Indicator-driven data calibration of expert interviews in a configurational study

Expert interviews can provide interesting data for the use in qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) to investigate complex social phenomena. To guide the challenging task of data calibration from qualitative data sets, techniques have already been suggested for the transformation of qualitative data into fuzzy sets. The current article follows existing guidelines and extends them with a system for indicator-based data calibration of expert interviews. While the underlying data set is confidential due to its corporate setting, in this article the analysis of the data is made transparent and hence reproducible for potential follow-up studies. First, the process of data collection is described, and the final data sample is characterized. Consequently, a system for indicator-based data calibration is presented and the calibration results for the empirical sample are provided in form of the set membership of cases and truth tables. • Data collection from expert interviews is described for a configurational setting • A combined indicator-based system is used for the calibration of qualitative dat

Techno-Economic Assessment & Life-Cycle Assessment Guidelines for CO2 Utilization

NOTE: Updated version 1.1 available at http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/162573 Climate change is one of the largest challenges of our time. One of the major causes of anthropogenic climate change, carbon dioxide, also leads to ocean acidification. Left unaddressed, these two challenges will alter ecosystems and fundamentally change life, as we know it. Under the auspices of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and through the Paris Agreement, there is a commitment to keep global temperature increase to well below two degrees Celsius. This will require a variety of strategies including increased renewable power generation and broad scale electrification, increased energy efficiency, and carbon-negative technologies. We believe that Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is necessary to prove that a technology could contribute to the mitigation of environmental impacts and that Techno-Economic Assessment (TEA) will show how the technology could be competitively delivered in the market. Together the guidelines for LCA and TEA that are presented in this document are a valuable toolkit for promoting carbon capture and utilization (CCU) technology development.Development of standardized CO2 Life Cycle and Techno-economic Assessment Guidelines was commissioned by CO2 Sciences, Inc., with the support of 3M, EIT Climate-KIC, CO2 Value Europe, Emissions Reduction Alberta, Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment, R. K. Mellon Foundation, Cynthia and George Mitchell Foundation, National Institute of Clean and Low Carbon Energy, Praxair, Inc., XPRIZE and generous individuals who are committed to action to address climate change.https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/145436/3/Global_CO2_Initiative_TEA_LCA_Guidelines-2018.pdf-

Methanol Worked Examples for the TEA and LCA Guidelines for CO2 Utilization

This document contains worked examples of how to apply the accompanying “Guideline for Techno-Economic Assessment of CO2 Utilization” and “Guideline for Life Cycle Assessment of CO2 Utilization”. The Guidelines can be downloaded via http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/145436. These worked examples are not intended to be a definitive TEA or LCA report on the process described, but are provided as supporting material to show how the TEA and LCA methodologies described in the guidelines can be specifically applied to tackle the issues surrounding CO2 utilization. This document describes techno-economic assessment and life cycle assessment for methanol production. As methanol production via hydrogenation and PEM electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen are both at high technology readiness levels (TRL7+); a CO2 capture technology currently at a lower TRL (membrane separation at TRL3 or 4) was selected to demonstrate the differences that can be observed in the interpretation phase when working on TEA and LCA studies of processes with lower TRLs. It is acknowledged that there are many unknown variables with membrane capture, and it is not within the remit of this work to draw conclusions on their application. However, it is known that organizations wish to conduct TEA and LCA studies across a range of TRLs and therefore we hope to demonstrate here how this could affect the results. This document is one of several application examples that accompany the parent document “Techno-Economic Assessment & Life-Cycle Assessment Guidelines for CO2 Utilization”.Development of standardized CO2 Life Cycle and Techno-economic Assessment Guidelines was commissioned by CO2 Sciences, Inc., with the support of 3M, EIT Climate-KIC, CO2 Value Europe, Emissions Reduction Alberta, Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment, R. K. Mellon Foundation, Cynthia and George Mitchell Foundation, National Institute of Clean and Low Carbon Energy, Praxair, Inc., XPRIZE and generous individuals who are committed to action to address climate change.https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/145723/5/Global CO2 Initiative Complete Methanol Study 2018.pd

