Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Armstrong, Katy

Publications and source records attributed to Armstrong, Katy.

Editorial: Harmonizing life cycle analysis (LCA) and techno-economic analysis (TEA) guidelines: a common framework for consistent conduct and transparent reporting of carbon dioxide removal and CCU technology appraisal

Stabilizing the climate will require significant efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions, manage emissions that cannot be avoided, and remove as many legacy emissions as possible [i.e., carbon dioxide (International Energy Agency, 2020; Author Collective, 2022)]. In that context, negative emissions technologies will take CO 2 from the air (Direct Air Capture) or the water (Direct Ocean Capture) and permanently remove it (Roger et al., 2021) either by sequestering the CO 2 underground or converting it to so-called Track 1 materials (Sick et al., 2021) that have lifetimes of >100 years. Shorter-lived products that decompose back into CO 2 in <100 years are categorized as Track 2 materials and will at best be carbon neutral. A carbon neutral status can also be achieved if captured CO 2 from fossil-based point sources is sequestered or used to create Track 1 materials. Conversion of CO 2 from fossil-based sources to any Track 2 material and subsequent decomposition would add new fossil-based carbon to the atmosphere, constituting an ultimately undesirable process. The overall carbon footprint of a process or product will depend on many factors associated with the carbon production, use, and disposal phases.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Why Terminology Matters for Successful Rollout of Carbon Dioxide Utilization Technologies

To realize their full sustainability potential, carbon dioxide utilization technologies (carbon capture and utilization/CCU) presently require policy support. Consequently, they require acceptance among a variety of stakeholders in industry, policy making, and in the public sphere alike. While CO 2 utilization is already a topic of discourse among these stakeholders, there is a lack of common terminology to describe such technologies. On the contrary: The present article shows that terminology in the field of CO 2 utilization technologies is currently used inconsistently, and that different designations such as CCU, CCUS, or CDR convey different meanings and contexts. These ambiguities may cause communication problems with regard to policy making, funding proposals, and especially in public discourse. In order to initiate and accompany a goal-oriented and knowledge-based debate on CO 2 utilization technologies in the future, actors in the field are asked to question their own choices of terminology and to assess its accuracy. Acronyms and technical abbreviations are the chief cause of potential misunderstandings, and so should be avoided whenever possible or else include a brief explanation. Consistent and precise use of terminology will facilitate transparent dialogue concerning CO 2 utilization in the future.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