4.7 Review

Carbon capture, storage and utilisation technologies: A critical analysis and comparison of their life cycle environmental impacts

Journal

JOURNAL OF CO2 UTILIZATION
Volume 9, Issue -, Pages 82-102

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcou.2014.12.001

Keywords

Carbon capture and storage; Carbon capture and utilisation; Life cycle assessment; Climate change; Environmental impacts

Funding

  1. 4CU Programme Grant
  2. UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) [EP/K001329/1]
  3. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/K001329/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. EPSRC [EP/K001329/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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 postcombustion 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 CO2 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 23 times lower compared to discharging CO2 to the atmosphere but acidification is three times higher. Capturing CO2 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. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available