4.8 Review

Biological systems for CCS: Patent review as a criterion for technological development

Journal

APPLIED ENERGY
Volume 257, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114032

Keywords

Biological CO2 capture; Patent; CPC code; Enzyme; Photobioreactor; Algae

Funding

  1. project Biomasa-AP
  2. European Regional Development Fund (FEDER)
  3. Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports (Spain) [FPU-15/02430]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

One of the most useful mechanism for reducing and, if it were possible, reverting the global warming effects, consists on the development and use of new technologies for CO2 capture, storage, and utilization. Their implementation is a technological objective, but it can be subject to considerable political and social obstacles which should not prevent a progress on its investigation. Many reviews on this topic are published in the literature; however, the evolution of the related patent activity has been much less studied. This paper aims to analyse the state of the art during recent decade of biological systems for CO2 sequestration, according to the Cooperative Patent Classification criteria. An indicator of the innovative character of new patents, the Innovation index-i, is proposed based on the number of citations and the year of publication. Patents were sorted into two main groups, depending on whether they were based on the design of photobioreactors working with algae or whether they focused on the development of enzymes and bacteria for the optimization of the CO2 capture reactions. The results show a pronounced increment in innovative contributions through 2013, led by the USA and countries in Asia (China, Japan and Korea). In terms of companies involved in patent production, Alstom Technology Ltd. and CO2 Solutions Inc. are the most noted companies, with 9% and 8% of the publications, respectively.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available