Life-Cycle Assessment for Carbon Dioxide Utilizationnas-sites.org/dels/files/2018/04/10-BARDOW_Mtg.-3...2018/04/10 · 15 „Green“ electricityforCO2-based fuels Life-Cycle Assessment

Life-Cycle Assessment for Carbon Dioxide UtilizationLessons learned from and for LCA

André Bardow

Institute of Technical ThermodynamicsRWTH Aachen University

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine“Developing a Research Agenda for Utilization of Gaseous Carbon Waste Streams”Washington D.C., March 6, 2018 (remote presentation)

2

Method of choice: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Use phaseDisposal Use phaseRecycling

CO2 conversionCO2 transportCO2 source

Life-Cycle Assessment for Carbon Dioxide Utilization

Lessonslearned

from LCA of CCU

Lessonslearnedfor LCA of CCU

von der Assen, Jung, Bardow, Energy Environ. Sci.,2013, 6, 2721von der Assen, Voll, Peters, Bardow, Chem. Soc. Rev. 2014, 43, 7982

3

CO2-based polymers: Project “Dream Production“


Scrubbing and supply of CO2

Process development and conversion of CO2

Fundamental research Life Cycle Assessment

Production and testing of polyurethanes with CO2

4

PolyolProduction

Epoxides

CO2

CO2-based polymers: Project “Dream Production“


PUR

foam

productionIso-cyanate

Power plant

CO2transport

CO2capture

CO2filling

Power CO2CO2

polyolsPolyols

Life Cycle Assessmentvon der Assen, Bardow, Green Chem., 2014, 16, 3272

5

Dream Production: Life-cycle assessment


conventional polyol

kg CO2-eq /

(1.00 kg polyol +0.36 kWh electricity)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

CO2-based polyol(20 mass-% CO2)

3.57

−0.47+0.08 3.03

Substitution ofraw materials

−0.15

CO2capture

3.5

Epoxides Epoxides

Epoxides

von der Assen, Bardow, Green Chem., 2014, 16, 3272

6

Dream Production: Life-cycle assessment


conventional polyol

kg CO2-eq /

(1.00 kg polyol +0.36 kWh electricity)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

CO2-based polyol(20 mass-% CO2)

3.57

−0.47+0.08 3.03

Substitution ofraw materials

−0.15

CO2capture

3.5

Epoxides Epoxides

Epoxides

1 kg CO2 as feedstock can avoid

3 kg of CO2 emissions

von der Assen, Bardow, Green Chem., 2014, 16, 3272

7 Life-Cycle Assessment for Carbon Dioxide Utilization

Lessons learned from LCA of CCU

• CO2 utilization can save GHG emissions• By replacing energy-intensive fossil-based feedstock

8

CO2 hydrogenation to C1-chemicals


Formic acid

Formaldehyde

Methanol

Methane

Energy

O = C = O

H2

H2O

Carbon monoxide

Klankermayer, J.; Leitner, W. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 2016, 374, 1–8.

9

CO2 hydrogenation to C1-chemicals


Formic acid

Formaldehyde

Methanol

Methane

O = C = O

1 1 1 1

0? ???

Carbon monoxide

Sternberg, Jens, Bardow, Green Chem., 2017,19, 2244-2259

10

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14G

W re

duct

ion

/ (kg

CO

2-eq

/kg

H2

used

)

Impact of complexity on climate change mitigation potential


CH4 HCOOHCO

1 0 1 311


11

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14G

W re

duct

ion

/ (kg

CO

2-eq

/kg

H2

used

)

Impact of complexity on climate change mitigation potential


CH4 HCOOHCO

1 0 1 311

CO2 utilization can reduce complexity

Reduction of GHG emissions




• CO2 utilization can save GHG emissions• By replacing energy-intensive fossil-based feedstock• By leading to more efficient process routes

13

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14G

W re

duct

ion

/ (kg

CO

2-eq

/kg

H2

used

)

