Techno-economic Assessment Framework for the Chemical Industry—Based on Technology Readiness Levels

Abstract

For profit-oriented stakeholders techno-economic assessment (TEA) is the most important basis for decisions about research, development and deployment (RD&D). Two key challenges are: Firstly, the rating of RD&D progress which is closely linked to data availability; and secondly, the selection of TEA methods that adequately fit the available data in order to achieve the best possible decision basis. Technology readiness levels (TRLs) are a popular concept for rating the maturity of RD&D according to available data. Since existing TRL scales remain unspecific to technologies, an understanding of TRL in the chemical industry is presented. TRLs are subsequently used in a framework for TEA. Cost estimation is structured (with focus on capital expenditure) and estimation methods are sorted by TRL. Appropriate profitability indicators for the assessment of economic prospects are discussed for each TRL. Static indicators are favored in earlier TRLs, while dynamic calculations are preferred for detailed forecasts later on.

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

“…Where no data are available, an expert opinion on uncertainty, or alternatively an overall uncertainty of the assessment could be used, which Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) lists as −50% to +100% for TRL 3. [ 21,64 ] Based on the uncertainty analysis, practitioners should be able to derive threshold values.…”

“…As for TRL 3, if data availability on overall uncertainty is limited, expert opinions or an overall uncertainty can be assumed, which AACE lists as −30% to +50% for TRL 4. [ 21,64 ] As for prior TRLs, threshold values can be derived.…”

“…[ 73,74 ] As a heuristic, we follow the overall error ranges reported by AACE, originally reported at TRL 3 but used here also at TRL 2, of −50% to +100% and at TRL 4 of −30% to +50%. [ 21,64 ] The indicator results and their heuristic error ranges are shown in Figure 12 .…”

“…[ 17–20 ] We further proposed a full‐scope assessment framework for chemical technologies and a clarification of the technology readiness level (TRL) definitions for chemical technologies. [ 21,22 ] Further assessment guidance documents have been published by the US National Energy Technology Laboratory and the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory; [ 23,24 ] Sick et al confirm a general agreement in the mentioned approaches but request further guidance in the stages of early‐stage technologies. [ 25 ]…”

The Need for and Path to Harmonized Life Cycle Assessment and Techno‐Economic Assessment for Carbon Dioxide Capture and Utilization

“…[13] However, such assessments are complex, depend on boundary conditions, are impacted by local regulations and laws, and often suffer from incomplete information, especially when conducted for technologies at an early stage of their development, i.e., with a low level of technology readiness, including technology readiness levels (TRLs) 1 through 3. [14][15][16] Consequently, it is hardly surprising that problems associated with their use arise. For example, comparisons of assessment results can lead to incorrect interpretations if these results were obtained by different assessors, assumed different regional locations, were performed with varying methods, or used methods that are either too generic or were defined for other product categories.…”