MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408163743 · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2025.115556

The development of a framework to compare carbon capture and storage technologies as a means of decarbonizing cement production

2025· article· en· W4408163743 on OpenAlexafffundabout
G.L. Clark, Matthew Davis, Amit Kumar

Bibliographic record

VenueRenewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndustrial Engineering and Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada First Research Excellence FundCanada Research ChairsNatural Resources CanadaUniversity of AlbertaEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaSuncor Energy IncorporatedAlberta InnovatesCenovus Energy
KeywordsProduction (economics)CementCarbon capture and storage (timeline)Carbon fibersBusinessEnvironmental scienceNatural resource economicsEnvironmental economicsComputer scienceEconomicsMaterials scienceClimate changeMetallurgyGeologyMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cement production is hard to abate given that energy-efficiency measures and fuel switching have no impact on process emissions and a limited impact on total greenhouse gas emissions. Alternative cements and decarbonized raw materials can reduce process emissions; however, complete decarbonization requires carbon capture. Yet, most decarbonization roadmaps and studies generalize carbon capture without acknowledging differences between the technologies or regions in which they are implemented. To address this gap, we developed a bottom-up technology-explicit model of the cement sector to compare six technologies: chemical absorption, physical adsorption, membrane absorption, calcium looping, partial oxyfuel technology, and full oxyfuel technology. We explored energy and greenhouse gas impacts, capital costs, non-energy operating costs, energy costs, and carbon costs. A case study for Canada demonstrated that carbon capture technologies can be implemented at emissions abatement costs of −22 to 1 CAD/t CO 2 e, accounting for carbon price credits. Our findings show that energy can account for up to 81 % of the total costs, eroding the benefit of avoided carbon costs and increasing sensitivity to energy prices. However, carbon pricing still strongly influences the economics of carbon capture technologies and a minimum carbon price of 90 CAD/t CO 2 e by 2030 ensures carbon capture remains economical across Canada. The developed framework can used globally to help develop policy formulation and inform investment. • CCS increases sector energy demand 8-83% by 2050, depending on the CCS method. • Carbon pricing strongly influences emission abatement costs (EACs). • Energy costs account for as much as 81 % of total costs. • Under the CP170 baseline, Canada-wide EACs range from −22 to 1 CAD/t CO 2 e abated. • Regional breakeven carbon prices range from 50 to 60 to 210–220 CAD/t CO 2 e by 2030.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations12
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRenewable and Sustainable Energy ReviewsSame topicIndustrial Engineering and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207