2017

Running head: THE ROLE OF CARBON CAPTURE STORAGE AND UTILIZATION 1

The Role of Carbon Capture and Storage and Carbon Capture and Utilisation to Achieve the

Climate Change Mitigation Goals

Kwabena Ofori

Technische Universitt Bergakadamie Freiberg

IMRE SEMINAR

This research was made possible by the supervision of Prof. Dr. Magnus Frling.

kobbyvil@outlook.com
THE ROLE OF CARBON CAPTURE STORAGE AND UTILIZATION 2

Abstract
The planet has and still experiencing climate changes. Global average temperature changes
have wavered and its effects have been unpleasant. Sectorial anthropogenic activities are the
main drivers of greenhouse gases (GHGs). The presence of these gases in the atmosphere
causes global warming which in turn contributes to climate change. Carbon dioxide (CO2)
forms the largest fraction of the total greenhouse gasses emitted. CO 2 is the resultant gas of
burning of fossil fuels. The continuous and long term dependency on fossil fuels for energy
consumption implies large quantity of CO2 emissions. Mitigating climate change via CO 2
reductions has therefore gained global attention. Key mitigation technologies such as
renewable energy, energy efficiency and reduction of GHGs have been suggested to help attain
the climate change goals. This paper, however, presents a literature review with emphasis on
cost, value added products, environmental impact analyses, and policies, the role carbon
dioxide capture and storage (CCS) and carbon dioxide capture and use (CCU) technologies can
play in order to reach climate variability targets.
Keywords: carbon capture and storage (CCS), carbon capture and utilization (CCU),
greenhouse gases (GHGs), sequestration, combustion
 Contents
Climate change ....3
Climate change mitigation ...4
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) ..5
Capture .............6
Transport ..7
Storage .7
CCS Projects, developments and milestone .8
Carbon capture cost ..9
Carbon capture utilization (CCU) .......................................11
Direct utilization .11
Conversion of CO 2 ..11
Life cycle environmental impacts of CCS and CCU ..13
Environmental impacts of CCS ..14
Environmental impacts of CCU .16
Challenges to CCS and CCU technologies 18
Policy options for CCS and CCU .......19
Conclusion and recommendation .......20
References ..................................21
THE ROLE OF CARBON CAPTURE STORAGE AND UTILIZATION 3

Climate Change

Patterns of climate including temperature, precipitation, winds and other factors have
varied throughout several years (NASA, 2016). Global warming which contributes to climate
change are as a result of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted into the atmosphere. Evidence for
climate change are revealed in global temperature rise, rising sea level, shrinking ice sheets,
declining artic sea ice, glacial retreat and ocean acidification. Even though there have been
unpredictable natural processes such as volcanoes in the past, figure 1 shows anthropogenic
activities have contributed significantly to the emission of greenhouse gases.

Figure 1. Global greenhouse gas emission by economic sector.(IPCC, 2014)

As seen in figure 2, carbon dioxide (CO2) forms over 75% of the total greenhouse gases emitted
in terms of concentration and quantity. Other greenhouse gases emitted in addition to CO 2
include methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N 2O) and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). The continuous
and long term dependence on fossil resources such as coal, natural gas and oil for energy
consumption provides evidence of increase in CO 2 emissions in the future. There is therefore
the need for governments, energy and climate policies to embrace integrated technological
systems to abate greenhouse gas emissions.
THE ROLE OF CARBON CAPTURE STORAGE AND UTILIZATION 4

Figure 2. Global greenhouse gas emissions by gas (IPCC, 2014).

Climate Change Mitigation

Actions towards reducing global greenhouse gas emissions were established in 1997 in the
Kyoto protocol agreement of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC). With the vision of mitigating climate change, it is figured that global warming be
kept below 2C, reducing CO 2 emissions and other greenhouse gases by 50% by the year 2050.
It is required that developed countries reduce GHGs emission by at least 80% whereas
developing countries supress the growth of emissions. (Agency, 2007)
A variety of key mitigation options have been propose with respect to various sectors that drive
climate change and a summary is shown in table 1. The most recent, large and developing
technology recommended for power and industrial sectors is carbon capture and storage (CCS).
CCS seeks to be a critical component as far as the portfolio of low-carbon energy technologies
are concerned (IEAGHG, 2015). A complementary technological effort to offset cost and to
use carbon dioxide to produce valuable products is carbon capture and utilization (CCU). The
adoption of CCS or in combination with CCU can play a significant role in reducing CO 2
emissions from source power plants.
THE ROLE OF CARBON CAPTURE STORAGE AND UTILIZATION 5

Table 1

Summary of selected examples of key mitigation technologies

Sector Key mitigation technology
Energy Renewable heat and power (hydropower,
solar, wind, geothermal and bioenergy),
combined heat and power (CHP), carbon
capture and storage (CCS), Advanced
nuclear power.

