Adapting Technology Learning Curves for Prospective Techno-Economic and Life Cycle Assessments of Emerging Carbon Capture and Utilization Pathways
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comparisons of emerging carbon capture and utilization (CCU) technologies with equivalent incumbent technologies are necessary to support technology developers and to help policy-makers design appropriate long-term incentives to mitigate climate change through the deployment of CCU. In particular, early-stage CCU technologies must prove their economic viability and environmental reduction potential compared to already-deployed technologies. These comparisons can be misleading, as emerging technologies typically experience a drastic increase in performance and decrease in cost and greenhouse gas emissions as they develop from research to mass-market deployment due to various forms of learning. These changes complicate the interpretation of early techno-economic assessments (TEAs) and life cycle assessments (LCAs) of emerging CCU technologies. The effects of learning over time or cumulative production themselves can be quantitatively described using technology learning curves (TLCs). While learning curve approaches have been developed for various technologies, a harmonized methodology for using TLCs in TEA and LCA for CCU in particular is required. To address this, we describe a methodology that incorporates TLCs into TEA and LCA to forecast the environmental and economic performance of emerging CCU technologies. This methodology is based on both an evaluation of the state of the art of learning curve assessment and a literature review of TLC approaches developed in various manufacturing and energy generation sectors. Additionally, we demonstrate how to implement this methodology using a case study on a CO 2 mineralization pathway. Finally, commentary is provided on how researchers, technology developers, and LCA and TEA practitioners can advance the use of TLCs to allow for consistent, high-resolution modeling of technological learning for CCU going forward and enable holistic assessments and fairer comparisons with other climate technologies.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".