MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407849345 · doi:10.1016/j.spc.2025.02.017

A comprehensive review of life cycle assessments of direct air capture and carbon dioxide storage

2025· review· en· W4407849345 on OpenAlexafffund
Victor Eke, Tanay Sahu, Kulbir Kaur Ghuman, Marina Freire-Gormaly, Paul G. O’Brien

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainable Production and Consumption · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCarbon Dioxide Capture Technologies
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCarbon dioxideLife-cycle assessmentEnvironmental scienceProcess engineeringWaste managementEngineeringChemistryEconomicsOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review critically assesses Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) of Direct Air Capture and Carbon Storage (DACCS) technologies, emphasizing environmental impact and effectiveness of these technologies. As global efforts to mitigate CO₂ emissions intensify, DACCS is increasingly viewed as a promising solution, yet its broader environmental implications require careful consideration. The review synthesizes findings from various LCA studies, revealing substantial variability in life cycle efficiency and environmental impacts across different DACCS systems. Solid sorbent technologies demonstrate average net greenhouse gas reductions of 640 kg CO₂-eq/t CO₂, while liquid sorbent systems achieve reductions of about 560 kg CO₂-eq/t CO₂, with system carbon efficiencies ranging between 56 % and 64 %, influenced by operational conditions and regional factors. Beyond climate impacts, DACCS systems exhibit significant resource demands: water consumption ranges from 1 to 12 tons per ton of CO 2 captured, and land use spans 85–4450 km 2 based on system configuration and renewable energy requirements. For gigaton-scale facilities, significant environmental trade-offs emerge, including substantial particulate matter emissions (170–180 kt annually) and varying impacts on marine eutrophication (up to 90 % higher for amine-based systems compared to hydroxide-based alternatives). Low-temperature DAC systems exhibit higher human toxicity and ecotoxicity impacts due to increased electricity demands, while metal resource depletion varies significantly based on system design and energy sources. This study highlights the critical need for standardized LCAs and transparent reporting practices to enable consistent comparisons between technologies. Based on the analysis, the review provides recommendations for optimizing system design and deployment strategies to minimize environmental trade-offs while maximizing carbon removal potential. These insights support efforts to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 in alignment with Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) targets.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.869
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainable Production and ConsumptionSame topicCarbon Dioxide Capture TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207