Transport More fuel efficient vehicles, hybrid

vehicles, clean diesel vehicles, biofuels.

Industry CCS, heat and power recovery.

Building Efficient lighting and daylighting, efficient

electrical appliances, heating and cooling
devices, solar design.

Agriculture Livestock and manure management to

reduce CH 4 emissions, improve fertilizer
application techniques to reduce N2O.
Adopted frpm IPCC, 2007.

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)

Also known as carbon capture and sequestration, it involves capturing CO2,
transporting and storing it in a geological formation or below sea floors (Cullar-Franca &
Azapagic, 2015). More than 40% of global CO2 emissions are as a result of electricity
generation in power plants that make use of fossil fuel (IEA, 2015). The application of CCS
technology should therefore be an integration system for the energy sector. Due to differences
in industrial processes, a variety of diverse options for capturing CO 2 are available to couple
with specific industry processes. The CCS complete chain consists of three main steps;
capturing carbon dioxide, transporting carbon dioxide and storing it below subsurface.
THE ROLE OF CARBON CAPTURE STORAGE AND UTILIZATION 6

Capture
The first stage involved in th CCS technology is capturing CO 2 released as a result of fossil
fuel combustion. CO2 mixed with different gases from burning process is seized and separated
by one of three mechanisms. The three different options for capturing CO 2 are pre- combustion,
post combustion and oxy-fuel combustion, see figure 3. The mechanisms behind these capture
options are describe in the subsequent sections of this paper.

Pre-Combustion Capture
In this capture option, CO 2 and hydrogen are generated as by-products of a gasification or
reforming process. Syngas is produced as a result of the reaction. Syngas which is a mixture of
hydrogen, carbon monoxide, water and CO 2 is steamed in a shift reactor to convert carbon
monoxide to hydrogen and carbon dioxide. CO 2 is captured from the gas stream and after
compression and dehydration it is ready for transport and storage. The left over hydrogen can
serve for purpose of powering turbines or can be used for fuels for transport.

Figure 3. CO2 capture technologies in fossil fuel conversion and industrial processes (courtesy
Mac Dowell et al., 2017).
THE ROLE OF CARBON CAPTURE STORAGE AND UTILIZATION 7

Post-Combustion Capture
Post-combustion capture mechanism involves combustion of fuel in a boiler which produces
steam flue gas. The composition of the flue the flue gas which comprises of carbon dioxide,
water and nitrogen.is passed through a chemical solvent. The adsorbed CO2 is separated by
either high pressure filtration, cryogenic separation or adsorption-desorption processes. Post-
combustion capture can be retrofitted to existing or new polants.

Oxy-fuel Combustion Capture

In this system fuel is mixed with oxygen from air in a boiler where combustio takes place.
Flue gas and steam are produced from the reaction. The generated steam is used to power
turbines for electricity. Flue gas is a mixture of CO 2 and water. CO 2 is isolated from water,
compressed and prepared for transportation and storage.

Transport
Compression precedes transportation of CO 2 to suitable storage sites. The technology in CO 2
transportation is similar to those used extensively for transporting oil and gas. Piplines serve
as the regular means for channelling CO 2 over a wide stretch of area. Other means of CO 2
transport are ship or road tankers primarily for use in oil fields where CO 2 is injected into oil
wells to enhance oil recovery.

Storage
After transportation to suitable storage site, CO 2 is injected under high pressure and
temperature into a geological formation or underneath sea floors. In geological storage
option, carbon dioxide is injected several kilometres into geological formations such as deep
saline aquifers, coal bed formation and depleted oil and gas reservoirs. Injected CO 2 moves
through pores of rocks until it encounters an impermeable layer of rock which overlays the
storage area. This impermeable layer called cap rock traps CO 2 underneath the formation.
Ocean storage is another option to save CO 2 but has little focus (Cullar-Franca & Azapagic,
2015). This method works on the principle that the large capacity of ocean beds can
accommodate large volumes of CO2 at deeper depths. Studies on ocean storage is ongoing
and hence has never been demonstrated on a large scale.
THE ROLE OF CARBON CAPTURE STORAGE AND UTILIZATION 8

CCS Projects, Developments and Milestone

CCS projects have been ongoing since mid-1990s. The most significant projects include the
worlds first large-scale CCS project at the Boundary Dam power station in Saskatchewan,
Canada. Commencing operation in October 2014, approximately 1 million tonnes of CO 2
(MtCO 2) per year equivalent to 90% of CO2 emissions were anticipated to be captured and
stored underneath geological formation to enhance oil recovery.