Efficiency = climate change mitigation per hydrogen used


CH4 HCOOHCO

1 0 1 311

Here: Maximum potential

Assumption: „Free hydrogen“ from green electricity


14

„Green“ electricity for CO2-based fuels


Wind EU grid mix 2020EU grid mix 2050

Iceland

Norway France Switzerland

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.2

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

GWI fue

l / (k

g CO

2_eq

/MJ fue

l)

GWI electricity / (g CO2_eq/kWh electricity)

Methane (LCA: Sternberg et al., Process: Müller et al.)Methane (LCA: Sternberg et al., Process: Saint Jean et al.)GTL‐type fuel (LCA: Giesen et al., Process: Giesen et al.)Jet fuel (LCA: Falter et al., Process: Shell GTL‐plant)DME (LCA: Schakel et al., Process: Schakel et al.)DMM, oxidative route (LCA: Deutz et al., Process: Bongartz et al.)DMM, reductive route (LCA: Deutz et al., Process: ‐ )Fossil diesel

Artz, et int., Bardow, Leitner, Chem. Rev., 2018, 118, 2, 434-504Electricity global warming impact in g CO2,e / kWh

Fuel

glo

bal w

arm

ing

impa

ctin

g C

O2,

e / M

J

15

„Green“ electricity for CO2-based fuels


Wind EU grid mix 2020EU grid mix 2050

Iceland

Norway France Switzerland

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.2

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

GWI fue

l / (k

g CO

2_eq

/MJ fue

l)

GWI electricity / (g CO2_eq/kWh electricity)

Methane (LCA: Sternberg et al., Process: Müller et al.)Methane (LCA: Sternberg et al., Process: Saint Jean et al.)GTL‐type fuel (LCA: Giesen et al., Process: Giesen et al.)Jet fuel (LCA: Falter et al., Process: Shell GTL‐plant)DME (LCA: Schakel et al., Process: Schakel et al.)DMM, oxidative route (LCA: Deutz et al., Process: Bongartz et al.)DMM, reductive route (LCA: Deutz et al., Process: ‐ )Fossil diesel

Artz, et int., Bardow, Leitner, Chem. Rev., 2018, 118, 2, 434-504Electricity global warming impact in g CO2,e / kWh

Fuel

glo

bal w

arm

ing

impa

ctin

g C

O2,

e / M

J

• Benefits requires very green electricity

but not 100% renewables

• Regional potential already today

16

Power-to-What?

Renewable power = limited resource


Sternberg, Bardow, Energy Environ. Sci., 2015, 8, 389

Given 1 MWh of surplus electricity, which energy storage system

brings the greatest environmental benefit?

17

Power to What?


[1] Sternberg und Bardow, Energy Environ. Sci., 2015,8, 389-400.

18

Power to What?



19

Power to What?



• Winner: Efficient routes replacing inefficient processes• Power-to-Chemicals and Power-to-Fuels

not as energy storage butbecause we need chemicals and want fuels



• CO2 utilization can save GHG emissions• By replacing energy-intensive fossil-based feedstock• By leading to more efficient process routes• By producing fuels using renewable energy (if available)

• CO2 utilization can be useful beyond climate change

21

CO2-based OME1 as diesel blend : NOx & soot trade-off


Filte

r Sm

oke

Num

ber /

-

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Ind. spec. NOx / g/kWh0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

OME1: Diesel (vol. %) 0:100

Euro 6 NOx level

Filte

r Sm

oke

Num

ber /

-

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Ind. spec. NOx / g/kWh0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0


Euro 6 NOx level

Filte

r Sm

oke

Num

ber /

-

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Ind. spec. NOx / g/kWh0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

OME1: Diesel (vol. %) 0:100 100:0

Euro 6 NOx level

Filte

r Sm

oke

Num

ber /

-

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Ind. spec. NOx / g/kWh0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

