Economic and Environmental Assessment of Integrated Carbon Capture and Utilization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Integrated carbon capture and utilization (CCU) is appealing for in situ production of fuels and chemicals. Here, we propose and subsequently assess an integrated electrochemical CCU process and compare it with a carbon capture and storage (CCS) route from economic and environmental perspectives. This analysis reveals that under a baseline CCU scenario, carbon products reap either economic (67% and 10% gross margin increase for carbon monoxide [CO] and n-propanol, respectively) or environmental benefits (formic acid production would reduce ∼721 thousand ton carbon dioxide equivalent [CO2e]/year) relative to the CCS route. Under an optimistic scenario, while all of the carbon dioxide (CO2)-derived products are economically compelling over the CCS route, only formic acid production would reduce ∼1,465 thousand ton CO2e/year over CCS (∼575 thousand ton CO2e/year). This study may serve as a framework to decide whether a CCS or a CCU pathway would be compelling under a given scenario when fuel-cell-based CO2 capture technology is used to reduce carbon emissions and create economic value from fossil fuel-based power plants.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".