Figure 4. CCS projects and development (Global CCS Institute, 2011).

In Norway, under 20 million tonnes of CO2 has been stored in offshore deep saline formation
with the help of the Sleipner and Snohvit CO2 project. As can be seen in figure 4, the Kemper
County Facility in Mississippi and the Petra Nova Carbon Capture project in Texas are planned
to come into operation in 2016.

As of 2015, there were 22 large-scale integrated CCS projects under construction and
development (GCI, 2014). In tracking progress of CCS project, a total of 26MtCO 2 per year
were captured but out of this only 5Mt of the captured CO 2 is being stored and monitored with
verification (IEA, 2015).
THE ROLE OF CARBON CAPTURE STORAGE AND UTILIZATION 9

Figure 5. Contribution of technologies to reduce power sector CO2 emissions (IEA, 2010)

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA) CCS contributes to 31% of the total
technologies that reduce CO2 emissions as shown in figure 5. By 2030 more than 2000Mt CO 2
stored with continuous use of CCS in power and industry and progression into 2 nd phase. The
use of CCS in applicable power and industry will cause more than 7000Mt CO 2 to be stored
(Ramirez, 2015).

Carbon Capture Cost

Without CCS, the cost of reducing CO2 will be 70% higher (IEA, 2014). Together with
operating and maintenance costs, the deployment of CCS to any power plant increases capital
costs. As highlighted by figure 6, in terms of generating electricity, the cost impact on any CCS
project is divided into 4 parts;
- Additional capital expenditure associated with CO 2 capture and compression plants.
- Additional fuel costs for the energy used in the capture process.
- Additional capital expenditure to build larger power plants.
- Additional operations and maintenance costs.
THE ROLE OF CARBON CAPTURE STORAGE AND UTILIZATION 10

Figure 6. Cost impact of adding CCS to a power station (Global CCS Institute, 2011)

Comparison between CCS and other alternative low-carbon technologies is very relevant in
determining the cost effective and affordable way to reduce CO 2 emissions. Apart from
installed capital cost, the two cost metrics for comparing different low-carbon technologies are
levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) and the cost of CO 2 avoided (Abellera & Short, 2011).
LCOE is a metric used to represent average cost of electricity generation throughout the
lifespan of a power plant. It includes investment cost, operating cost and fuel cost. The cost of
CO2 avoided is the cost of reducing emissions from fossil fuel combustion expressed in dollars
per tonne of CO 2. Cost estimation CO2 avoided includes levelised costs and intensity of CO2
emission in the plants under evaluation. Figure 7 reveals onshore wind power and nuclear are
the technologies with lower costs of reducing CO 2 emissions, however they are limited in
availability. The cost of solar PV and solar thermal systems range from US $182-239/tonne
and US $139-203/tonne respectively are two to three times larger than coal fired CCS plants,
US $23-92/tonne to mitigate CO 2 emissions.
THE ROLE OF CARBON CAPTURE STORAGE AND UTILIZATION 11

Figure 7. Cost of CO 2 avoided (Global CCS Institute & WorleyParsons, 2011)

Costs vary with CCS projects with the capture of CO 2 being the highest cost. Different capture
options have varying associated cost as shown by figure 8.

Figure 8. Evaluation of LCOE estimates for power plants with and without capture (IEA,
ETP 2015)

Carbon Capture and Utilization (CCU)

Carbon dioxide capture and utilization is a technology used to convert CO 2 into

valuable commercial products. While CCS treats CO 2 as waste, CCU is an alternative approach
THE ROLE OF CARBON CAPTURE STORAGE AND UTILIZATION 12

to making use of CO2 for valuable and economic products (Cullar-Franca & Azapagic, 2015).
Pathways for CCU is indicated in figure 9. CO2 can be used either directly or after coversion.

Figure 9. Carbon capture and utilization pathways (Pekdemir, Bialkowski, Tsianou, &
Technology, 2012).

