Uncertainty analysis in the techno-economic assessment of CO2 capture and storage technologies. Critical review and guidelines for use
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Uncertainty analysis is a key element of sound techno-economic analysis (TEA) of CO2 Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies and systems, and in the communication of TEA results. Many CCS technologies are relatively novel, with only few large-scale projects constructed and in operation to date. Therefore, uncertainties in technology performance and costs are often substantial, making it imperative that they be characterized and reported. Although uncertainty analysis itself is not novel, with some methods already frequently used by the CCS TEA community, a document that provides a comprehensive overview of methods and approaches, as well as guidance on their selection and use, is still lacking. Given its importance, we seek to fill this gap by providing a critical review of uncertainty analysis methods along with guidance on the selection and use of these methods for CCS TEAs, highlighting good practice and examples from the CCS literature. The paper starts by identifying the different audiences for CCS TEAs, the different modelling approaches available for CCS technology performance and cost analysis, and the different roles that uncertainty analysis may play. It then continues to discuss established, as well as emerging, uncertainty analysis methods and addresses how and when each method is best used, as well as common pitfalls. We argue that the most commonly used method of one-parameter-at-a-time ‘local’ sensitivity analysis may often be a suboptimal choice, and that other approaches may be more suitable or lead to more insight, especially since uncertainty analysis software is becoming more widespread and easier to use. Finally, the paper discusses the benefits of advanced uses of uncertainty analysis in, for instance, the design of CCS experiments or in the design and planning of CCS infrastructure. Sound uncertainty analysis has an important role to play in TEAs of CCS technologies and systems, and there are many opportunities to bring the use of uncertainty analysis to a higher level than currently practiced. This review of and guidance on available methods is intended to help accelerate continued methods development and their application to more robust and meaningful CCS performance and costing studies.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it