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

An analysis of the Berlin representative offices of DAX-listed companies from a communication studies point of view

Diese Arbeit befasst sich mit dem Begriff und dem Tätigkeitsfeld Public Affairs. Hierzu werden zunächst vorliegende empirische Ergebnisse zum Tätigkeitsfeld Public Affairs zusammengefasst und analysiert. Hieraus werden Abgrenzungsmodelle als theoretische Grundlage einer multidisziplinären Betrachtungsweise von Public Affairs entwickelt. Auf dieser Basis erfolgt die empirische Untersuchung der Konzerrepräsentanzen der DAX-Unternehmen in Berlin als einem spezifischen Akteur von Public Affairs. Im Ergebnis sind Public Affairs in Konzernrepräsentanzen zu beschreiben als eine juristisch fundierte und orientierte Informations- und Beratungsleistung aus dem politischen Umfeld heraus in das Unternehmen herein sowie als eine Kommunikations- und Informationsleistung ohne kommunikationswissenschaftliche Expertise aus dem Unternehmen heraus in das politische Umfeld hinein. Ziele hierbei sind die Verbesserung der Wahrnehmung des Unternehmens und die Einflussnahme auf die Agenda in der Hauptstadt. Public Affairs in Konzernrepräsentanzen können dahingehen konturiert werden, dass zwischen Public Affairs und Public Relations funktional zu trennen ist, während sich Public Affairs in Bezug auf Lobbying als eine um zusätzliche Tätigkeiten erweiterte Lobbying-Funktion darstellt. Implementierung und Umsetzung von Public Affairs in Konzernrepräsentanzen stellen sich dar als eine Anpassungsmaßnahme von Unternehmen an ein sich veränderndes Umfeld an der Schnittstelle von Politik, Unternehmen und Öffentlichkeit dar mit dem Ziel, den Einfluss auf politische Entscheidung- und Meinungsbildungsprozesse zu maximieren. Verbände als wichtigster Kanal der gemeinschaftlichen Interessenvertretung sind jedoch trotz dieser Entwicklung weg von korporatistischen hin zu eher pluralistischen Strukturen der politischen Interessenvertretung keineswegs obsolet. Es ist allenfalls ein Schwinden, jedoch kein Verschwinden von korporatistischen Strukturen und eine Veränderung ihrer Bedeutung und Aufgaben festzustellen. Dennoch bleibt festzuhalten, dass die großen deutschen Unternehmen ihre Interessen zunehmend selbst vertreten und hierfür Repräsentanzen am Regierungssitz eingerichtet haben, die als Akteur einer zunehmend pluralistischen Struktur der politischen Interessenvertretung aktiv geworden sind.This study explores “Public Affairs” as a term and evolving field of professional activity. Empiric findings of existing studies are merged and analysed. Models of distinctions are developed as a theoretical base for the empiric research of the Berlin representative offices of the companies listed in the “DAX” stock index. According to the empirical findings, public affairs as carried out in these representative offices can be defined as activities and services of consultancy and information from the political environment into the company, based on juristic expertise, and as a service of communication and information from the company into the political environment, not based on a scientific background in communication studies. The objective of this activities and services is to improve the company’s perception and to influence the capital’s agenda. Public affairs in representative offices can be outlined as activities that are functionally separated from public relations activities but can be regarded as an extended and modified lobbying activity. The implementation and execution of public affairs in representative offices can be seen as company’s method of adaption to a changing environment regarding the relations between politics, companies and public with the aim to maximize influence on processes of political decision making and forming of opinion. Despite of that development, associations and federations as channels of a common representation of interests are not redundant. There may be a slight decrease in the exclusive influence, but as seen by the representatives in this study, it is more accurate to see a change in meaning and function rather than a loss of importance. Still, the most important German companies do rather rely on their own representatives when representing their political interest and have established their own representative offices in the capital for that purpose. Those representatives have become players in pluralistic structures of political interest representation

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

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

The Need for and Path to Harmonized Life Cycle Assessment and Techno-Economic Assessment for Carbon Dioxide Capture and Utilization

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163553/2/ente201901034_am.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163553/1/ente201901034.pd

Techno-Economic Assessment & Life Cycle Assessment Guidelines for CO2 Utilization (Version 2.0)

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, consistent and transparent 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 and updated (Version 1.1) in 2020 as a valuable toolkit for evaluating and guiding CCU technology development. Ever since, an open community of practitioners, commissioners, and users of such assessments has been involved in gathering feedback on the document. That feedback has informed the improvements and the expansion incorporated in Version 2.0 of the Guidelines. This revised and expanded version 2.0 of the Guidelines has again been developed by a team of researchers at RWTH Aachen, TU Berlin, the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies Potsdam, the University of Sheffield, and the University of Michigan. Several workshops, the work of the International CCU Assessment Harmonization Group, and feedback from practitioners and users of LCA and TEA studies, have contributed to this updated version. Version 2.0 includes new chapters on integrated assessments that combine LCA and TEA, how to assess early-stage technologies, and how to include social impact in LCA and TEA.Global CO2 InitiativeEIT Climate-KICPeer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/171800/1/TEA & LCA Guidelines for CCU v2.pdfDescription of TEA & LCA Guidelines for CCU v2.pdf : Report documentSEL