Direct Utilization of CO2

The direct use of CO2 is seen in food and drink industry. It is used as a preservative,
carbonating agent and as solvent for the extraction of flavours and in caffeinating processes.
CO2 can be mixed with brine at high pressure and temperatures to form hydrates that can be
reminded to leave clean water. One of the most popular and attractive use of CO 2 is for
enhanced oil recovery (EOR) in which CO 2 is injected into an existing oil well to increase
pressure and reduce the viscosity of the oil, increasing the flow and amount of oil that can be
recovered. In enhanced coal bed methane (ECBM), CO 2 is injected into partially depleted coal
seam to displace methane.

Conversion of CO2
After conversion of CO2, it can be used for mineralisation, biological and chemical
purposes. Mineralisation involves using CO 2 as a reactant with industrial waste products. The
resulting new compound can be used in construction. Waste CO 2 flue gas can be used to cure
THE ROLE OF CARBON CAPTURE STORAGE AND UTILIZATION 13

precast concrete and it can also serve for reducing alkalinity of slurry in bauxite residue
carbonation. Biologically, the reaction between algae and CO 2 produces proteins, fertilizers
and biomass for biofuels. CO 2 can be used by converting it into liquid fuels, polymers, chemical
feedstock and urea. Catalysation can enhance the transformation of CO 2 into polycarbonates.
The use of CO2 for valuable commercial products is influenced by the potential market
for the product as shown in table 2. Potential development of markets for inorganic carbonates
and polymers can increase value and revenue.

Table 2
Present and short-term use of CO2 based on production data and forecast

Adopted from Mac Dowell, Fennell, Shah, & Maitland, 2017.

As can be seen from table 2, urea and methanol are the two largest sinks for CO2. Similarly,
the technological category appears to be a catch-all for CO2 utilization in food and drink
manufacture, fire suppression, as an inerting agent and dry ice, and other miscellaneous
activities. Again, these options do not correspond to long-term sequestration of CO 2.

Life Cycle Environmental Impacts of CCS and CCU

Sustainability of the environment needs to be considered when embarking on
technologies to mitigate climate change. There is therefore the need for impact assessment to
avoid problematic mitigation measures which are intended to abate greenhouse gas emissions.
This section provides a revision on the life cycle environmental impacts with respect to
THE ROLE OF CARBON CAPTURE STORAGE AND UTILIZATION 14

different CCS and CCU options. Out of 27 studies from literature, 11 were focused on CCS
whereas 16 were conducted on CCU (Cullar-Franca & Azapagic, 2015).

Environmental Impacts of CCS

In the studies, in determining the impacts of CCS on the environment, considerations
were given to 3 power plants; pulverised coal (PC), integrated coal gasification combined cycle
(IGCC) and combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT). Two storage options and ten life cycle
assessment impacts categories were also examined. The different CO2 options and other
parameters are summarised in table 3. In as much as considerations were given one or more
power plants, capture option, storage option and impact category, the scope and goal of each
study varied. The system boundary used in different LCA studies for CCS technology is shown
by figure 10 as processes which involved fuel combustion in power plant. CO 2 is separated,
captured, compressed, transported and stored by means of geological formation or ocean
storage.

Figure 10. System boundary in different LCA studies for CCS options.
Adopted from Cullar-Franca & Azapagic, 2015.
THE ROLE OF CARBON CAPTURE STORAGE AND UTILIZATION 15

Table 3

Summary of LCA studies for different CCS options

Adopted from Cullar-Franca & Azapagic, 2015

Results from the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Study for CCS
With relevance to global warming potential (GWP) which is a measure of the ability of
GHGs to trap heat the results from the study is illustrated by figure 11. As can be seen from
figure 10, CCGT plant without CCS has the lowest GWP. The comparison between the
different carbon capture options reveal an average GWP of 199kgCOeq for pre-combustion
capture, 201kgCO2eq for post combustion and an average GWP of 180kgCO 2eq for oxy-fuel
combustion capture. The study revealed that oxy-fuel combustion capture has the lowest GWP
with a reduction potential of up to 82%. Post-combustion capture of CO 2 has the highest GWP
with a reduction potential of 63%. On the basis of this result, it is concluded that oxy-fuel
method of capturing carbon dioxide is the most efficient and environmental friendly
mechanism.
THE ROLE OF CARBON CAPTURE STORAGE AND UTILIZATION 16

Figure 11. The GWP of the different plants without CCS technology.( (Cullar-Franca &
Azapagic, 2015).

