74] 24 [a] Tremele tal. [75] 10 Kim et al [76] 25 [a] Trippe et al [77] 11 [a] Kongpanna et al,2015 [78] 26 [a] Wu et al [79] 12 [b] Lehner et al [80] 27 [a] Xin et al [81] 13 Müller et al [82] 28 Zevenhoven et al [83] 14 Müller and Arlt [84] 29 [a] Zhangetal. [85] 15 Otto et al [86] [a] Identified in systematic search.…”

Section: Approach For Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Early‐Stage CO₂ utilization Technologies—Comparing Apples and Oranges?

Zimmermann

Schomäcker

2017

Energy Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

CO2 utilization involves many disciplines -fields as different as apples and oranges. Technology assessment is a common tool for evaluation. This article analyses its current state in CO2 utilization. First the steps of chemical product development are matched with Technology Readiness Levels for classification. Second, relevant literature is selected and assessment methods, and indicators are examined. The analysis shows that standardization in CO2 utilization technology assessment is low. Current research addresses some but not all assessment fields and tends to use a large range of indicators, making comparison difficult. Overall standard methods are needed, as they could facilitate technology comparison and provide a better understanding of tradeoffs. Future assessments should be extended by the definition of a standard set of assessment indicators, the further adoption of social impact assessment for all TRL and the inclusion of environmental impact assessment at early stages.

show abstract

“…P2M concepts propose storing surplus renewable power through the methanization of H2 with recycled CO2 (Ghaib, 2017). In CCS processes, CO2 emitted from industrial combustion processes is separated, compressed, and then stored in geological strata (Lehner et al, 2012). To achieve large-scale reductions in CO2 emissions using the P2M and CCS concepts, compression of high CO2 and CH4 volume flows are required.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Different Gases on the Design Point of an Industrial Axial Compressor and Deduced Aerodynamical Rematching Methodology

Hoffmann¹,

Stuhldreier²,

Rennings³

et al. 2020

Proceedings of Global Power &Amp; Propulsion Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a numerical investigation of the effects of compressing various gases, for example, carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4), on an eight-stage axial air compressor. Several adaptation methods are applied to achieve a similar operating point as for air. Theoretically, the operating point depends on Mach number, flow angles, Reynolds number and isentropic exponent. Numerical results show mismatch effects which arise in the parameters using a non-adapted geometry. A rematching procedure is described, including deduced speed adjustments, in order to achieve Mach number equality at compressor inlet. Only shroud modifications are performed to rematch the flow angles of the air simulation. Although Reynolds and Mach number are kept constant at compressor inlet, an inevitable deviation in downstream flow causes mismatches in efficiency and pressure ratio. Both analytical and numerical methodologies show that the scale of shroud adjustments, as well as the size of mismatch in Mach and Reynolds number, can be correlated to the isentropic gas exponent. In summary, the main impact on gas behavior in an axial air compressor is attributable to the change in isentropic exponent. Derivations of shroud adaptation and analyses of inevitable aerodynamic mismatch are therefore developed depending on the isentropic exponent.

show abstract

Carbon Capture and Utilization (CCU) – Verfahrenswege und deren Bewertung

Cited by 8 publications

References 9 publications

Apples and Apples: A Shortcut Assessment Framework for Early‐Stage Carbon Capture and Utilization Technologies Based on Efficiency, Feasibility, and Risk

Apples and Apples: A Shortcut Assessment Framework for Early‐Stage Carbon Capture and Utilization Technologies Based on Efficiency, Feasibility, and Risk

Assessing Early‐Stage CO₂ utilization Technologies—Comparing Apples and Oranges?

Influence of Different Gases on the Design Point of an Industrial Axial Compressor and Deduced Aerodynamical Rematching Methodology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Carbon Capture and Utilization (CCU) – Verfahrenswege und deren Bewertung

Cited by 8 publications

References 9 publications

Apples and Apples: A Shortcut Assessment Framework for Early‐Stage Carbon Capture and Utilization Technologies Based on Efficiency, Feasibility, and Risk

Apples and Apples: A Shortcut Assessment Framework for Early‐Stage Carbon Capture and Utilization Technologies Based on Efficiency, Feasibility, and Risk

Assessing Early‐Stage CO2 utilization Technologies—Comparing Apples and Oranges?

Influence of Different Gases on the Design Point of an Industrial Axial Compressor and Deduced Aerodynamical Rematching Methodology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Assessing Early‐Stage CO₂ utilization Technologies—Comparing Apples and Oranges?