Techno-Economic Assessment & Life Cycle Assessment Guidelines for CO2 Utilization (Version 1.1)

Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. Under the auspices of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and through the Paris Agreement, there is a commitment to keep global temperature rise this century to well below two degrees Celsius compared with pre-industrial levels. This will require a variety of strategies, including increased renewable power generation, broad-scale electrification, greater energy efficiency, and carbon-negative technologies. With increasing support worldwide, innovations in carbon capture and utilization (CCU) technologies are now widely acknowledged to contribute to achieving climate mitigation targets while creating economic opportunities. To assess the environmental impacts and commercial competitiveness of these innovations, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Techno-Economic Assessment (TEA) are needed. Against this background, guidelines (Version 1.0) on LCA and TEA were published in 2018 as a valuable toolkit for evaluating CCU technology development. Ever since, an open community of practitioners, commissioners, and users of such assessments has been involved in gathering feedback on the initial document. That feedback has informed the improvements incorporated in this updated Version 1.1 of the Guidelines. The revisions take into account recent publications in this evolving field of research; correct minor inconsistencies and errors; and provide better alignment of TEA with LCA. Compared to Version 1.0, some sections have been restructured to be more reader-friendly, and the specific guideline recommendations are renamed ‘provisions.’ Based on the feedback, these provisions have been revised and expanded to be more instructive.Global CO2 Initiative at the University of MichiganEIT Climate-KIChttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/162573/5/TEA&LCA Guidelines for CO2 Utilization v1.1.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/162573/7/ESI reference scenario data_Corrected.xlsxSEL

Economic aspirations connected to innovations in carbon capture and utilization value chains

International authorities are increasingly recognizing that utilizing the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from various industries can assist strategies for mitigating climate change. In developing novel carbon capture and utilization (CCU) technologies they aspire to contribute to circular economy targets and reduce consumption of fossil‐based raw materials. However, the potential economic effects of CCU on industrial value chains remain unclear. Hence, this study investigates the economic expectations placed on those actors currently conducting research and development (R&D) in CCU. The aspired levels of economic performance are identified through a systematic literature review of 19 policy advice reports and 15 scientific papers. Qualitative directed content analysis is conducted, based on an R&D input–output–outcome system. First, we identify three relevant groups of value chain actors by clustering industrial sectors: (a) equipment manufacturers, (b) high‐emitting producers, and (c) producers of materials and fuels. Then, we derive a criteria list from the review. Finally, the analysis reveals how CCU innovations are anticipated to impact different industries: Equipment manufacturers could contribute to economic growth. For high‐emitting producers, CCU provides one option for “surviving” sustainability transitions. Meanwhile, material and fuel producers need to act as “problem solvers” by offering competitive ways of utilizing CO2. We conclude by identifying research gaps that should be addressed to better understand the economic and social dimensions of CCU and to increase the chances of such innovations contributing to broader sustainability transformations of industrial and energy systems

A guide on how to commission, understand, and derive decisions from TEA and LCA studies

