Carbon Capture and Utilization (CCU) is an emerging technology field that can replace fossil carbon value chains, and that has a significant potential to achieve emissions mitigation or even "negative emissions"-however in many cases with challenging technology feasibility and economic viability. Further challenges arise in the decision making for CCU technology research, development, and deployment, in particular when allocating funding or time resources. No generally accepted techno-economic assessment (TEA) standard has evolved, and assessment studies often result in "apples vs. oranges" comparisons, a lack of transparency and a lack of comparability to other studies. A detailed guideline for systematic techno-economic (TEA) and life cycle assessment (LCA) for CCU technologies was developed; this paper shows a summarized version of the TEA guideline, which includes distinct and prioritized (shall and should) rules and which allows conducting TEA in parallel to LCA. The TEA guideline was developed in a co-operative and creative approach with roughly 50 international experts and is based on a systematic literature review as well as on existing best practices from TEA and LCA from the areas of industry, academia, and policy. To the best of our knowledge, this guideline is the first TEA framework with a focus on CCU technologies and the first that is designed to be conducted in parallel to LCA due to aligned vocabulary and assessment steps, systematically including technology maturity. Therefore, this work extends current literature, improving the design, implementation, and reporting approaches of TEA studies for CCU technologies. Overall, the application of this TEA guideline aims at improved comparability of TEA studies, leading to improved decision making and more efficient allocation of funds and time resources for the research, development, and deployment of CCU technologies.

The intended audience for this document are practitioners that want to learn how to create comprehensible and consistent techno-economic assessments and life cycle assessments in the CCU field. These practitioners may come from academia, industry or government and may work in technology assessment and technology research and development, or funding, they may be part of the CCU community, the TEA community or the LCA community. Readers of TEA and LCA, such as investors, policy Part A: General Assessment Principles Part B: TEA guidelines Part C: LCA guidelines PART A: GENERAL ASSESSMENT PRINCIPLES TEA & LCA Guidelines for CO2 Utilization 8makers or funding decision makers are not the intended audience for these TEA and LCA guidelines, but may use this document to understand the challenges and pitfalls for TEA and LCA. A.2.4 Limitations of this documentThese guidelines have been developed to enable consistent and comparable LCA and TEA studies for CCU. They are not intended to serve as an assessment standard or rulebook. Instead they are meant to help practitioners to conduct sound assessments efficiently, avoid common mistakes and to derive meaningful results that can be compared to other studies. This document serves as an addition to conventional existing standards (in particular for LCA) and literature and does not replace any chemical engineering, economics or project planning principles. However, since the guidelines aim to enhance the comparability and transparency of studies, the LCA guidelines are more restrictive than the general ISO-framework. In some cases, there may be need to add further tasks to the ones discussed in this guideline since they are important to a specific study. Such additions are not excluded by the present guideline. However, the guidelines provide a consistent methodological core for conducting all LCA and TEA CCU studies.This document is intended as the first step of a longer framework development process. TEA and LCA remain two separate approaches in this document as is common in current assessment practice in academic literature and industry. However, a combined approach is in strong demand to include trade-offs in decision making. The integration of TEA and LCA into one singular study is a next major development step that is subject to future work. This document provides some initial guidance to those who wish to carry out an integrated TEA & LCA study, however many facets of the integration process are still to be determined. A.2.5 The guidelinesThe guidelines for TEA are presented in part B of this document and LCA in part C. At the end of each guideline chapter there is a box listing rules that these guidelines recommend. The box contains three categories, shall, should and may:TEA & LCA Guidelines for CO2 Utilization 9TEA & LCA Guidelines for CO2 Utilization 14 A.4.2.4 GuidelinesGuideline A.1 -Technology maturity Shall 1) Technology maturity shall be defined in each assessment -first for each system element and second for the overall product system 2) The maturity of the over...

Introducing a price on greenhouse gas emissions would not only contribute to reducing the risk of dangerous anthropogenic climate change, but would also generate substantial public revenues. Some of these revenues could be used to cover investment needs for infrastructure providing access to water, sanitation, electricity, telecommunications and transport. In this way, emission pricing could promote sustainable socioeconomic development by safeguarding the stability of natural systems which constitute the material basis of economies, while at the same time providing public goods that are essential for human well-being. For a scenario that is consistent with limiting global warming to below 2°C, we find that domestic carbon pricing (without redistribution of revenues across countries) has substantial potential to close existing access gaps for water, sanitation, electricity, and telecommunication. However, for the majority of countries carbon pricing revenues would not be sufficient to pave all unpaved roads, and for most countries in Sub-Saharan Africa they would be insufficient 1 to provide universal access to all types of infrastructure except water. If some fraction of the global revenues of carbon pricing is redistributed, e.g. via the Green Climate Fund, more ambitious infrastructure access goals could be achieved in developing countries. Our paper also bears relevance for the design of climate finance mechanisms, as it suggests that supporting carbon pricing policies instead of project based finance might not only permit cost-efficient emission reductions, but also leverage public revenues to promote human development goals.

No abstract

No abstract