Environmental Impacts of CCU

With 16 studies focused on the impacts of different CCU options, considerations were
given to 4 CCU options including chemical synthesis, carbon mineralisation, and biodiesel
production and enhanced oil recovery. The life cycle assessment impact categories are the same
as seen in table 3. Figure 12 shows the system boundary used in different LCA for CCU
options. After capturing and compressing CO 2, it is then transported for mineral carbonation,
feedstock, cultivation of microalgae and injection into oil wells for recovery. Figure 13 shows
a comparison between an entire CCS technology and different CCU options. According to
figure 12 the average GWP for CCS is estimated at 276 kg CO 2/tCO2 removed, which is
significantly lower than all CCU options. The use of CO2 for production of chemicals is the
worst CCU option with an average GWP 216 times higher than CCS. The second worst CCU
option, the biological conversion of CO 2 into biodiesel has average GWP which is 4 times
higher thn CCS. Carbon mineralisation has an average GWP which 2.9 times higher than CCS.
Overall the most efficient use of CO 2 is for enhance oil recovery (EOR) with an average GWP
which is 1.8 times higher than CCS.
A comparison between CCS and CCU for other impact categories aside GWP are illustrated
by figure 14.
THE ROLE OF CARBON CAPTURE STORAGE AND UTILIZATION 17

Figure 12. System boundaries in the LCA studies for CCU.

Adopted from Cullar-Franca & Azapagic, 2015.

Figure 13. Comparism of GWP for different CCS and CCU options.
Adopted from Cullar-Franca & Azapagic, 2015.
THE ROLE OF CARBON CAPTURE STORAGE AND UTILIZATION 18

Figure 14. Environmental impacts other than GWP of CCS and different CCU options.
Adopted from Cullar-Franca & Azapagic, 2015.

Challenges to CCS and CCU Technolgies

Notwithstanding the abatement and opportunities CCS and CCU offer, they still face
some challenges which are discussed briefly in this section of the paper.

Cost
Demonstration, research development and deployment of CCS projects complemented with
CCU involve high investment cost, however costs are project specific.

Awareness
The general lack of awareness in public, private businesses, governments and households can
hinder the progress of CCS and CCU technologies. Debates and negative views on CCS versus
CCU lead to unjustified adoption of such systems.

Potential markets
CCU technology is greatly affected by the markets for CO 2 valuable products. Prices on carbon
and methane can have significant impacts on products that make use of CO 2.
THE ROLE OF CARBON CAPTURE STORAGE AND UTILIZATION 19

Economies
Lack of adequate funding and incentives can leads to delays and abandonment of CCS and
CCU projects. Supply chain, profits, capacity assessment also impact research choices.

Storage regulations
Environmental control programs that govern the injection of CO 2 into geological formations,
monitoring and validation can constrain development of CCS technology. CO2 leakages are
uncertain and limited storage capacity makes CCS very difficult to be relied on.

Quality standards
Use of CO2 in CCU options to produce profitable products may have to conform to certain high
quality standards

Environmental Sustainability
Compliance to environmental safeguards could be an obstacle for the adoption and
development of CCS and CCU technologies. The need to embark on environmental friendly
projects thus becomes a constraint.

Policy Options for CCS and CCU

In order to promote CO2 abatement measures, especially in the portfolio of low carbon
technologies such as CCS and CCU, policies would become inevitable. Some recommended
policies to promote CCS and CCU include;
Carbon Pricing
Aligned with the huge cost of CCS systems, policy to set right prices for carbon could help
offset the cost developmental projects. The European Union Emission Trading Scheme (ETS)
directive establishes a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the
community in order to promote reductions greenhouse gas emissions in a cost effective and
economical manner

Incentives and Funding

Government policies to fund, incentivize and subsidize CCS and CCU integrated systems are
appropriate for encouragement in the adoption of CO 2 and other GHGs mitigation
technologies.
THE ROLE OF CARBON CAPTURE STORAGE AND UTILIZATION 20

To ensure effectiveness and efficient CCS and CCU systems, regulations can be set by policy
makers that will require performance standard for power plants. Well defined regulatory
authorities and legal frameworks will enhance development of CCS and CCU technologies.
CCS coupled with renewable biomass to form Bio-CCS is one of the few abatement
technologies that can be used to achieve negative emission.