OME1: Diesel (vol. %) 0:100 35:65 100:0

Deutz, et int., Bardow, Energy Environ. Sci., 2018,11, 331-343

22

CO2-based OME1 as diesel blend : NOx & soot trade-off


Filte

r Sm

oke

Num

ber /

-

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Ind. spec. NOx / g/kWh0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0


Euro 6 NOx level

Filte

r Sm

oke

Num

ber /

-

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Ind. spec. NOx / g/kWh0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0


Euro 6 NOx level

Filte

r Sm

oke

Num

ber /

-

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Ind. spec. NOx / g/kWh0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

OME1: Diesel (vol. %) 0:100 100:0

Euro 6 NOx level

Filte

r Sm

oke

Num

ber /

-

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Ind. spec. NOx / g/kWh0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

OME1: Diesel (vol. %) 0:100 35:65 100:0

OME1 strongly reduces both NOx and soot emissions

Deutz, et int., Bardow, Energy Environ. Sci., 2018,11, 331-343




• CO2 utilization can be useful beyond climate change• Need to understand the service (functional unit) provided by CCU

Lessons learned for LCA of CCU

24

Carbon footprint of CO2-based methanol


‐2

0

2

4

6

8

10G

WI m

etha

nol/

(kg

CO

2-eq

/kg

CH

3OH

) Solar-based process Steam-methane-reformingCoal electricity NGCC electricityPhotovoltaic electricity Wind electricityH2 supply without GWI Fossil-based process

Artz, et int., Bardow, Leitner, Chem. Rev., 2018, 118, 2, 434-504

• Huge differences in LCA literature on CCU

25

Carbon footprint of CO2-based methanol: Harmonized inputs


1.21

‐1.28

1.30

‐1.27

1.31

‐1.27

1.33

‐1.28

1.46

‐1.27

-2.0-1.5-1.0-0.50.00.51.01.52.02.53.0

2020 Best case 2020 Best case 2020 Best case 2020 Best case 2020 Best case

Kiss et al. 2016 Van-Dal et al. 2013 Pérez-Fortes et al.2016

Hoppe et al. 2017 Rihko-Struckmann etal. 2010

Hydrogenation

GW

I met

hano

l / (k

g C

O2-

eq/k

g C

H 3O

H)

CO2 Emissions Heat supply Electricity supply NG supplyH2 supply CO2 supply Total Fossil‐based

• Need for harmonized LCA data• LCA focus currently on background system,

not on CO2 conversion technology

Artz, et int., Bardow, Leitner, Chem. Rev., 2018, 118, 2, 434-504

26

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) : Cradle-to-Gate comparison


conventional productiontransportfossil

resources

• CCU is „Carbon-reducing“• Often in literature: „(Net) Carbon-negative“


Negative carbonfootprint ?

27

CO2–emissions: The full life cycle

Use phaseDisposal Use phaseRecycling


Best case: CO2 in = CO2 out

Goal: CO2 neutral !


O = C = O

O = C = O

Or: Link withpermanent storage(e.g. mineralization CCUS)

Potential climate benefitof temporary storage




• CO2 utilization can be useful beyond climate change• Need to understand the service (functional unit) provided by CCU

Lessons learned for LCA of CCU

• Harmonized LCA for CCU • Early stage LCA • Account for temporary storage (but effect for LCA will be small !)• Clarify terminology for climate change mitigation

Vielen Dankfür Ihre Aufmerksamkeit

Prof. Dr.-Ing. André Bardow

Head of InstituteChair of Technical Thermodynamics

E-Mail: [email protected] Phone: +49 241 80 95 380

Documents

Life-Cycle Assessment for Carbon Dioxide Utilizationnas-sites.org/dels/files/2018/04/10-BARDOW_Mtg.-3...2018/04/10 · 15 „Green“ electricityforCO2-based fuels Life-Cycle Assessment