Utilising carbon dioxide for transport fuels : the economic and environmental sustainability of different Fischer-Tropsch process designs

Producing fuels and chemicals from carbon dioxide (CO2) could reduce our dependence on fossil resources and help towards climate change mitigation. This study evaluates the sustainability of utilising CO2 for production of transportation fuels. The CO2 feedstock is sourced from anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge and the fuels are produced in the Fischer-Tropsch (FT) process. Using life cycle assessment, life cycle costing and profitability analysis, the study considers four different process designs and a range of plant capacities to explore the effect of the economies of scale. For large-scale plants (1,670 t/day), the FT fuels outperform fossil diesel in all environmental impacts across all the designs, with several impacts being net-negative. The only exceptions are ozone depletion, for which fossil diesel is the best option, and global warming potential (GWP), which is lower for fossil diesel for some process designs. Optimising the systems reduces the GWP of FT fuels in the best case by 70% below that of fossil diesel. Assuming a replacement of 9.75–12.4% of fossil diesel consumed in the UK by 2,032, as stipulated by policy, would avoid 2–8 Mt of CO2 eq./yr, equivalent to 2–8% of annual emissions from transportation. However, these fuels are not economically viable and matching diesel pump price would require subsidies of 35–79% per litre. Optimising production yields would allow decreasing the subsidies to 8%. Future research should be aimed at technology improvements to optimise these systems as well as evaluating different policy mechanisms needed to stimulate markets for CO2-derived fuels

The carbon footprint of the carbon feedstock CO2

Capturing and utilizing CO2 as carbon feedstock for chemicals, fuels, or polymers is frequently discussed to replace fossil carbon and thereby help mitigate climate change. Emission reductions by Carbon Capture and Utilization (CCU) depend strongly on the choice of the CO2 source because CO2 sources differ in CO2 concentration and the resulting energy demand for capture. From a climate-change perspective, CO2 should be captured at the CO2 source with the lowest CO2 emissions from capture. However, reported carbon footprints differ widely for CO2 captured, from strongly negative to strongly positive for the same source. The differences are due to methodological ambiguity in the treatment of multifunctionality in current assessment practice. This paper reviews methodological approaches for determining the carbon footprint of captured CO2 as carbon feedstock, and shows why some approaches lead to suboptimal choices of CO2 sources and that increased consistency in life cycle assessment (LCA) studies on CCU is needed. Based on strict application of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) standards and guidelines, it is shown that substitution should be applied to avoid suboptimal choices of CO2 sources. The resulting methodological recommendations are applied to estimate the carbon footprint of feedstock CO2 for current CO2 sources in Europe and for future CO2 sources in a scenario for a low carbon economy. For all CO2 sources, the cradle-to-gate footprint of captured CO2 is negative ranging from -0.95 to -0.59 kg CO2 eq. per kg of feedstock CO2 today and from -0.99 to -0.98 kg CO2 eq. in a low carbon economy. The carbon footprints of different CO2 sources differ mainly due to their energy demands. The presented assessment method and the carbon footprints of the CO2 feedstocks CO2 provide the basis for future assessments of carbon capture and utilization processes. This journal i