Conclusion and Recommendations

A look into literature has provided evidence and established climate change as a global issue
of concern. This paper has reviewed CCS and CCU as a critical component in the portfolio of
low-carbon technologies. More than 25MtCO 2 per annum have been captured with few
demonstrations and developing projects. The oxy-fuel combustion is the most efficient
mechanism for capturing CO2 without compromising the environment. The potential
contribution of CCU has been discussed in the context of commercial products and markets.
The amount of CO 2 utilized depends on the demand for products and the rate of CO2
production. Life cycle assessment show that CCS is overall a better option than many low
carbon technologies for reducing CO 2 emissions. Enhanced oil recovery by injection of CO 2
into oil wells is an attractive and economic incentive for further CCS projects. CCU on the
other hand is a cost reductions technology in the mitigation options of CO 2 emissions and
climate change as whole.
With the appropriate policies including adequate funding, regulation and carbon pricing, CCU
and CCU technologies will overcome many obstacles and serve as pillar that will play
important role in reducing CO2 emissions to help achieve the 2DS climate change mitigation
goal.
THE ROLE OF CARBON CAPTURE STORAGE AND UTILIZATION 21

References
Adisaputro, D., & Saputra, B. (2017). Carbon Capture and Storage and Carbon Capture and
Utilization: What Do They Offer to Indonesia? Frontiers in Energy Research,
5(March 2017), 20122015. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2017.00006
Agency, E. E. (2007). Climate change policies, 10. Retrieved from
http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/climate/policy-context
Bourne, D., Fatima, T., van Meurs, P., & Muntean, A. (2014). Is adding charcoal to soil a
good method for CO2 sequestration? Modeling a spatially homogeneous soil.
Applied Mathematical Modelling, 38(910), 24632475.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2013.10.064
Carbon Dioxide Utilisation Network. (2014). Roadmap for the future of CO2Chem and CCU,
10.
Cullar-Franca, R., & Azapagic, A. (2015). Carbon capture, storage and utilisation
technologies: A critical analysis and comparison of their life cycle environmental
impacts. Journal of CO2 Utilization, 9, 82102.
Elum, Z. A., & Momodu, A. S. (2017). Climate change mitigation and renewable energy for
sustainable development in Nigeria: A discourse approach. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 76(February), 7280.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.040
EPA. (2014). Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data | Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions |
US EPA. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data
Global CCS Institue. (2011). Accelerating the Uptake of CCS: Industrial Use of Captured
Carbon Dioxide. Technology, (March).
IEA. (2015). Energy and Climate Change. World Energy Outlook Special Report, 1200.
https://doi.org/10.1038/479267b
IEA. (2015). Energy Technology Perspectives 2015. Iea.
https://doi.org/10.1787/energy_tech-2014-en
IPCC. (2007). AR4 SYR Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers - 4 Adaptation and
mitigation options.
Mac Dowell, N., Fennell, P. S., Shah, N., & Maitland, G. C. (2017). The role of CO2 capture
and utilization in mitigating climate change. Nature Climate Change, 7(4), 243249.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3231
NASA. (2016). Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence.
Http://Climate.Nasa.Gov/Evidence/ [Accessed 2016-08-23]. Retrieved from
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
THE ROLE OF CARBON CAPTURE STORAGE AND UTILIZATION 22

Pekdemir, T., Bialkowski, M., Tsianou, E., & Technology, F. (2012). Carbon Capture and
Utilization ( CCU ), (14), 24. https://doi.org/10.1002/ente.201600747
Ramirez, P. A. (2015). CCS: Unpopular , but Necessary.
Saint-Pierre, A., & Mancarella, P. (2014). Techno-economic assessment of flexible combined
heat and power plant with Carbon Capture and Storage. 2014 Power Systems
Computation Conference, 17. https://doi.org/10.1109/PSCC.2014.7038449
Santoprete, G., Wang, J., & Berni, P. (2011). Industrial utilization of carbon dioxide:
Products and processes for environmental sustainability and for the obtaining of
economic value. Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering Conference, APPEEC.
https://doi.org/10.1109/APPEEC.2011.5748767
Styring, P., Jansen, D., de Coninck, H., Reith, H., & Armstrong, K. (2011). Carbon Capture
and Utilisation in the green economy. Centre for Low Carbon Futures, 60.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2016). International Energy Outlook 2016.
International Energy Outlook 2016 (Vol. 0484(2016)).
https://doi.org/www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/pdf/0484(2016).pdf
von Stechow, C., McCollum, D., Riahi, K., Minx, J. C., Kriegler, E., van Vuuren, D. P.,
Edenhofer, O. (2015). Integrating Global Climate Change Mitigation Goals with
Other Sustainability Objectives: A Synthesis. Annual Review of Environment and
Resources, 40(1), 363394. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-021113-095626
Zero Emissions Platform. (2015). CCU carbon capture and utilisation, 123.