Carbon capture and utilization (CCU) or CO2 utilization technologies attract researchers, policy makers, and industry actors in search of sustainable solutions for industrial processes. This increasing interest can be explained by the fact that these processes comprise the capturing of CO2 – the most relevant greenhouse gas (GHG) – from the air or industrial point sources, and promote its use as a feedstock for the production of goods. CCU processes are expected to contribute to the greenhouse gas neutrality targets of several industrial sectors and the development of a circular economy. Therefore, understanding the environmental impacts and economics of CO2 utilization routes is essential for decision makers from relevant fields, such as technology developers, entrepreneurs, funding agencies, policy makers, administrators and more. A deep understanding of the specific implications of CO2 utilization technologies is needed to make decisions in line with sustainability strategies, and to discard inappropriate solutions. The ‘Techno-Economic Assessment & Life Cycle Assessment Guidelines for CO2 Utilization’1 (henceforth TEA and LCA Guidelines) published by the Global CO2 Initiative (GCI) in October 2018, represent a milestone in the harmonization of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Techno-Economic Assessment (TEA) for evaluating CCU technologies. Henceforth, we refer to this document as TEA and LCA Guidelines. The TEA and LCA Guidelines provide a guide to overcoming methodological discrepancies that lead to confusion among practitioners, concerning how to conduct assessments, and which often lead to contradictory results.2 3 Documents with a similar focus have also been published by the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL).4 The success of the GCI publication and the demand for such guidelines is evidenced by the strong response that the authors registered in the months following its publication: more than 2,000 copies of the TEA and LCA Guidelines have been distributed in digital form or hard copy, and a growing community of practitioners, and decision makers from science, industry, and public administration are learning how to generate robust and comparable assessments when evaluating CCU technologies. In addition to the guidelines and the present report, the same research group has recently released five illustrative worked examples5 to support the application of the TEA and LCA Guidelines, and three accompanying peer-reviewed articles.6 At the same time, policy officers at national and international levels have frequently signaled the urgency of further developing these tools, to enable evaluation of innovative technologies as a basis for decision making in funding and policy design (e.g., the EU Innovation Fund). Despite the urgent need to address planetary climate change, the development and diffusion of new technologies often takes considerable time. Consequently, leveraging the current momentum amongst all involved actors that CCU has achieved to date is paramount and is an opportunity that must not be missed. Despite demands for aligned assessment methods from the industrial and policy spheres,7 there are evident challenges in dealing with the practical application of such methods in commissioning, reading, and interpreting LCA and TEA studies. There is also a risk of insufficient transfer into policy or other decision-making processes, in cases where the involved actors do not possess disciplinary expertise in the relevant methodology.Global CO2 InitiativeEIT CLIMATE-KICPeer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/171901/4/Making Sense of LCA & TEA for CCU v2.pdfSEL

Making Sense of Techno-Economic Assessment & Life Cycle Assessment Studies for CO2 Utilization: A guide on how to commission, understand, and derive decisions from TEA and LCA studies

This report provides guidance to decision makers in all types of public and private organizations involved in the planning and development of CCU. It is prepared within the scope of the CO2nsistent project funded by the Global CO2 Initiative and EIT Climate-KIC, and is based on the published TEA and LCA Guidelines v.1. This report provides user-centered guidance on how to commission and understand TEA and LCA studies for CCU, and how to determine whether existing studies are eligible to be used in a decision making process. Another primary goal of this report is to ensure that disciplinary expertise is effectively taken up by decision makers and all potential audiences. The remainder of this document is structured in two parts. Part A introduces the reader to the concept of TEA and LCA studies: What types of input can such assessments provide for decision making? What are the limitations of their explanatory power? This part focuses on the goal and scope definition for such studies, and on other aspects that are particularly relevant for decision making. The document presents how the decision maker (or commissioner) and the assessment practitioner can jointly set the various assessment phases. These terms are explained in the boxes below. The approach and main components of TEA and LCA studies are described, with the specific goal of making the most sensitive disciplinary concepts clear and comprehensible to all audiences. Part B consists of practical tools to guide actors interested in commissioning TEA and LCA studies, and to support decision makers when evaluating and assessing TEA and LCA studies submitted by third parties. A series of consecutive steps, displayed as decision trees, provide support for checking the completeness of key aspects and requirements of TEA and LCA studies.Global CO2 InitiativeEIT Climate-KIChttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/156039/3/Making Sense of TEA&LCA.pdfDescription of Making Sense of TEA&LCA.pdf : Report documen

Techno-economic assessment and life cycle assessment for CO₂ utilisation

This chapter is mainly based on the Techno-Economic Assessment and Life Cycle Assessment Guidelines for CO2Utilisation[1] written by the authors. This chapter provides a brief introduction to techno-economic assessment (TEA) and life cycle assessment (LCA) for CO2utilisation, and all topics are explained in further detail in the Guidelines mentioned above